More single women:
For what experts say is probably the first time, more American women are living without a husband than with one, according to a New York Times analysis of census results.
In 2005, 51 percent of women said they were living without a spouse, up from 35 percent in 1950 and 49 percent in 2000.
As a single male, I support this.
Paul L.
Here is a view that I am sure the feminists will disagree with
Clean Dishes!
The Other Steve
Whoa, if Paul L doesn’t get banned for that one…
Keith
What the study doesn’t say is that 33% of them wear a ring on their finger anyway.
The Other Steve
Maybe women have realized that they don’t really need men to dirty the dishes?
Pb
This is how Paul L. gets all the chicks. And he didn’t even quote the best part!
So, yeah, if ‘feminist’ in this context means “ever getting laid, period”, then I’m gonna have to disagree–after all, unlike some guys, I’m way past the “eww, girls have cooties” phase.
canuckistani
I like my kids. I don’t mind paying for them. They’re a feature, not a bug.
Jake
Edited to reflect reality.
Jake
Hmm. I don’t remember, is there a space on the form to indicate that one is living with a person one would marry if one could, but due to lame-arsed laws, one can’t?
Joel
“As a single male, I support this.”
Don’t get too excited. Most of these women are blue-haired widows. Women live longer than men, and IIRC something like 90% of nursing-home residents are female.
ChristieS
::shakes head:: PaulL, I don’t know whether to splap the spit outta you or pee myself laughing at you. That article was hysterical. DougJ, did you write that?!
ChristieS
er…slap, even. I was laughing too hard to spell check.
jenniebee
Well I for one am not nearly as surprised that the author of Paul’s link could “bang a fresh woman” every week as I would be if he claimed to have any other option in the woman-banging department. A life of one-nighters I can understand: colossal dicks do, after all, have their finer points, and we are, alas, only human.
Jake
Maybe he likes blue hair. Why do you hate little old ladies?
Bombadil
But what about your gay cloned cat?
Dave
John, Single women have a well known liberal bias and are anti-conservative values. These are not the type of women and nice conservative boy like you should be interested in.
grumpy realist
Given the mindset outlined in what PaulL has quoted, can anyone with two brain cells explain WHY those of the feminine persuasion would want to get married to to those of that ilk?
I’d be sleeping alone too.
demimondian
Actually, Paul, I’m glad to see that there are still knuckle-dragging Neanderthals out there; it makes things better for my kids, all of whom are male, but none of whom has a decent shot when competing with the good gentleman’s clear evolutionary advantages. An excess of such voluntary Darwin-award honorable mention winners, though, makes their odds much better.
Andrew
Look at what gay marriage hath wrought!
RSA
The game is even better than this: it turns out that because there are a lot more women in the U.S. than men, 53% of men are living with spouses (compared with 49% of women). It’s a seller’s market (assuming men have something to sell).
JImmy Mack
The old why buy the cow when you’re getting milk for free argument. Paul: the 1950s are calling and they want their hypocrisy back.
ConservativelyLiberal
Gee, I had premarital sex and I actually married. I guess I did not read the playbook. Sorry, the old free milk argument holds no MOO for me. Like I said to the ladies at the time, far too many people get married without knowing if they are sexually compatible with each other. I am not buying the cow without tasting the milk first. Not gonna do it…
Since I have only married once in my life, have two kids from it and I have been married for over twenty years now, maybe I was on to something there!
Try before you buy guys. You get the thrill of driving everything from VW’s to Ferrari’s. Luckily I married a Ferrari in the end. Her? Well, I would say that she got a Mack truck. ;)
Andrew
You have dirty emissions?
demimondian
Sort of a threadjack, but related to women in general, and one single woman in particular. The one and only *real* Jane Hamsher of the left is ill, and won’t be able to attend the opening couple of weeks of the Libby trial.
Zombie Santa Claus
Mrs. Claus is technically single, now: our marrage became null the minute my shattered corpse became a zombie. The fact that my brain lives in a jar does nothing to change this.
So I guess that means I’m single now, too. Look out, ladies!
demimondian
Help me out here, ZSC. Other than your continued existence in a CS Lewis-style Hideous Strength-style bell jar, what…err…equipment do you have to prrpetuate your well-deserved reputation as a colossal d*ck? I mean, aren’t you, well, a little *disabled* when it comes to actual chasing of females?
