• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Authoritarian republicans are opposed to freedom for the rest of us.

An almost top 10,000 blog!

Pessimism assures that nothing of any importance will change.

Within six months Twitter will be fully self-driving.

This really is a full service blog.

“Alexa, change the president.”

🎶 Those boots were made for mockin’ 🎵

Bark louder, little dog.

Dear media: perhaps we ought to let Donald Trump speak for himself!

My right to basic bodily autonomy is not on the table. that’s the new deal.

We are aware of all internet traditions.

… riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact

Imperialist aggressors must be defeated, or the whole world loses.

The snowflake in chief appeared visibly frustrated when questioned by a reporter about egg prices.

A snarling mass of vitriolic jackals

Accused of treason; bitches about the ratings. I am in awe.

“I was told there would be no fact checking.”

The arc of the moral universe does not bend itself. it is up to us to bend it.

There is no right way to do the wrong thing.

Everybody saw this coming.

I like political parties that aren’t owned by foreign adversaries.

You cannot love your country only when you win.

If you don’t believe freedom is for everybody, then the thing you love isn’t freedom, it is privilege.

Speaker Mike Johnson is a vile traitor to the House and the Constitution.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Domestic Politics / Egregiously Simple Questions Answered Simply

Egregiously Simple Questions Answered Simply

by Tim F|  January 25, 200711:56 am| 34 Comments

This post is in: Domestic Politics, Blogospheric Navel-Gazing

FacebookTweetEmail

In a post about marriage trends, Ezra asks:

This may seem naive, and I’m sure there’s an obvious statistical explanation for it, but how are fewer women than men married? Presumably, they’re mostly married to each other, no?

There are more women than men in America. This kind of surprises me since Ezra knows more than I do about a lot of stuff.

The rest of the post merits a read. I don’t know whether there’s anything significant to pick up from the observation that people tend to marry people similar to themselves, except as a reminder that opportunities for class mobility are especially important during the pre-marriage years. Quality public education and access to universities should top pretty much anyone’s list, but I would add at least two more. Fair wages for the lowest tier of the workforce and universal healthcare play a key role since the children of families which lack either face dramatic roadblocks that privileged children do not. Stepping back into the realm of party politics, it is hardly an accident that the GOP stands against virtually everything that increases social mobility and the Dems in favor. Feature, not a bug.

***Update***

Thanks to the thousands of readers who have not pointed out what a complete pedant I am. But as long as I’m pedanting away, Ezra corrected in an update. Now I feel slightly dirty for using good blog space to snag low-hanging fruit rather than insanity like this.

***

About that link (yes, this is more or less an open thread) – does Hugh Hewitt serve any purpose other than to confirm Glenn Greenwald’s thesis about insane authoritarian rightwingers? Discuss.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « SOTU Notes
Next Post: Post SOTU Thoughts and the Idiotic and Bizarre Pledge »

Reader Interactions

34Comments

  1. 1.

    rob

    January 25, 2007 at 12:03 pm

    His question seems to me to be “how can more women than men be married” …who are these women married to? Having more women than men has nothing to do with.

    Seems like a good question to me.

  2. 2.

    Tim F.

    January 25, 2007 at 12:10 pm

    Well, it seems to me that if the pool of women is larger than the pool of men then the percentage of women that are married has to be smaller. I suppose I could be wrong about that.

  3. 3.

    Zifnab

    January 25, 2007 at 12:12 pm

    The difference is smaller between men and women. According to the census, 55 percent of men are married, down from 69.3 percent in 1960, and 51.5 percent of women are, down from 65.9 percent in 1960.

    It could better be worded as “how can more a higher percentage of women than men be married”. If you have 1000 women and 1200 men, and 500 married couples then you have 500 (or 50%) unmarried women and 700 (or 56%) unmarried men.

    Of course, I’d like to see the unwed mother rates as well. I think a lack of two-parent families is a far more serious situation than a lack of married people in general.

  4. 4.

    Zifnab

    January 25, 2007 at 12:14 pm

    * 700 (or 58.33%) unmarried men.

    And look who sucks at math? *sigh*

  5. 5.

    Krista

    January 25, 2007 at 12:19 pm

    According to the census, 55 percent of men are married, down from 69.3 percent in 1960, and 51.5 percent of women are, down from 65.9 percent in 1960.

    No, I think that still makes sense. A census tends to reflect the actual demographics, right? So, if there are 106 women for every 100 men (no idea if that’s the exact figure or not), and the census roughly reflects those demographics, then you would easily get a higher percentage of men than women who are married, even if the exact numbers of married men and married women are equal.

    (That’s my take on it, anyway. But any stats majors, please feel free to tell me I’m full of crap.)

  6. 6.

