Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

Repeating yourself makes what you say more true!!

---

At 12/24/07 02:18 AM, Ravariel wrote: Repeating yourself makes what you say more true!!

I was waiting for you to enter the argument. You love to do that don't you? You can never argue someone by yourself you have to pounce when someone else is already in the middle of arguing other people. What a fucking coward you are.

I repeated what I said because he continually ignores what was already established. He's kind of like you.

---

Cellar: This topic is really long and you've obviously done a lot more research into this subject than I have by now, so can you just sum up for me a few important reasons why this stuff you're saying means that a woman should be considered a "junior partner" in a relationship where the couple is still together?

This seems like a lazy move by me, and it is, but I think it would also help to get the debate back on track and make the posting more concise, so you don't need to dig up a dozen sources for each post.

---

He's got nothing but general correlations that are meaningless, because he fails to take into account the millions of different factors involved. His links are mainly to pages DESIGNED to help men gain an upper hand in divorce proceedings (thus: obviously biased)... ignores counter-evidence and resorts to personal insults when proven wrong, as usual.

Just revel in Musician tearing him apart like the rest of us. Watching him wriggle on the hook is like hearing babies giggle... you can't help but smile.

---

At 12/24/07 02:25 AM, Elfer wrote: Cellar: This topic is really long and you've obviously done a lot more research into this subject than I have by now, so can you just sum up for me a few important reasons why this stuff you're saying means that a woman should be considered a "junior partner" in a relationship where the couple is still together?

I'm going to try to run by this in a point-by-point basis.

1) I believe the natural structure of the family unit is the best for raising kids.

2) I believe that marriage is the foundation of society, because it is the foundation from which kids are brought into the world and so forth.

3) In order for a kid to have a proper upbringing, he/she needs both a mother and a father.

4) Mothers are designed, both biologically (perhaps mentally), to give birth to, and take care of children.

5) This would make the father the bread winner by default because he'd have to provide for the family while the mother is caring for the children, yet both have a role in raising the child.

6) If women pursue their own careers, this increases the likelihood of divorce.

7) Divorce is horrible for children, and if children aren't raised correctly, this bodes ill for the entire society because children are, obviously, the future.

8) Therefore in order to keep the natural order of things, it's wise that in the event there are children in a marriage, it is wise for the father to be the bread winner and the wife to deal mostly with the kids. Both parents have an active role, but the father's main job is to create rules, to create an example of responsibility, and to provide for the family. This naturally puts the father in the leadership role, i.e. the senior partner role, and although the two jobs are equally important, the father is better equipped to lead, provide, and protect.

So although they are partners, the greater responsibility of the father puts him in a position of leadership... not domination, but leadership.

That's how healthy families are.

And upon observation of the trends in countries like Canada (which Musician brought up)... the tendency for marriages to be dual-income in nature is bad because this has been paralleled by an increase in divorce. When both parents are working, their devotion to eachother becomes marginal, and the wife is more likely to initiate divorce. Divorce leads to fractured families, women usually get the kids, and this creates enormous problems for those kids, both due to the simple fact they don't have two of their parents, but because they don't have their father in their life.

---

At 12/24/07 02:38 AM, Ravariel wrote: He's got nothing but general correlations that are meaningless

You mean overwhelming proof that you jus

because he fails to take into account the millions of different factors involved.

Provide those factors then or shut your dirty mouth.

What has been shown:

Women work, more likely to seek divorce.
Working women, more likely to initiate divorce
Women, initiate the majority of divorces.
Divorces, bad for children.
Divorces, increasing as wives who work are increasing.

Therefore, traditional families with the traditional role of the husband as the bread winner prevent divorce and are therefore more likely to keep a family in tact, and therefore properly raise children.

His links are mainly to pages DESIGNED to help men gain an upper hand in divorce proceedings

Prove it.

Just revel in Musician tearing him apart like the rest of us. Watching him wriggle on the hook is like hearing babies giggle... you can't help but smile.