Krista
Pervert.
And as for Paul L., I think we can all surmise this:
“feminist” = any woman too smart to sleep with him.
ThymeZone
Surely one of the most unfortunate invocations of a car metaphor in history.
ThymeZone
Most Obnoxious Troll Award.
Barry
“Help me out here, ZSC. Other than your continued existence in a CS Lewis-style Hideous Strength-style bell jar, what…err…equipment do you have to prrpetuate your well-deserved reputation as a colossal d*ck? I mean, aren’t you, well, a little disabled when it comes to actual chasing of females?”
He’s got an army of elf tinkers working on his wind-up robot body, and (how should I say it), it’s *equipped*.
demimondian
Indeed. I don’t think one would want to compare one’s amatory talents (such as they are) to a Mack Truck.
Him: “Hun, I’m a Mack Truck when it comes to luvvin!”
Her: “Oh, so you’re noisy, take up more than your share of the space, spew out nasty smelling fumes, won’t slow down once you’re started. Hmm…next!”
joshua
Did anyone other than Christie S. and I notice, by chance, that Paul L didn’t write that and that it’s pretty tongue-in-cheek?
CaseyL
Speaking as one of the “women living without a spouse” – I live alone, in fact – I can say that, at least for some of us, it’s not because we haven’t found the right partner yet, it’s because we actually prefer to be single, independent, and autonomous. We’re single by choice.
Way, way back when the ERA was still alive, I got into many an argument with guys about the effect it would have on marriage if it was ratified. They were terribly afraid that “letting” women have full legal/political/financial/etc. equality would ruin marriage. I told them that if the only thing holding marriage together was forced economic and social dependency on a man, then it damned well deserved to be “ruined” by full equality.
The ERA was never ratified. But the social change that drove it has proceeded anyway. (There’s still a lot of inequity, but nothing like it was then.) I’m very happy to be one of the beneficiaries of those changes. My guess is that an awful lot of that 51% is, too.
Krista
Oh, it’s definitely tongue-in-cheek. But Paul L. evidently took it as gospel and approves. I just think it’s so precious how he likes to try to provoke people with his little blockquoted bits of ridiculousness, as well as his amusingly over-the-top breathless prefaces about the evil feminists.
demimondian
You know, Krista, I actually think that Paul was spoofing the spoofers with that piece. And, frankly, I think he did a Hell of a job of it. I think he failed only in that he thought we’d see ourselves in that image, and failed to understand that many of the commenters here are married. Married men, in fact — men who obviously decided to marry despite Paul L.’s belief that feminism frees them from responsibility for their offspring or their partners.
One might wonder, of course, if Paul L. has a somewhat odd view of feminism. It’s true, after all, that marriages are more common and dramatically more stable in the Blue States, out there among the [pheuagh] feminists.
ConservativelyLiberal
Well, when I said Mack truck, I was talking about looks. My wife is definitely a Ferrari, and I think I got the better part of the deal. She politely disagrees with me though, and I can live with that. She thinks I look like the early David Lee Roth…lol! I still have the hair to my waist from my band days, but it is a bit thinner with the years. Ahh, the good ol’ days…
Now as far as pumping out exhaust like a Mack truck, all I can say is do not come around when I eat her home made chili. Same with her. She runs like a Vega with bad cylinder liners in it afterward…
I know, too much information… ;)
Louise
What CaseyL said.
Louise
What CaseyL said.
Decided FenceSitter
No comment. :)
jake
To a certain portion of society, more rights (or slightly less oppression) for other people = Civilization in smoking ruins. Always.
Bigots. Not only are they cowardly useless arseholes, they’re boring cowardly useless arseholes.
Krista
Excellent point. It’s also an argument that could be used regarding gay marriage — if the only thing holding the institution of marriage together is not allowing gays to marry, then the institution wasn’t too damned strong to begin with, was it?
Bombadil
Odd. A female friend worded it differently — “Why buy the sausage when you can get the pig for free?”
I wonder if she knew PaulL.
Mary
Yeah, cocktail sausages are way overpriced for their size.
Mary
Speaking of sausage, this guy is priceless.
Paul L.
Does not work.