    James F. Elliott

    January 25, 2007 at 12:31 pm

    does Hugh Hewitt serve any purpose other than to confirm Glenn Greenwald’s thesis about insane authoritarian rightwingers?

    He also confirms everything Orwell and Hoffer had to write on true believers.

  7. 7.

    pharniel

    January 25, 2007 at 12:35 pm

    remember, subtly and nuance are words used to mock any of our percieved ‘enemies’ when they make a mistake or there’s a bad report pushed out, because Teh Media is a gigantic left-wing conspiracy to oppress and take down the free thinking americans so that the jihadis threat can overwhelm us and take over america and make us all slaves to islam.
    because all islamics are on the same side, diplomacy doesn’t work and in fact shows weakness, only genocide is the answer.
    And any suggestion to the contrary is appeasement.

    I swear to any god you can name that I just want to beat these people with a gigantic ‘follow this and you won’t fuck up too badly’ tome containing the Art of War, Common Sense, The Prince, The Federalist Papers, Declaration of Independence and The Consitution. Hopefully it’ll eventually get through.

  8. 8.

    pharniel

    January 25, 2007 at 12:36 pm

    Stupid tags….

  9. 9.

    Jake

    January 25, 2007 at 12:39 pm

    Hugh Hewitt serve any purpose other than to confirm Glenn Greenwald’s thesis about insane authoritarian rightwingers? Discuss.

    I thought Who Blewit was created so we could poke fun at his name.

    Me, I’m hoping Spew Screwit tries to present his little loyalty pledge to Hagel in person. A foot up the bunghole might clear his brain.

  10. 10.

    dreggas

    January 25, 2007 at 12:42 pm

    Hmmmm

    well regarding the marriage thing I blame purity balls. Men aren’t so interested in marryin them a virgin no more. / snark ok maybe / half snark.

    As for the new loyalty oath Oh the fun to have with that list of names. Eerily enough I scanned through my home state (where I grew up) and actually saw a name on there from my home town though I have no clue who the person is.

    I predicted they’d fall on their own swords and spears I just was wrong about how much fun it would be to watch.

  11. 11.

    srv

    January 25, 2007 at 1:02 pm

    does Hugh Hewitt Darrell serve any purpose other than to confirm Glenn Greenwald’s BJ’ers thesis about insane authoritarian rightwingers?

    Fixed. Discuss.

    We are blessed to have our own Dinesh D’Souza fan and “he was against the surge until he was for it” flip-flopper right here.

  12. 12.

    Keith

    January 25, 2007 at 1:06 pm

    does Hugh Hewitt serve any purpose other than to confirm Glenn Greenwald’s thesis about insane authoritarian rightwingers?

    He gives relief to those who sit around and wonder, “Gee, what ever happened to Skippy from ‘Family Ties’? I hope he’s OK and is staying out of trouble.”

  13. 13.

    Jimmmm

    January 25, 2007 at 1:17 pm

    Who’s Hugh Hewitt?

  14. 14.

    Zifnab

    January 25, 2007 at 1:17 pm

    well regarding the marriage thing I blame purity balls. Men aren’t so interested in marryin them a virgin no more. / snark ok maybe / half snark.

    I hardly think “purity balls” are popular enough to have any impact on marriage statistics. But girls who don’t drink, don’t dance, don’t date, and don’t step foot outside their homes also don’t seem like they’re going to get married in any realistic American setting. Kinda hard to meet your idle man if your father keeps you shackled to the bedpost through your chastity belt.

    And, I’m sorry, but does anyone else but me think this whole “devoting my body to my father” thing screams incest? It’s just… so… creepy.

  15. 15.

    Bombadil

    January 25, 2007 at 1:26 pm

    About that link (yes, this is more or less an open thread) – does Hugh Hewitt serve any purpose other than to confirm Glenn Greenwald’s thesis about insane authoritarian rightwingers? Discuss.

    No.

    Another egregiously simple question answered simply. But you knew that already.

  16. 16.

    Jimmy Mack

    January 25, 2007 at 1:27 pm

    Could it also have a bit to do with gay marriage? Maybe gay marriage is more common among men — that could skew things a bit as well.

  17. 17.

    grumpy realist

    January 25, 2007 at 1:29 pm

    Look at the stuff generated by people such as Lileks with his whole “imbalance, women not remarrying, oh NOOOS!” commentary on the NYT article. (Pandagon has been having a snarkfest over Lileks. Much hilarity all around.)

    I’m finding it hysterical because Japan’s already been having a more severe version of this: traditional marriage doesn’t offer much to the present-day Japanese female and they’ve been voting with their feet. Japanese geezer politicians have been fulminating for years about Why Don’t Our Women Stay Home And Have Babies And Raise Them, and all the young women are saying “yeah, yeah, whatever” and living their lives just like before.