Lol Musician has been torn apart this whole time and if you had any honesty you'd admit that. But of course you don't, because you are motivated by a bias which you've accumulated due to both you and your bosom-buddy Imperator getting proved wrong multiple times in prior arguments. So you jump in an argument that doesn't concern you because you need revenge, but know that you could never achieve revenge in an actual 1 on 1 argument with me. So you need to pile on when the moment is right.

---

At 12/24/07 02:38 AM, Ravariel wrote: His links are mainly to pages DESIGNED to help men gain an upper hand in divorce proceedings (thus: obviously biased)

The funny thing is this proves that you obviously have absolutely no desire to interpret this argument honestly.

Every single thing that I provided from that one website had alternate sources. You obviously didn't actually read them closely enough, because you don't want to. It's not convenient for you that way when your purpose is to pile on this this thread so you can get some revenge for previous arguments.

---

It usually takes a long as time for Musician to reply, so I'm going to assume he's working something up.

I can't wait for the whole lot of nothing that it will contain, as he continues to dodge the facts, provide links that don't claim what he says they do, and so forth.

---

At 12/24/07 02:41 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: I'm going to try to run by this in a point-by-point basis.

1) I believe the natural structure of the family unit is the best for raising kids.

because families where both the man and the woman work are "un-natural", despite making up 53% of all relationships.

2) I believe that marriage is the foundation of society, because it is the foundation from which kids are brought into the world and so forth.

hah ok

3) In order for a kid to have a proper upbringing, he/she needs both a mother and a father.

Well statistically anyways

4) Mothers are designed, both biologically (perhaps mentally), to give birth to, and take care of children.

Yes but only really in immediate infancy, after you're over hurdle, the roles are interchangeable.

5) This would make the father the bread winner by default because he'd have to provide for the family while the mother is caring for the children, yet both have a role in raising the child.

As society has proven, the roles are completely interchangable. Female lead households with both parents are just as successful as their Male headed counterparts.

6) If women pursue their own careers, this increases the likelihood of divorce.

Yes but this can't be directly linked to flaws in the woman herself. In fact, in the study you linked to, it showed that most divorces with career woman, are caused by a husbands feeling challenged as the main breadmaker (also a husband feels more comfortable dumping a financially independant woman).

7) Divorce is horrible for children, and if children aren't raised correctly, this bodes ill for the entire society because children are, obviously, the future.

Yup

8) Therefore in order to keep the natural order of things, it's wise that in the event there are children in a marriage, it is wise for the father to be the bread winner and the wife to deal mostly with the kids. Both parents have an active role, but the father's main job is to create rules, to create an example of responsibility, and to provide for the family. This naturally puts the father in the leadership role, i.e. the senior partner role, and although the two jobs are equally important, the father is better equipped to lead, provide, and protect.

You actually have never proved this.

So although they are partners, the greater responsibility of the father puts him in a position of leadership... not domination, but leadership.

and female led households with stay at home dads work out just as well

That's how healthy families are.

Society doesn't agree with you. You're still living in the 1950's. We've changed since then.

And upon observation of the trends in countries like Canada (which Musician brought up)... the tendency for marriages to be dual-income in nature is bad because this has been paralleled by an increase in divorce.

Though it has never been proven to be a very large one. It also never states how many of these divorces occur after the children have left the nest, which would null out the whole "divorce is bad for kids" argument in this situation.

Also, another thing that causes a couple to be more likely to divorce? educated parents. Do you think education isn't "natural" and shouldn't be promoted because of this?

When both parents are working, their devotion to eachother becomes marginal, and the wife is more likely to initiate divorce.

yes but as I've shown, men are much more likely to have behavior that would cause a woman to initiate divorce:

A 2004 ABC News poll found that men were almost twice as likely to cheat as women, with 21 percent of men admitting to cheating compared to 11 percent of women.

And again

and fathers are more likely to be abusive:

Children are three times more likely to be abused by their fathers than by their mothers.