Milking a cow does not kill it. You have to kill a pig to make sausage on the other hand.
Why would I have anything against feminists? The Duke rape
casehoax shows how reasonable they are.demimondian
Not at all. You do need to cause the pig some discomfort, but there’s no heed to kill the pig. Muscle tissue could easily be removed from a living pig to provide the raw materials for sausage. On the other hand, you need to impregnate the cow, force her to calf, and cause both discomfort and risk to her to get milk.
demimondian
Well, if you don’t go around doing bad things to women, then you really don’t have anything to fear from feminists, do you?
ChristieS
Krista says:
LOL, oh snap!
Mary
I think Paul L. needs the whole storyline:
Paul L.
Actually a “feminist” = NOW member or have a womyns studies degree.
I am sure there are women who will not sleep with me who do not fit either category.
So it causes no discomfort or risk to the pig when you remove muscle tissue? Is the pig awake when you remove the meat?
grumpy realist
PaulL, you haven’t answered my question (if the piece you’ve quoted in fact does mirror your own beliefs):
Why should any woman want to get married to such a jerk? Why should she have any relationship whatsoever with someone who treats her with such disrespect?
(Anti-feminism: losers in the dating game whining that women have the option to chose.)
Jake
Ie, “The rest of those frigid bitches too stuck up to give me the time of day, [grumble, mutter belch].”
Paul L.
Respect is a two way street. How about fair/equal treatment for men in child custody cases and reproductive rights for men?
demimondian
Look, Demi, a jackalope!
Hey, Paul, why don’t you go looking for the 93 US Attorneys Bill Clinton appointed without Senate approval?
Krista
Points granted for self-deprecating humour. :)
I have to say, though, your view of what constitutes a feminist is really pretty narrow. There is a very, very broad range of philosophies amongst women who consider themselves feminists. You have your post-feminist feminists, who are very blatant in their sexuality, under the premise that “owning your sexuality” is empowering. You have your “equal rights” feminists (like myself) who believe that society should try its best to come to the point where men and women are judged solely on their merits and abilities, not on their gender (there are actually many men in amongst this group). And then, you do have your contingent of very angry feminists, who tend to view the male gender as oppressors to be fought. There are many, many more examples than that — those are just three that I thought of off the top of my head. There are a few common threads amongst all of the groups, however, namely being that women have every right to choose their own destinies, make their own decisions (and mistakes), and be the sole proprietor of their own bodies.
As far as child custody cases go, I do agree that men are not getting a fair shake on this. There is absolutely a bias towards the mother, and I agree with you that it’s unfair that there is an automatic presumption that the mother is the better parent.
In regards to reproductive rights, we’ve had this discussion before. There is absolutely no win-win situation for this one, Paul. The thought of a woman aborting a child that the man wanted is tragic. The thought of a woman having to go through pregnancy and labour for a child she doesn’t want, well, that also strikes me as tragic, because it implies that the role of the woman’s uterus is more important than the wishes of the woman owning the uterus. I’ve said it before — there are no easy answers to this one.
Paul L.
Speaking of Reno and Ashcroft double standards.
Can someone find me a picture of Janet Reno in front of the topless Spirit of Justice Statue?
Here’s Johnny.
Paul L.
Ignore this, I posted to the wrong thread.
Bombadil
Oh, I can ignore it here just as easily as in any other thread.
scs
I think marriage will be, and is pretty much, for a very narrow band of people for a very short time of their lives. We will have a small group of somewhat attractive and/or surgically enhanced young women who are loose or hookers who will service most of the men. Many men will have to share this small group of women, but won’t mind because they will all take turns, and for the most part enjoy just hanging out with other men most of the time anyway.
When these guys are at settling down age, and they need to look respectable for their jobs, a small proportion of men (who aren’t gay, geeks, crazy, in jail, dead) will select a suitable wife for birthing. They will also pick out a small proportion of women who are attractive, thin, and have pliable personalities. They will pretend to be married for about seven years while they have two kids, even though all the while still visitng the sex clubs. With the frequency of visitation to sex clubs ever growing, the wife “finds out”, they gets divorced and he goes back to the original lifestyle.