    Funny how conservatives are gung-ho for the free market until it’s things like lifestyles and birthing choices.

  18. 18.

    dlw

    January 25, 2007 at 1:38 pm

    Zifnab said:
    Of course, I’d like to see the unwed mother rates as well. I think a lack of two-parent families is a far more serious situation than a lack of married people in general.

    See, now this always sets me off. I’ll apologize in advance for the upcoming rant.

    First off, we still put the blame on the “unwed mother”, as if there is no “unwed father”. But let’s pretend you meant to share the blame equally, and edit that to “single parent”.

    There are lots of ways to become a single parent. My sister became one when her bastard of a husband broke her arm. She put up with his escalating crap far too long “for the good of their son”. Guess what? She’s better off being a single parent and the child is WAY, WAY, WAY better off as well. Now the boy has at least ONE emotionally stable parent.

    And what about widows and widowers? Do we take the kids away when a spouse dies? Or maybe we should force them to remarry for the good of the children?

    And you know what else? I know several “multiple parents” that shouldn’t be parents at all. They’re simply terrible at it. One guy I know used to swear that having kids wouldn’t change his lifestyle and frankly his kids are suffering from his attempts to stick to that.

    I know, it’s so much simpler to pretend that since 1

  19. 19.

    dlw

    January 25, 2007 at 1:42 pm

    Sorry, bottom of my rant got cut off.. I used a less than symbol (yes, I’m an idiot). the last paragraph should read:

    I know, it’s so much simpler to pretend that since 1 is less than 2, 2 is better. That’s crap. People aren’t numbers and Life is way more complicated than these simple, feel-good prescriptions imply.

  20. 20.

    Jimmy Mack

    January 25, 2007 at 1:44 pm

    And, I’m sorry, but does anyone else but me think this whole “devoting my body to my father” thing screams incest?

    Yes, I think most people on both sides of the spectrum find it creepy. It’s just…wrong.

  21. 21.

    pharniel

    January 25, 2007 at 1:57 pm

    children of single parents rep*re*sent bitches.
    seriously, my dad re-married and stopped being a looser when his new wife punded some sense into him.

  22. 22.

    dreggas

    January 25, 2007 at 1:58 pm

    Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bom Bomb Iran

  23. 23.

    pharniel

    January 25, 2007 at 1:58 pm

    Jimmy Mack Says:

    And, I’m sorry, but does anyone else but me think this whole “devoting my body to my father” thing screams incest?

    Yes, I think most people on both sides of the spectrum find it creepy. It’s just…wrong.

    but…doesn’t daddy know best?

  24. 24.

    pharniel

    January 25, 2007 at 2:00 pm

    what? bomb iran? who would ever think to do that?

  25. 25.

    dreggas

    January 25, 2007 at 2:12 pm

    what? bomb iran? who would ever think to do that?

    Oh I know it’s all but obvious it was just an interesting article to read regarding how it’s been in the making since oh 2001

  26. 26.

    Bombadil

    January 25, 2007 at 2:19 pm

    Could it also have a bit to do with gay marriage? Maybe gay marriage is more common among men—that could skew things a bit as well.

    I kind of doubt the relatively few marriages in Massachusetts would have that much of an impact. And it would at least be partially offset by the (also relatively few) lesbians who are getting married.

  27. 27.

    RSA

    January 25, 2007 at 2:46 pm

    Sorry, bottom of my rant got cut off.. I used a less than symbol (yes, I’m an idiot).

    Ampersand lt semicolon, like so: <

    It is only idiotic to think people should have to remember crap like that. . .

  28. 28.

    dreggas

    January 25, 2007 at 3:01 pm

    Since this is an open thread and since I have been coming here regularly just wanted to thank John for being welcoming for all of us who were either Left Of Center and just started showing up around here. It’s been refreshing to read thought out opinions and have discussions with people who are (with the exception of the trolls) level headed and not either off with the looney left or way out in right field (ie extremes on both sides).

    Especially since I tend not to fit in in most places since I am not one extreme or the other.

    Thanks again John.

  29. 29.

    pharniel

    January 25, 2007 at 3:05 pm

    dreggas Says:

    what? bomb iran? who would ever think to do that?

    Oh I know it’s all but obvious it was just an interesting article to read regarding how it’s been in the making since oh 2001

    What seriously depresses me is the entire rape of our country over the past thirty years or so because of single issue voters and nannystaters who happened to vote while everyone else was udner represented.

    It’s good to see people voting, but it’s so far allowed two presidents to basically do whatever they want with no regard to anything and not even having the decency to have a jizzmopper come and squeege down the room afterwords.