Divorce leads to fractured families, women usually get the kids, and this creates enormous problems for those kids, both due to the simple fact they don't have two of their parents, but because they don't have their father in their life.

actually, it is just the effects of being in a single parent family.

---

At 12/24/07 03:03 AM, Musician wrote:

At 12/24/07 02:41 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: I'm going to try to run by this in a point-by-point basis.

1) I believe the natural structure of the family unit is the best for raising kids.

because families where both the man and the woman work are "un-natural", despite making up 53% of all relationships.

And that's similar to the fact that about half of marriages end in divorce.

2) I believe that marriage is the foundation of society, because it is the foundation from which kids are brought into the world and so forth.

hah ok

You don't believe that?

3) In order for a kid to have a proper upbringing, he/she needs both a mother and a father.

Well statistically anyways

Yes, the statistics that you keep hiding from.

5) This would make the father the bread winner by default because he'd have to provide for the family while the mother is caring for the children, yet both have a role in raising the child.

As society has proven, the roles are completely interchangable.

Prove it, and prove that it's still successful that way.

Female lead households with both parents are just as successful as their Male headed counterparts.

Nope.

Statistical analysis of the behavior and intelligence of these children revealed "significant detrimental effects" of living in a female-headed household. Growing up in a female-headed household remained a statistical predictor of behavior problems even after adjusting for differences in family income.

6) If women pursue their own careers, this increases the likelihood of divorce.

Yes but this can't be directly linked to flaws in the woman herself.

Prove it.

In fact, in the study you linked to, it showed that most divorces with career woman, are caused by a husbands feeling challenged as the main breadmaker

Prove it.

Then prove how that somehow means that working women don't increase the chance of divorce... which is the fact of the matter.

(also a husband feels more comfortable dumping a financially independant woman).

And a woman who works full-time feels more comfortable seeking divorce.

7) Divorce is horrible for children, and if children aren't raised correctly, this bodes ill for the entire society because children are, obviously, the future.

Yup

And divorces are more common among dual-income families.

Which you keep ignoring.

You actually have never proved this.

Actually I basically have, because it ties into the fact that marriages where the women works are more likely to end up in divorce.

Thus showing that if those marriages were more traditional than they would stistically be less likely to end in divorce.

and female led households with stay at home dads work out just as well

Prove it.

Come one buddy. You've been spewing bullshit about you supposedly proving me wrong yet you keep saying things that you can't substantiate with facts.

Society doesn't agree with you.

The facts agree with me.

You're still living in the 1950's. We've changed since then.

For the worse, because failed marriages and family problems have been a lot worse than they were in the 50's.

Since you're still arguing about things that you provided about Canada, why did you fail to mention the fact that marriages are less common, and divorces are MORE common in Canada since the rise in dual income marriages?

Seems like these changes aren't boding well for society.

And upon observation of the trends in countries like Canada (which Musician brought up)... the tendency for marriages to be dual-income in nature is bad because this has been paralleled by an increase in divorce.

Though it has never been proven to be a very large one.

LOL, you just keep rejecting the facts over and over again.

Let's recap, once again:

You gave this link about marriage in Canada, and it said:

In 1961, 30% of married women were working; in 1978, 38% were employed; by 1981 50% were working and in 1985, 55% held paying positions outside the home. (Jarman and Howlett 95) In 1961, only 20% of all two parent families were! dual wage families, but by 1986, more than half (53%) of all families were dual earning families.

--------

You were saying this as if in and of itself it's a positive thing.

You ignored that this correlates with the increase in divorce in Canada:

Between 1965 and 1988, Canada's divorce rate went from being one of the lowest among industrialized nations to being one of the highest, surpassing even the divorce rates in progressive countries such as France and Sweden.

And what's funny is during around that space of time, divorce rates went UP, and marriage rates went DOWN.

And the marriage act is not the sole reason because as it has been shown:

A logical implication that can be drawn from this model (Nock) is that when each spouse contributes between 40% and 59% of the total household income, the commitment and dependency of spouses to each other become marginal. Heckert, Nowak, and Snyder (1998) found that couples where wives earn between 50% to less than 75% of the household income are significantly more likely to separate than other couples.