Although this may be the ideal lifetyle of men, in the end, this will not succeed, as the population will definitely decline by the unstable families. The majority of women will not fix this population decline by continuing to have and raise children on their own, because they will also feel that the single lifestyle unsupported by a partner is too unstable. The population declines until we die out or, until there is some sort of selective breeding presure that breeds domestically inclined men willing to marry, and the population increases at this point, many years from now. Well – that’s how I see it – latest installment of my vision of the future.
Jess
Interesting statistic–I thought I was in the minority on this one. Even my single friends are puzzled by my happy state of being single. I tell them, been there done that, it was fun, but it’s more fun flying solo. I enjoy my work, my friends and family, interesting travels and adventures (skydiving is on the menu for spring!), the occasional torrid affair, and, above all, glorious solitude. I’ve had plenty of offers to join the married ranks, but so far what has been offered hasn’t been enough for me to consider narrowing my horizons, especially since I don’t want my own kids–I have enough fun playing auntie to my friends’ children.
I suspect more women are beginning to chose this option because despite how wonderful many men are as individuals, so few seem to understand how to pull their own weight in a relationship (outside of the traditional financial role, that is). It seems that too many men worry about the provider/protector role, and neglect to foster a true friendship with their partner. I’m just offering this up as food for thought–I would be happy to be proved wrong.
Krista
You might have something there, Jess.
Raincitygirl
As far as child custody cases go, I do agree that men are not getting a fair shake on this. There is absolutely a bias towards the mother, and I agree with you that it’s unfair that there is an automatic presumption that the mother is the better parent.
Actually, many fathers who fight for custody get it. Many feminists are against presumptive joint custody because:
a) it often doesn’t reflect the pre-divorce level of caregiving for children
b) it can be used as a tool by an abusive spouse to continue abusing his/her ex and children
c) It is totally inappropriate in situations where the divorce is precipitated at least in part by one parent’s substance-abuse or similar problem
Which is not to say that joint custody is a bad thing in and of itself (in fact, it can be an extremely good thing. I know many divorced couples who’ve come to successful joint custody arrangements and their kids have benefited), but automatically granting joint custody can be. If prior to the divorce, the mother did 80% of the labour of parenting and the man did 20%, joint physical custody will probably be more disruptive to the children than a custody arrangement which is similar to the marital arrangement.
Obviously, in a 50/50 or 60/40 marital responsibility arrangement, joint custody after divorce can make a lot of sense. But a lot of divorcing couples don’t have that (possibly because marriages where spouses co-parent more or less equally are less likely to end in divorce??????)
Say you have a situation where the hypothetical wife (and scroll down a couple of paragraphs for examples of husbands who do most of the parenting. I’m only talking about wives first because statistically they’re more common) works 40 hours a week, drops off and picks up the kids from daycare or afterschool care, does most of the laundry/cooking/shopping/chauffeuring kids to activities, monitors homework and playdates, volunteers for Scouts or similar activities, and sets up all the doctor/dentist/haircut appointments.
The hypothetical husband works 60 hours a week, socialises a fair bit for business purposes, and is happy to leave the nuts-n-bolts daily work of parenting to his wife, but enjoys, say, going to kids’ soccer games, or taking them on camping trips, or doing pizza-and-a-DVD night once a week while Mom is at exercise class or hanging out with her girlfriends. Heck, for some couples that may be the best arrangement, for themselves and for the kids.
The snag comes IF that marriage ends, and IF after years of being the secondary parent, the husband decides he wants joint physical custody. Every second weekend plus one weeknight per week is probably a far better reflection of his existing relationship with the kids than joint custody, and one allows more continuity for the kids. Because they’re not suddenly catapulted into a situation where Dad is still working 60 hours a week but having to do intensive parenting as well.
The biggest change for them is that pizza-and-DVD night happens at Dad’s new place instead of their joint home. Dad still shows up for the soccer games and dance recitals, and takes them camping, has them, say, 2 weekends a month, but they don’t have to worry about Dad shrinking their favourite shirt in the wash, or getting picked up late from daycare because Dad’s meeting ran late, or not getting to an activity/playdate/homework assignment because Dad forgot (and no, most school-aged kids do not independently decide to study without being reminded and monitored by a parent).
Because a parent who’s spent years as the secondary caregiver will probably kind of suck at suddenly becoming a primary caregiver, unless they’re prepared to also make radical changes like switching to a strict 40 hour work week and never doing business dinners. Someone who’s an excellent secondary parent may not be primary caregiver material.
