Setting any moral considerations aside, the 50s to the 80s saw the era of greatest economic egalitarianism in North America. Returning to the stark inequities of the Gilded Age, with rigid classes built on yawning disparities in education and family origins, is something to be avoided, I would think. Marriage is a bulwark against poverty, for the simple reason that we live in a society that requires two incomes to provide a family with most of the basic trappings of a secure present and a hopeful future.
It's also an explicit legal and social arrangement that brings two families together in a joint venture.
How many of you married people had your social circle enlarged by just your spouse? You gained a second set of parents, sisters and brothers-in-law, children, spouses etc... all joined together because of one marriage.
Your responsibilities and obligations increase exponentially - economic productivity increases to meet those obligations, and your personal security is also guaranteed through a strengthened web of family connections.
Most cohabitation is an arrangement of similar intimacy, under the guide of convenience, with a predominant focus on the temporal rather than the permanent. You adopt all of the risks, and gain very few of the benefits.
The Following User Says Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
What has always bothered me about the problem with Islamic radicals committing atrocities in Western Democracies, is not the Muslims themselves, but the ineptitude of their leaders. You rarely ever hear from Islamic religious leaders or others who could make a difference, and deter others from committing terrorist acts. They are silent, for the most part.
What has always bothered me about the problem with Islamic radicals committing atrocities in Western Democracies, is not the Muslims themselves, but the ineptitude of their leaders. You rarely ever hear from Islamic religious leaders or others who could make a difference, and deter others from committing terrorist acts. They are silent, for the most part.
They are not silent at all. Every major terrorist attack is essentially followed by a big round of denounciations and statements of anger and grief from Muslim leaders.
If you were actually interested in what Muslim leaders say, you would know what they say.
So don't pretend like you care. Or know anything about it.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
How many of you married people had your social circle enlarged by just your spouse? You gained a second set of parents, sisters and brothers-in-law, children, spouses etc... all joined together because of one marriage.
Your responsibilities and obligations increase exponentially
This sounds just awful.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
What has always bothered me about the problem with Islamic radicals committing atrocities in Western Democracies, is not the Muslims themselves, but the ineptitude of their leaders. You rarely ever hear from Islamic religious leaders or others who could make a difference, and deter others from committing terrorist acts. They are silent, for the most part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse
They are not silent at all. Every major terrorist attack is essentially followed by a big round of denounciations and statements of anger and grief from Muslim leaders.
If you were actually interested in what Muslim leaders say, you would know what they say.
So don't pretend like you care. Or know anything about it.
They are not silent at all. Every major terrorist attack is essentially followed by a big round of denounciations and statements of anger and grief from Muslim leaders.
If you were actually interested in what Muslim leaders say, you would know what they say.
So don't pretend like you care. Or know anything about it.
Calm down, man. Perhaps you know of the situation better, but is that any reason to accuse of of not caring about the situation. The reason for my post was that when Habs fans rioted in the 50s, Richard went on national TV, denouncing the riots, and they almost immediately stopped. When the LA riots were out of control, Rodney King stood in front of national TV networks to denounce the violence.
Maybe I'll have to look into it, but in France, with a significant Muslim population, would someone young Muslims idolize like Zindane Zidane (example), or someone of the like denounce irrational acts like bombing subways, airports, or murdering soldiers. Can you at least provide a link or example, rather than some hate filled rant claiming I know nothing, and don't care? It's usually more effective.
It's a pretty good way to live as a human even with the added emotional entanglements.
Meh, my sister married a doctor so I think I'll just leach off of them. Every system needs its free riders, right?
Kidding obviously, but I actually disagree. I loathe large family gatherings and it's even worse if I'm "obligated" to be there. Why the hell would I want to spend my time making small talk with people who I have nothing in common with just because we share similar genetics when I could be chilling with people I choose to hang with because we share similar interests, humour, etc.?
Could also be because my family outside of my mom and sister are all completely bonkers.
Also I wonder how thorough any analysis is when it strictly focuses on marriage and doesn't include co-habitating, unmarried parents.
I'm not sure that's captured in all the statistics. For example, in Scandinavia marriage has declined, but most children are still born to parents in an enduring monogamous relationship. We know that the working class in the anglo world has seen a break-down not just of official, sanctioned marriage, but in enduring monogamous relationships. Children are often raised in households with multiple male adults passing through, losing the benefits of both a stable income and a stable, loving male presence in their lives. That dude who lives with mom for a couple years probably isn't setting aside some of his paycheque every month to pay for your university.
When men commit to marriage, they seek out higher paying jobs and work longer hours. Yes, the decline in economic prospects for working class men has damaged marriage. But the decline in the social pressure to commit to marriage has deprived men of the motivation to better their economic situation.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
When men commit to marriage, they seek out higher paying jobs and work longer hours. Yes, the decline in economic prospects for working class men has damaged marriage. But the decline in the social pressure to commit to marriage has deprived men of the motivation to better their economic situation.