And:

Furthermore, the longer hours women work, the more likely they are to be divorced.

'Our findings suggest that there is something about wives' work that increases the divorce risk,' say the researchers who will report their findings in the Oxford-based European Sociological Review.

---

Also, another thing that causes a couple to be more likely to divorce? educated parents.

That's due to the working factor, people who are educated tend to have careers... if the mother is working she probably has an education.

Do you think education isn't "natural" and shouldn't be promoted because of this?

Nope, education is fine. Marriage where both husband and wife are pursuing separate careers shouldn't be promoted, because as is shown... it causes problems.

yes but as I've shown, men are much more likely to have behavior that would cause a woman to initiate divorce:

You haven't shown that, you showed that with only a few single issues of bad behavior, not the overall.

Divorce leads to fractured families, women usually get the kids, and this creates enormous problems for those kids, both due to the simple fact they don't have two of their parents, but because they don't have their father in their life.

actually, it is just the effects of being in a single parent family.

Which is increased by the fact that women initiate 66-76% of divorce, and women who work are more likely to seek divorce.

---

At 12/24/07 03:32 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: And that's similar to the fact that about half of marriages end in divorce.

You can't prove that it's the causation though. Studies have shown that the larger factors for divorce are age at marriage, having kids at a young age, income, education ect. <- funny how dual income families are never really mentioned in those studies

2) I believe that marriage is the foundation of society, because it is the foundation from which kids are brought into the world and so forth.

hah ok

You don't believe that?

I never said that. but It was at all necessary to say that.

3) In order for a kid to have a proper upbringing, he/she needs both a mother and a father.

Well statistically anyways

Yes, the statistics that you keep hiding from.

Yeah... of course..

5) This would make the father the bread winner by default because he'd have to provide for the family while the mother is caring for the children, yet both have a role in raising the child.

As society has proven, the roles are completely interchangable.

Prove it, and prove that it's still successful that way.

Fact: 53% of a all couples are dual income

Fact: Families where both parents work have positive psycological effects on the child

source 1
source 2

Female lead households with both parents are just as successful as their Male headed counterparts.

Nope.

Statistical analysis of the behavior and intelligence of these children revealed "significant detrimental effects" of living in a female-headed household. Growing up in a female-headed household remained a statistical predictor of behavior problems even after adjusting for differences in family income.

and as I've said before, the majority of the households in that statistic are from single mother households. Where the only real detriment is having a single parent.

6) If women pursue their own careers, this increases the likelihood of divorce.

Yes but this can't be directly linked to flaws in the woman herself.

Prove it.

hah, it's your job to make your own argument cellardoor. You never proved that it was the working woman's flaws that caused divorce.

In fact, in the study you linked to, it showed that most divorces with career woman, are caused by a husbands feeling challenged as the main breadmaker

Prove it.

Interestingly enough this comes from one of your own links

'The wife's work could therefore lead to conflicts and competition, or threaten the husband's role as main provider,' says the report. Another possibility is that men feel more able to divorce a financially-independent wife.

Of course, as always I'm sure you'll complete ignore the fact that this shows that your link can't be used to support you case. But hey, it's not like your fooling anyone but yourself.

Then prove how that somehow means that working women don't increase the chance of divorce... which is the fact of the matter.

(also a husband feels more comfortable dumping a financially independant woman).

And a woman who works full-time feels more comfortable seeking divorce.

actually the study you linked to never mentioned that.

7) Divorce is horrible for children, and if children aren't raised correctly, this bodes ill for the entire society because children are, obviously, the future.

Yup

And divorces are more common among dual-income families.

Which you keep ignoring.

Divorces are also caused by intelligent parents and getting married at young. <- and these have a MUCH larger impact on divorce than dual income families do.

You actually have never proved this.

Actually I basically have, because it ties into the fact that marriages where the women works are more likely to end up in divorce.

but you never proved this was a flaw in the woman. I really tire of you dodging.