What’s better for the kids, who are presumably already stressed out by the divorce? Major change in who does most of the caregiving, with accompanying disruptions and screw-ups, or maintaining the previous level of involvement, which the secondary parent has already shown they can do, and do well (ex: pizza-and-DVD night, sleepovers, camping trips, soccer games), without making massive changes to their own life which may make them an unhappy joint custody holder. Like, say, their 60 hour a week career is very fulfilling, and drastically cutting back their hours in favour of laundry and homework duty and playing taxi driver for playdates makes them miserable.
And that’s not to say that such drastically unequal parenting splits are always along the above gender lines. I’ve worked with four different professional women who managed to combine a way-more-than-fulltime career with having small children, and have done it by having a husband who is the primary caregiver and whose career takes second place to theirs.
And that’s another example of where basing custody decisions on gender rather than pre-divorce caregiving responsibility is sexist and bad for kids. Because if any of those women divorced, I’d think it would be totally inappropriate for them to get full or even joint custody when their husband was the one working part-time, working from home, having a job rather than a career, and generally doing the majority of the hands-on parenting.
Because these particular moms are weekend parents. Doesn’t mean they don’t love their kids (just like the hypothetical weekend dad who works 60 hours a week loves his kids), but the choices they’ve made in their marriages and pre-divorce caregiving arrangements strongly suggest they prefer being the secondary caregiver, or did before the divorce turned caregiving into a potential battleground.
Thing is, though, the women I mentioned are fairly unusual in our society. The woman working part-time or having a job, not a career is a lot more common. That’s gradually changing with time and cultural shifts, and I know a lot more parents of young kids who split co-parenting 50/50 or 60/40 than was the case 20 years ago, when society’s gender expectations for parenting were far more strictly imposed. And if those parents divorce, joint custody would totally be the best option for the children. But bottom line, custody decisions have to be based on what’s least disruptive for the kids (i.e. continuity of care), rather than sexist perceptions.
And that’s not to say that parents’ circumstances can’t change after the divorce. Particularly if the divorce occurs when the children are very young, unequal pre-divorce caregiving splits may have been driven by economic need rather than desire (ex: if you have two very young kids, combined daycare costs may match or exceed the lesser-earning parent’s income, and staying home is the best option). And there are unavoidable separations of a parent from their kids, like military service. But from a continuity of care standpoint, in the immediate post-divorce period, the pre-divorce primary caregiver should continue to be the primary caregiver, at least for the time being.
Doesn’t mean the issue can’t be revisited in the future. Indeed, I know of several high-conflict divorces where initial ugly custody disputes were peacefully resolved to everyone’s satisfaction (including the kids’) a few years after the divorce, by which time the parents had both had time to move on and quit hating each other so intensely that they dragged the kids into it.
Hypothetical busy exec dad may lose his 60 hour a week career, and end up taking a 40 hour a week job similar to his ex-wife’s, and thus have more time available for successful hands-on parenting. The divorced dad who’s been overseas for a year transitions back to civilian life and through visitation becomes familiar enough with the kid’s post-tour-of-duty needs (kids change a lot in a year) that joint custody makes sense. Or the ex-wife who was staying home for economic reasons while the kids were little goes back to work full-time (many mothers, whether or not they divorce, will take a couple of years out of the workforce and then go back in), and the prior custody arrangement no longer reflects the kids’ best interests, as the dad’s previous role as secondary caregiver was temporary (and due to economics, not desire). People’s lives aren’t static, and custody decisions made at the time of the divorce shouldn’t be set in stone, since a couple of years later things may be very different.
All the above, of course, presumes that
a) the kids aren’t old enough to decide for themselves which parent they want to live with or if they want joint custody.
b) Neither spouse is abusing drugs or alcohol, or has a severe mental illness, or is abusive towards the other spouse and/or the kids, or that there has not been a significant pre-divorce disruption in continuity of care. Say, for example, the wife was the primary caregiver for several years, but walked out on the family, moved to another city, and then filed for divorce and custody. Or prior to the divorce the wife was the primary caregiver, but two years after the divorce she got a big promotion and started working crazy, crazy hours.