Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday August 30 2017, @06:23PM   Printer-friendly
from the changing-times dept.

As the number of highly educated women has increased in recent decades, the chances of "marrying up" have increased significantly for men and decreased for women, according to a new study led by a University of Kansas sociologist.

"The pattern of marriage and its economic consequences have changed over time," said lead author ChangHwan Kim, associate professor of sociology. "Now women are more likely to get married to a less-educated man. What is the consequence of this?"

Kim's co-authored the study with Arthur Sakamoto of Texas A&M University, and the journal Demography recently published their findings. They examined gender-specific changes in the total financial return to education among people of prime working ages, 35 to 44 years old, using U.S. Census data from 1990 and 2000 and the 2009-2011 American Community Survey.

Your dreams of finding a Sugar Momma may finally come true.

ChangHwan Kim, Arthur Sakamoto. Women's Progress for Men's Gain? Gender-Specific Changes in the Return to Education as Measured by Family Standard of Living, 1990 to 2009–2011. Demography, 2017; DOI: 10.1007/s13524-017-0601-3


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Justin Case on Wednesday August 30 2017, @06:52PM (41 children)

    by Justin Case (4239) on Wednesday August 30 2017, @06:52PM (#561643) Journal

    Women have grown used to having an abundance of men chasing their tails, from which they grow accustomed to being as snobby and demanding as they please.

    But men are starting to understand that marriage, or even a long term exclusive relationship with a woman, does not on balance serve male reproductive goals or desires.

    When the supply of suckers decreases, those who remain can bargain for top-shelf partners. Basic economics.

    To quote a line from a movie "I guess the table's turned on the other foot now hasn't it?"

    Enjoy your karma, bitches!

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Troll=1, Insightful=1, Interesting=4, Overrated=1, Total=7
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:08PM (37 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:08PM (#561648)

    It's just you and your hand tonight, misogynist.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:19PM (15 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:19PM (#561655)

      I don't think it's misogynist; men and women just tend to be biologically wired differently. Yes, there are exceptions, but let's focus on the typical cases first. Women often want families and a man who will help take care of that family. But, a good many men don't want to be domestic "beasts of burden", they just want sex with a lady they find attractive. There are more options now to get such satisfaction without domestic commitments, meaning that women who want the old-fashioned domestic partner have fewer choices, and thus are more likely to sacrifice having a husband with a well-paying job in order to get the domestic side. Plus, women are just earning more these days, meaning a mismatch in earning power is more likely.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:27PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:27PM (#561660)

        ... from which they grow accustomed to being as snobby and demanding as they please. ... Enjoy your karma, bitches!

        Oh he is a misogynist, doesn't mean the actual point he was making is invalid.

      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:42PM (13 children)

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:42PM (#561671)

        I think it's a little more complex than that.

        First, there's a bunch of women now who actually don't want kids. You'll find a lot of urban women like this. But they seem to usually want a man who makes more money than them, mainly so they can afford to go on expensive international vacations every couple months it seems.

        But ignoring them for now, I think a lot of men are figuring out that marriage really isn't all it's cracked up to be. There's no financial benefit to it if your partner makes anywhere near the same salary you do, and in fact there's an outright "marriage penalty" if your incomes are roughly close. Thanks, IRS and Republicans. And given the high divorce rate, your chances of long-term success are not very good if you enter into one. Divorce is well-known to be messy and very expensive, usually more for the man, despite women making a lot of money these days. And with modern contraceptives, women don't have the pressure to avoid sex before marriage that they had 50+ years ago since the risk is mostly gone, so unlike in 1940, a man doesn't need to commit to a marriage to have sex. Finally, with people living so long now, people tend to grow apart over time, plus the social pressure to stay married even when you're miserable is much less. Now throw in all those people not even having kids, and what's the point to marriage?

        AFAICT, the only good reason to get married is because one partner doesn't work (i.e., tax benefit) or has a much lower-paying job, and the two are going to have kids together and want to provide that veneer of stability. (The other reason, but not a good one, is because of religion and associated social pressure, but this only applies to people in those social circles.)