    It’s also amazing how incompetent they are, because a truely competent evil leader would actually:
    a) get things done
    and
    b) make better deicisions because it is more advantagous…
    if the healthcare issue is unresolved, if the middle class keeps dissappearing, if the wages keep flat while ceo’s and others continue to make multiple millions of dollars a year eventually the game becomes so rigged that you cannot win.
    and when that happens people stop playing that game and play another one.
    same thing that happened in 1776, 1789~, 1916…

  30. 30.

    dreggas

    January 25, 2007 at 3:21 pm

    What seriously depresses me is the entire rape of our country over the past thirty years or so because of single issue voters and nannystaters who happened to vote while everyone else was udner represented.

    there are plenty of these on both sides. I remember a lot of Nanny Staters on the left that turned me off to the democrats in many ways (even though I voted for them because the alternative was worse).

    What can I say I like my guns, I hate censorship, I hate those that believe it takes a village to raise a child when it really takes two parents who, if they can’t be bothered for whatever reason or are not responsible should never have had kids in the first place.

    Growing up during the attempts to censor Metal and music in general as well as the Beavis and Butthead years (who were funny as hell if stupid) and the whole “kids watched this and set themselves on fire because they saw it on a cartoon and their parents let the TV babysit them” to the fact that there are still movements under way to have tom and Jerry cartoons censored for smoking and the fact that Bugs Bunny can’t be shown because of Political correctness combined with all the “violence”.

    Fortunately a lot of that disappeared and I hope one lesson taken away is that people don’t want the government running their lives and censoring them. We’ve seen the alternative and it’s brand of censorship and it’s even worse.

  31. 31.

    pharniel

    January 25, 2007 at 4:05 pm

    I wasn’t even thinking right or left on the nannystate thing.
    I think the urge to get rid of what you don’t like is overwhemlingly tempting in any person.

  32. 32.

    dreggas

    January 25, 2007 at 4:46 pm

    I wasn’t even thinking right or left on the nannystate thing.
    I think the urge to get rid of what you don’t like is overwhemlingly tempting in any person.

    Growing up at least where I did Nanny State was synonymous with the democrats of that time. Now it’s a whole new ball game. In fact it’s almost Orwellian in the way Democrat is what Republican was way back when, or at least is shifting that way vis-a-vis personal freedom, fiscal responsibility etc.

  33. 33.

    rachel

    January 26, 2007 at 1:12 am

    Jimmy Mack Says:

    Could it also have a bit to do with gay marriage? Maybe gay marriage is more common among men—that could skew things a bit as well.

    I don’t think it would, though. Even if there are more gay men marrying than there are lesbians marrying (and I don’t have any reason to think so), those men wouldn’t necessarily marry women if they couldn’t to marry men–not when they can just continue to live as bachelors or ‘shack up’ with their boyfriends. I know that sometimes gay men marry women because they are in denial of their own sexual nature, or because they want to hide it from society, but marriage like that’s not a desirable state of affairs.

  34. 34.

    Beej

    January 26, 2007 at 3:05 am

    dlw,

    All the points you make about single parents are correct, but I don’t think anyone seriously believes it’s better to stay with an abuser or to require widows and widowers to remarry for the sake of the children.

    What we do know, at least statistically, is that boys from a single parent household (usually headed by a mother) are more likely to have difficulty in school, more likely to get in trouble with the law as juveniles, more likely to commit crimes as adults, more likely to use drugs, and a whole lot of other “more likelys” than boys raised in a two-parent home.
    Girls raised in a single parent home have sex earlier, are more likely to have abortions, are more likely to be abused by a partner, are less likely to graduate from high school and attend college, and are more likely to use drugs and commit crimes.

    Does this apply to every kid from a single parent home? Of course not. I teach at a community college, and every day I see single mothers striving to hold down a full-time job, raise their kids, and go to school all at the same time. I have a kind of awed admiration for them. And some of their kids are downright amazing. But I also hear from some of them about all the problems they are having with the kids, and sometimes, I hear about how they wish they had waited to have children and how much better it would be if they had a partner to help.

    Statistics apply to groups, not individuals, but statistics can show a society where we need work. The proliferation of single parent families is one of those areas where work is badly needed.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - Winter Wren - Point Lobos State Natural Reserve 3
Image by Winter Wren (7/31/25)

World Central Kitchen

Donate

Recent Comments

  • Jay on Thursday Night Open Thread (Jul 11, 2025 @ 2:29am)
  • NotMax on Thursday Night Open Thread (Jul 11, 2025 @ 2:18am)
  • Martin on Thursday Night Open Thread (Jul 11, 2025 @ 2:08am)
  • Baud on Thursday Night Open Thread (Jul 11, 2025 @ 2:05am)
  • NotMax on Thursday Night Open Thread (Jul 11, 2025 @ 2:05am)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
No Kings Protests June 14 2025

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

Feeling Defeated?  If We Give Up, It's Game Over

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!