Thus showing that if those marriages were more traditional than they would stistically be less likely to end in divorce.

and like I've said, educated parents are more likely to get a divorce. should people not be educated?

and female led households with stay at home dads work out just as well

Prove it.

"Heckert, Nowak, and Snyder (1998) found that couples where wives earn between 50% to less than 75% of the household income are significantly more likely to separate than other couples."

from your own link

apparently a relationship is more prone to divorce if the wife if making 50-75% of the income, but not if she is making more than that. That seems to suggest succesful relationships with female house heads.

You're still living in the 1950's. We've changed since then.

For the worse, because failed marriages and family problems have been a lot worse than they were in the 50's.

You mean back when people where legally required to stay married unless their spouse cheated on or abused them, even if their marriage was generally deteriorating. Yeah great times.

Since you're still arguing about things that you provided about Canada, why did you fail to mention the fact that marriages are less common, and divorces are MORE common in Canada since the rise in dual income marriages?

why don't you tell me how that's even relevant to this debate?

Let's recap, once again:

dear god, you LOVE to repeat yourself don't you.

You gave this link about marriage in Canada, and it said:

In 1961, 30% of married women were working; in 1978, 38% were employed; by 1981 50% were working and in 1985, 55% held paying positions outside the home. (Jarman and Howlett 95) In 1961, only 20% of all two parent families were! dual wage families, but by 1986, more than half (53%) of all families were dual earning families.

--------

You were saying this as if in and of itself it's a positive thing.

You ignored that this correlates with the increase in divorce in Canada:

That doesn't mean it caused the increase in divorce, the fact that you blatantly assume this is amazingly ignorant!

Between 1965 and 1988, Canada's divorce rate went from being one of the lowest among industrialized nations to being one of the highest, surpassing even the divorce rates in progressive countries such as France and Sweden.

And what's funny is during around that space of time, divorce rates went UP, and marriage rates went DOWN.

Get this through your head, dual income marriages are NOT one of the leading causes of divorce. if you took any time to actually look at the studies, you'd see that they're not even mentioned next to the other REAL causes.

And the marriage act is not the sole reason because as it has been shown:

A logical implication that can be drawn from this model (Nock) is that when each spouse contributes between 40% and 59% of the total household income, the commitment and dependency of spouses to each other become marginal. Heckert, Nowak, and Snyder (1998) found that couples where wives earn between 50% to less than 75% of the household income are significantly more likely to separate than other couples.


And:

Furthermore, the longer hours women work, the more likely they are to be divorced.

'Our findings suggest that there is something about wives' work that increases the divorce risk,' say the researchers who will report their findings in the Oxford-based European Sociological

God how many times have I countered these SAME TIRED LINKS. face it cellardoor, you have nothing new. Your argument doesn't even hold water.

---

At 12/24/07 03:36 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Also, another thing that causes a couple to be more likely to divorce? educated parents.

That's due to the working factor, people who are educated tend to have careers... if the mother is working she probably has an education.

Nice theory, how about you prove it, oh wait you can't because you're wrong and talking completely out of your ass.

Do you think education isn't "natural" and shouldn't be promoted because of this?

Nope, education is fine. Marriage where both husband and wife are pursuing separate careers shouldn't be promoted, because as is shown... it causes problems.

not as much as education has

yes but as I've shown, men are much more likely to have behavior that would cause a woman to initiate divorce:

You haven't shown that, you showed that with only a few single issues of bad behavior, not the overall.

actually I've shown studies that represent the general male population.

Divorce leads to fractured families, women usually get the kids, and this creates enormous problems for those kids, both due to the simple fact they don't have two of their parents, but because they don't have their father in their life.

actually, it is just the effects of being in a single parent family.

Which is increased by the fact that women initiate 66-76% of divorce, and women who work are more likely to seek divorce.

and males are statistically more likely to cause women to initiate divorce through bad behavior . Not that the fact that women initiate divorce is at all relevant anyways, since you never proved that the additional divorces for working women are actually initiated by women. <-- in fact the study YOU linked to suggests otherwise.