        In the far past, marriage was a way to mostly guarantee social stability. It paired people up so they'd have kids (necessary for society's survival and economic growth), and force them to stay together through social pressure so that men wouldn't impregnate other women and have out-of-wedlock kids being raised in poverty. The price was happiness and freedom. Many people got stuck with partners they didn't get along with or didn't like and couldn't get away from, women were routinely abused, kids grew up in abusive households, etc. Even without the abuse part, women were consigned to being second-class citizens and couldn't hold most jobs, and didn't have much economic freedom. The gender roles were clear: men were to provide economically for the family, women were to be baby factories and unpaid domestic labor to make the family function. It was basically collectivism vs. individuality, with collectivism winning out (ironic, coming from a society that eschewed socialism and communism): the needs of society were deemed to be more important than the individual happiness of its citizens, and marriage with kids was seen as the proper way to ensure society's healthy functioning. (Not so different from authoritarian socialism when you think about it, huh? The main difference was that the enforcement mostly came from peers and churches rather than a central government, though the government did play a part through the tax code, marriage laws, and the functioning of the court systems.) Now, things are different: churches don't have much power any more, lots of society is irreligious, contraception is commonplace and reliable, sex before marriage isn't scandalous, and people aren't having kids like they used to, so the institution of marriage is falling apart as a consequence. And good riddance.

        So now, women who want kids are finding there aren't so many men who honestly want them, so they have to find low-income guys who are willing to make the trade-off: get married "up" to a higher-earning woman, be a sperm donor, and be unpaid domestic labor, in exchange for a nice "set up" and better economic security, just like the bargain women had to make 50+ years ago. High-income men don't have to bother with this, and don't as much, so there's a shortage of them and more women are turning to the low-income men.

        • (Score: 2) by looorg on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:45PM (11 children)

          by looorg (578) on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:45PM (#561673)

          ... just like the bargain women had to make 50+ years ago.

          50+ years? Don't you mean since the dawn of Man. Has it ever been anything but that deal. Now is probably the first time in history we are about to see the reverse on a large scale. At least in the western world.

          • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:59PM (10 children)

            by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:59PM (#561678)

            No, I don't mean that at all. Monogamy is a relatively recent social trend, which likely only started with the adoption of agriculture. Modern humans (meaning homo sapiens sapiens) have been around for about 2 million years, while agricultural societies only about 10-12k. Hunter-gatherer tribes were not monogamous and had no such bargain; they really functioned more like free-love communes.

            • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday August 30 2017, @08:05PM (5 children)

              by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday August 30 2017, @08:05PM (#561679)

              (This site should let me edit comments within a few minutes of posting...)

              Now, if you mean "since the early days of civilization", I'd say that's mostly correct. I wrote "50+" for a reason, because western civilization has been like that until only very recently, and the way humans lived shortly after the "dawn of Man" is really irrelevant to how people have been living for the past couple thousand of years.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @08:29PM (4 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @08:29PM (#561693)

                Wait 15 minutes after the story is posted. Put a reasonable comment. Have the prepared troll comment ready. Switch it at 4 minutes and 45 seconds to account for lag. Watch some people reply or up mod your reasonable comment which is now gone.

                • (Score: 3, Interesting) by tangomargarine on Wednesday August 30 2017, @08:37PM

                  by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday August 30 2017, @08:37PM (#561702)

                  Just have the old Green Site "are you sure you want to comment; doing this will undo moderation?" check, but for editing your comments. If you've already been modded, editing wipes mods.

                  --
                  "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
                • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday August 30 2017, @08:37PM (2 children)

                  by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday August 30 2017, @08:37PM (#561703)

                  1) Sites like Reddit allow editing, and don't seem to have that much trouble with this.

                  2) You could make it so the original comment cannot be removed or edited, and instead you can only append to it (which is all I wanted to do in my comment above).

                  3) You could also have a "flag" option to flag people doing this, and then the moderators can look into the edit history and ban anyone who does this.

                  Personally I think #2 would be the simplest answer. On other sites like Reddit, people already do just this even though they could do much more; they put "EDIT: blah blah blah" at the end of the comment to show the comment has been changed.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @09:39AM (1 child)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @09:39AM (#562035)

                    4) You could take your time, preview your comment, and add supporting information once you see it lacking some upon preview.