That's speculation at best.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
I would argue at the professional level married men work less hours then their unmarried counterparts.
Yeah, even just comparing the hours I've worked single vs. in relationships and it's always been more when I've been single.
EDIT: That doesn't get into risk-taking/entrepreneurship either. A guy with a family is probably less likely to quit his job to strike out on his own than a guy with no obligations.
Calm down, man. Perhaps you know of the situation better, but is that any reason to accuse of of not caring about the situation. The reason for my post was that when Habs fans rioted in the 50s, Richard went on national TV, denouncing the riots, and they almost immediately stopped. When the LA riots were out of control, Rodney King stood in front of national TV networks to denounce the violence.
Maybe I'll have to look into it, but in France, with a significant Muslim population, would someone young Muslims idolize like Zindane Zidane (example), or someone of the like denounce irrational acts like bombing subways, airports, or murdering soldiers. Can you at least provide a link or example, rather than some hate filled rant claiming I know nothing, and don't care? It's usually more effective.
After RCMP thwarted a major terror threat in Ontario#last week, Mohamed El-Rafih knew that his community anti-radicalization initiatives were more urgently needed than ever.
El-Rafih is best known in Calgary’s Muslim community as the creator of an anti-radicalization program#that he calls Fostering Youth Inclusiveness (or FYI). The program is a day camp for children aged five to 12 that#aims to fight radicalization by tackling#the feeling of isolation that some Muslim children experience while trying to integrate into#Western society.
The Following User Says Thank You to Looch City For This Useful Post:
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: At le pub...
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
Do Muslims not traditionally come from tight-knit families with present father figures? I'm curious as to where this derail came from.
You can thank Peter's scorn for the great masses of porn-addicted, unmarried, and godless for this particular derail.
I believe the connection was the "disaffected youth".
At least as of 2010, non-hispanic blacks had the highest instance of regular church attendance in the US. I wouldn't say that community is thriving.
Economic stability, strong education and upward mobility has far more to do with successful society than does religiousness. Nordic countries are increasingly secular and are increasingly successful societies with little crime and high quality of life. People don't want to hurt others or commit crime because what's the point? What do they have to gain in a society where they're treated well overall? And when they do commit crime, jail is meant to rehabilitate them and turn them back into useful members of society, not just to repeat the same crimes and end up in jail all over again.
It's not about religiousness, it's about morality. True Christianity, that actually reflects the beliefs of Christ (treating others as you want to be treated, taking care of the less fortunate, etc) is good for this. But the bastardization of Christianity in the US that has made it hateful and oppressive and exclusionary is far from helpful.
People can be moral without being religious.
Also this whole "breakdown of marriage" is inane to me. Women nowadays don't have their success tied to being one half of a marriage, and thus often they choose not to tie themselves down. My parents both had a father present in their lives, but one of them was a PTSD riddled alcoholic and the other was an alcoholic, drug addicted pedophile. Just because fathers were present in those days doesn't mean they were always good fathers. It just meant that their wives had no option but to stick it out if they wanted to keep their kids.
Bingo, also Phil's book on this is excellent stuff
...Men who get married work harder and more strategically, and earn more money than their single peers from similar backgrounds. Marriage also transforms men’s social worlds; they spend less time with friends and more time with family; they also go to bars less and to church more. In the provocative words of Nobel Laureate George Akerlof, men “settle down when they get married; if they fail to get married they fail to settle down.”
Research findings on heterosexual marriage are surprisingly consistent with Akerlof’s insight, especially when it comes to engaging the world of work.
Our research, featured in a recent report, “For Richer, For Poorer: How Family Structures Economic Success in America,” indicates that men who are married work about 400 hours more per year than their single peers with equivalent backgrounds. They also work more strategically: one Harvard study found that married men were much less likely than their single peers to quit their current job unless they had lined up another job.
This translates into a substantial marriage premium for men. On average, young married men, aged 28-30, make $15,900 more than their single peers, and married men aged 44-46 make $18,800 more than their single peers.
That’s even after controlling for differences in education, race, ethnicity, regional unemployment, and scores on a test of general knowledge. What’s more: the marriage premium operates for black, Hispanic, and less-educated men in much the same way as it does for men in general.
For instance, men with a high-school degree or less make at least $17,000 more than their single peers.
Why is there such a substantial marriage premium? Could it simply be that the kind of men who get and stay married have certain characteristics? Perhaps the marrying kind is more charming, hard-working, or ambitious.
And yet the research suggests at least part of the marriage premium is causal: one study showed gains at work when men are married compared to when the same men were not married and another study of twins found that married twins earned 26 percent more than their identical twins who were not married...
The article has links to the studies, and a lot of other data about societal effects of marriage on men. It's worth a read.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 08-17-2016 at 06:54 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