                    (And then end up on the second page of comments with no views, mods, or replies.)

                    • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday September 01 2017, @04:16AM

                      by Grishnakh (2831) on Friday September 01 2017, @04:16AM (#562406)

                      Sure, I'll do that just as soon as everyone removes the Backspace key from their keyboards, and changes all their software so that there's no "undo" function anywhere.

                      You're right about the timing issue too, but honestly I think the idea of not being able to edit things runs counter to one of the major reasons we switched from using typewriters and such to using computers in the first place.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @10:48PM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @10:48PM (#561796)

              "Free Love" for the women at least. I read somewhere that genetic evidence suggests that most men never produced viable offspring.

              • (Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Thursday August 31 2017, @12:49AM (2 children)

                by SanityCheck (5190) on Thursday August 31 2017, @12:49AM (#561883)

                I hardly believe that nonsense, I would say if that was the case the evolutionary pressure on men would be extreme and we would all be super athletic 7 feet tall muscle hunks with a jaw-line chiseled in stone.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @07:54AM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @07:54AM (#562008)

                  Only if DNA had a male half and a female half. It doesn't. Apart from the very small (compared to the rest) Y chromosome, everything is shared among men and women. Your claim would likely also result in women being "super athletic 7 feet tall muscle hunks with a jaw-line chiseled in stone", and the selection pressure is more likely to be AGAINST that.

                  Which, btw, may also be why the whole "homosexuality must be a choice, if it wasn't, natural selection would have gotten rid of it" falls on its face. If we assume that gay men are simply men with genes for "extra feminine" (and vice versa for lesbians), we have selection pressure FOR extra feminine women, and those women will have a 50% chance of passing that gene onto their sons.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @03:16PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @03:16PM (#562145)

                    Yes, but same genes express differently in men and women (the horrors!). For example if I look at (most) men I do not know if they carry the genes for supple or saggy tits.

                    So in the end the reasoning would rather be that reproducing success was more of a factor of luck for the men, which I could buy due to nature of ancient warfare. This would mean that roughly random distribution of genes would be passed on, rather than specific genes for handsomeness and muscle tone.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 04 2017, @03:37PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 04 2017, @03:37PM (#563473)

          women were to be baby factories and unpaid domestic labor to make the family function.

          And yet it is an was mostly women that controlled the spending in families.

          The women staying home, and men working is nothing more then simple division of labour, it wasn't oppression, that's purely a fictional reframing by the feminist movement.
          What changed is mostly the invention and widespread availability of devices like the washing machine and vacuum cleaner that changed keeping a house in order from a fulltime job to something that only takes a couple of hours a week. order was a fulltime job.

    • (Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:20PM (16 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:20PM (#561656)

      While he is an angry misogynist he does make an interesting point. With more men foregoing the typical marriage route it just might bring some balance back.

      Feminism caught on, a high % of men under 40 hopped on board, but it has definitely shifted into the realm of misandry. Some may call it karma, men got to be assholes to women for a VERY long time. Doesn't make it OK, and it has driven all these neckbeards into a more misogynistic frame of mind.

      Men's rights is a thing and there are real and valid complaints. This should not be confused with misogyny, however the Venn diagram would definitely have the two overlapping. There are men who suffer domestic abuse and they are laughed at. Many men, especially the nerdy types with less than stellar social skills, are treated like creeps just for trying to open a conversation.

      I would love to see feminist groups reach out* and help these abused men, demonstrate that women can and will help out men. Perhaps it would be the olive branch that starts the end of the gender war.

      * feminists should reach out because they have more experience dealing with abuse, men's rights groups are a relatively new thing I think.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @10:58PM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @10:58PM (#561804)

        You have not been paying attention. Or maybe you have, and you're spew shit because, well, you're an asshole.

        Feminists are very much on the side of men who suffer domestic abuse - because the facts that (i) women not being taken seriously when they report domestic assault so the perpetrators rarely face jail time and (ii) men are laughed at for reporting domestic assault at all, are both artefacts of the same root problem.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @11:52PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @11:52PM (#561844)

          That would depend on the feminist, since that group is not a hivemind. Some of them say that domestic violence against men shouldn't happen but that it isn't a very important issue because domestic violence against women is typically more severe and we live in a patriarchy. Others encourage violence against males or just laugh at it. Most consider domestic violence against men to be a serious issue.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 04 2017, @03:43PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 04 2017, @03:43PM (#563475)

            There's at least 3 completely different and incompatible groups that claim the titel 'feminism'

            there's the old school 'we want equal rights' (job mostly done in the west, and the areas that are still unequal are mostly, reproductive rights, divorce proceedings, and army duty are in the womens favor)

            there's the idiotic 'we want equal outcomes' that actively supports things like affirmative action which are the very antithesis of equal rights

            and then theres' the very vocal, but comparatively small group of 'radical feminists' that want's to get rid of men altogether, or at least heavily suppress them

            a lot of the confusion disagreement is in arguments where person A has the first definition of feminist, and person B the 2nd or 3th definition

        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @11:58PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @11:58PM (#561848)

          I never said they weren't on their side, I was just trying to promote such action and try to bridge the gap with some of the more misogynistic elements on here. You have too much anger built up, but hey so does most every other person here.

          In my highly subjective opinion it does seem like misandry has increased dramatically, and while true feminists undoubtedly would have sympathy for abused men I haven't seen them working together. If the they had more cooperation they could create a more unified front that would prevent people from reacting so badly simply because they feel their gender is under attack.

          Your reaction is a good example, you accuse me of being ignorant and/or an asshole not because I did anything to you but because I apparently don't know all the details about how the two general groups already work together. That is pretty fucked up, especially since I was trying to bring people together instead of split them up and cause anger :P

        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @12:06AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @12:06AM (#561855)

          Feminists in Name Only.

          I've had a few sit and verbally abuse me (much like trying to have an intellectual debate with an average republican. I used to have better luck with Dems, but since Trump they are are stupid and frothing as the Rs now.)

          Personally I have had a half dozen casual female aquaintances in college, around double or triple that during grade school, and nothing since moving into the professional world. Even work related female friends turned out to be superficially schmoozers when I ran into them after changing jobs. Quite frankly the internet (*NOT* social network/dating sites) has worked out slightly better for longer term friendships, a few relationships/fwbs from either internet gaming or online dating sites, but the rest has been crap.

          I would think it was just me, but I am hearing similiar things from most of my intelligent friends. The ones that are doing well on getting women are either the complete asshole neanderthal schmoozers, or the flashy wealthy guys who buy their ways into a woman's pants. And neither of them are trying to get stuck in a relationship. The guys who DO want a relationship end up with women who don't want kids when they want kids, or who do want kids when they're rationally not ready for kids (IE neither of us could afford kids, lets wait a few years, get raises/new jobs, and put the mortgage down on a house so they will be in a good place when they're born.

          In contrast most of the women fall into three categories: Career driven & never want kids, poor and stupid want kids & a free ride, career driven but want kids NOW and will do whatever it takes to get them even if it sets them and you back 10 years. There is also a mythical 4th category of normal women, but it seems like those disappear before college, likely because smart guys realized they were a good thing and snatched them up, but occasionally because they made a mistake and it takes them a few years to get back on the market, by which point they are one of the other three.)

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 31 2017, @05:20PM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 31 2017, @05:20PM (#562199) Journal

          So, basically, feminists like guys who are victims? And, guys who are not victims can't be bothered with. Sounds like some of us should find a nice abusive partner, then get rid of her, then lots of women will like us. Procreation problem solved? Maybe so, but damn, what about self respect? Oh, wait - self respect is an evil trait if you're a hetero white male. Forget I've said anything . . .

      • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @12:08AM (9 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @12:08AM (#561858)

        Men's rights is a thing and there are real and valid complaints.

        Such as?

        There are men who suffer domestic abuse and they are laughed at.

        To the extent this is really happening, yes, this needs to stop.

        Many men, especially the nerdy types with less than stellar social skills, are treated like creeps just for trying to open a conversation.

        Drop the persecution complex. It is not a flattering pose on you. In my experience, those guys that get treated like creeps get treated that way for very specific reasons. It isn't usually just "for trying to open a conversation".

        • (Score: 2) by Scrutinizer on Thursday August 31 2017, @09:45AM (4 children)

          by Scrutinizer (6534) on Thursday August 31 2017, @09:45AM (#562036)

          Such as?

          Ask Tom Ball [freekeene.com]. (He didn't seem to get as much publicity [boston.com] as that one foreign monk [wikipedia.org].)

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @04:51PM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @04:51PM (#562179)

            Such as?

            Ask Tom Ball.

            Seriously? Did you even bother to read that link? The guy smacked his daughter so hard that she got a busted lip, and that is by his own admission. That. Is. Not. Normal. Parental. Discipline. Full stop. Much of the rest of his problems appear to be largely caused by him having a bug up his butt about Family Services telling, no, you can't physically abuse your kids. And I picked that up from what little I read of his maundering, self-congratulatory "last statement".

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @09:55PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @09:55PM (#562311)

              The guy smacked his daughter so hard that she got a busted lip, and that is by his own admission. That. Is. Not. Normal. Parental. Discipline. Full stop.

              Like it or not, physical punishment (including spanking, pinching, and yes, slapping) is widely used in the USA. As such, it is - by definition - normal. The abnormality is government agents butting in at gunpoint, rather than the normal societal remedies for physical punishments that others judge to go too far.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @12:04AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @12:04AM (#562349)

                Like it or not, physical punishment (including spanking, pinching, and yes, slapping) is widely used in the USA. As such, it is - by definition - normal.

                Hard enough to leave a little girl bruised and bleeding? I don't think so.

                The abnormality is government agents butting in at gunpoint, rather than the normal societal remedies for physical punishments that others judge to go too far.

                He was referred to Family Services for counseling, which he refused to go to. (He seemed to feel that the case worker "had it in for him".) Call me weird but I don't think referral for counseling is "going too far".

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @12:31AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @12:31AM (#562356)

                  Hard enough to leave a little girl bruised and bleeding? I don't think so.

                  You think wrong, then. It's not something people like to see, but as one example, I sat on a grand jury regarding the prosecution of a parent who deeply bruised a little girl's legs and/or rump. None of us liked the circumstances, but all told, the harm done by an apparent one-off physical punishment by a parent would be grossly overshadowed by a criminal prosecution.

                  We no-billed the parent.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @03:06PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @03:06PM (#562141)

          You are an ignorant asshat. If you even ask these questions, it shows how clueless you are on the entire system. The whole marriage is a trap that can easily be compared to a woman who decides she regrets having sex with a guy a month after and reports him for rape. That is basically how divorce works, and I wish I was exaggerating.

          Best thing we can do for men, outside of MIGTOW, is to actually teach them psychology so they can easily identify the warning signs before getting in bed with crazy.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @04:56PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @04:56PM (#562185)

            You are an ignorant asshat. If you even ask these questions, it shows how clueless you are on the entire system.

            Oh, yes, please do enlighten us benighted souls in the peanut gallery.

            Best thing we can do for men, outside of MIGTOW, is to actually teach them psychology so they can easily identify the warning signs before getting in bed with crazy.

            Yes, indeed. That may be your problem, right there. Best to steer well clear of crazy; especially, don't get into bed with it. Any more clues I can help you with?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @05:49PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @05:49PM (#562223)

          I can only presume you are a woman and therefore have no idea what you're talking about. It is similar to the cultural change we've developed we don't let children outside because there is danger everywhere!!!1!!1 There is always a presumption of guilt that follows men around, and *shockingly* it is highly correlated with attractiveness / charisma. Gone are the days of simple rejection, FUD now operates in nearly every daily aspect of our lives and not just dating.

          Before you start presuming too much about myself I would like to say I'm relatively lucky on the handsome scale and haven't experienced much of the discrimination I'm talking about. Regardless if someone is creepy or not good manners should still apply. No need to be nasty unless the person won't take no for an answer.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @10:51PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @10:51PM (#562327)

            I can only presume you are a woman and therefore have no idea what you're talking about.

            You presume wrong; I'm a guy.

            Regardless if someone is creepy or not good manners should still apply. No need to be nasty unless the person won't take no for an answer.

            The part you seem to have not glommed onto yet is that manners should be a two-way street. Yes, rejection sucks. I know. I've experienced it myself. It can hurt. A lot. But how you handle rejection will tell her an awful lot about how "creepy" you are. Frankly, those who act like creeps ruin the party for every one else, no matter which side of the gender divide they are on.

            And you still need to drop your persecution complex. Just sayin'.

    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:36PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:36PM (#561666)

      My hand left me. It's HGTOW now.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:43PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:43PM (#561672)

      At least the hand won't complain and take half his shit when they break up. Plus it's making love to someone you love ...

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Justin Case on Wednesday August 30 2017, @08:17PM (1 child)

      by Justin Case (4239) on Wednesday August 30 2017, @08:17PM (#561686) Journal

      just you and your hand tonight

      Actually, no need to wait for tonight, I already did it! :)

      You see, that's exactly my point. Women no longer have control of my sexuality, and therefore, I no longer have to care what they think of me.

      It's not hate so much as benign neglect. You go your way, I'll go mine. You just don't matter as much as you thought you did.

      • (Score: 3, Flamebait) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday August 30 2017, @11:27PM

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday August 30 2017, @11:27PM (#561824) Journal

        You see, that's exactly my point. Women no longer have control of my sexuality, and therefore, I no longer have to care what they think of me.

        Women prevent you from masturbating? What kind of porn are you watching, anyway??

        I vote we all give him a break. If they did that to me I'd probably assume the worst of all of them too!

        I's OK, JC, women aren't all unique humans like the rest of us. They're all exactly the same and you're the real victim here.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @11:44PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @11:44PM (#561836)

    Marriage is plagued with magical thinking in our culture, with plenty of people believing that it's synonymous with a stable relationship (it isn't) or that it will instantly improve one's relationship (it doesn't). Some people are even dumb enough to believe that society would collapse without marriage, even though it's really just a social ritual. I'd like to see any legal options that are currently available to married couples be available to unmarried people in relationships as well, and then get the government out of the marriage business.

    • (Score: 2) by Scrutinizer on Thursday August 31 2017, @09:52AM (1 child)

      by Scrutinizer (6534) on Thursday August 31 2017, @09:52AM (#562039)

      I'd like to see any legal options that are currently available to married couples be available to unmarried people in relationships as well, and then get the government out of the marriage business.

      I strongly agree with your latter point about the critical importance of ejecting government out of the business of marriage. Your former point could use some clarification, however: just what legal options do you suggest should exist between two people who have no formal relationship beyond the legal options that already exist between two random strangers?

      Perhaps some of the "legal options" you want between two people can be optionally met without further changes to law. One example is a "power of attorney".

      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday September 01 2017, @04:36AM

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Friday September 01 2017, @04:36AM (#562409)

        Your former point could use some clarification, however: just what legal options do you suggest should exist between two people who have no formal relationship beyond the legal options that already exist between two random strangers?

        IANAL, so I can't go into a lot of detail here, and would love to hear from an attorney who actually knows about this kind of thing, but my idea is that marriage should simply be eliminated from law, and replaced with a new addendum to contract law. So basically, you'd have "civil unions", which can take many different forms, and are up to the people entering into the union. It wouldn't be limited to two people either, but it would be limited to legal adults of sound mind, just like contracts are today. No, minors can't participate, so stupid backwards states that let children get married will have to stop that; no one really needs to have a marriage-type union at 16 years old. Anyway, people could obtain a civil union of their choosing, and would probably need to run it by a qualified lawyer, or just choose one of a bunch of pre-vetted ones. These would include a lot of the stuff that today's "marriages" include: an agreement to share living expenses, a power of attorney in case one is incapacitated, etc., plus clear terms for how to handle things when the union is dissolved (this is a feature sorely missing from today's marriages, which we try to bolt-on with a "prenuptial agreement").

        Ideally, there'd be some pre-vetted ones as I mentioned, or perhaps even one where you can pick and choose the terms and clauses, so you don't need to see a lawyer at all as long as you're not doing anything way out of the ordinary. These unions can even include more than 2 people. And it should be extremely easy to get one of these in place so you can have it done just as soon as you move in together, and it should be easy to dissolve too, for when things go south (this, as I said, would be built-in to the contract so it's not so messy). And if you want to "upgrade" to something with different (e.g. more committed) terms, that should be easy to do too.