---

At 12/24/07 04:13 AM, Musician wrote:

At 12/24/07 03:32 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: And that's similar to the fact that about half of marriages end in divorce.

You can't prove that it's the causation though.

Actually I already did.

Yeah... of course..

And you ignored them yet again. Hilarious.

5) This would make the father the bread winner by default because he'd have to provide for the family while the mother is caring for the children, yet both have a role in raising the child.

As society has proven, the roles are completely interchangable.

Prove it, and prove that it's still successful that way.

Fact: 53% of a all couples are dual income

FACT:

Nearly half of all marriages end in Divorce

FACT: Women who work are more likely to seek divorce, therefore dual income families are more likely to split up.

Fact: Families where both parents work have positive psycological effects on the child

LOL!!!!

FACT: Working mothers bad for children

Fact: Women are more likely to seek divorce if they work, i.e. in a dual-income family.

Fact: Divorce is bad for kids

Fact: Fractured families, the result of divorce, cause ENORMOUS societal problems.

Thus outweighing the positive effects that may or may not be due to dual-income families... even after it is shown that working mothers are bad for children.

and as I've said before, the majority of the households in that statistic are from single mother households.

Prove that the difference in ratio causes the difference.

We already know that the different ratio exists, however you haven't proved that it is significantly swaying the facts.

Where the only real detriment is having a single parent.

And as YOU showed, women make less money. And YOU were the one who said this is the reason their children perform more poorly than is explained by the ratio.

So now you're contradicting yourself haha.

hah, it's your job to make your own argument cellardoor.

Funny, because I asked you to prove YOUR own argument.

So I take that as an negative, you CANNOT prove what you claimed.

Next.

You never proved that it was the working woman's flaws that caused divorce.

That doesn't matter, because working women are more likely to seek and inituate divorce than those who don't work, THEREFORE, for the sake of a marriage it would be wise for wives not to work.

---

'The wife's work could therefore lead to conflicts and competition, or threaten the husband's role as main provider,' says the report. Another possibility is that men feel more able to divorce a financially-independent wife.

Lol and that DOESN'T prove anything, it's talking about possibilities.

And even if it was the man who reacted negatively to it, it doesn't matter, because the fact that women work increases the likelihood of HER choosing to divorce. the problem originated in her working, THIS increased the chance of the divorce, THIS increase the chance (if it is a significant factor) of the man feeing insecure or whatever.

Therefore, statistically, working wives are bad for marriage regardless of whether or not the husbands are causing it.

Which you didn't prove, and which that quote doesn't prove either considering its talking about a possibility, not a cause.

Of course, as always I'm sure you'll complete ignore the fact that this shows that your link can't be used to support you case.

Women who work are more likely to seek and intitiate divorce, FACT.

It proves my case, you're so pathetic and incapable of accepting reality that you devolve into whims of your own imagination and try to pretend the mere mention of a possible factor sways the fundamental fact that working women are more likely to seek and initiate divorce.

And a woman who works full-time feels more comfortable seeking divorce.

actually the study you linked to never mentioned that.

Lol semantics.

Divorces are also caused by intelligent parents and getting married at young. <- and these have a MUCH larger impact on divorce than dual income families do.

Prove it.

but you never proved this was a flaw in the woman. I really tire of you dodging.

LOL and you keep dodging the fact that the women working in and of itself is the variable. Therefore you can't even attempt to rebut the FACT that women working is bad for a marriage, which leads to divorce and separation, and divorce and separation is bad for children.

Thus showing that if those marriages were more traditional than they would stistically be less likely to end in divorce.

and like I've said, educated parents are more likely to get a divorce. should people not be educated?

Nope, because it's not the education that's causing it it's obviously the work itself. Educated people tend to have more serious careers. If the mother is educated, that's not the bad thing, the bad thing is a career that interferes with the relationship, and therefore causes a statistical inrease in her tendency to initiate divorce.

and female led households with stay at home dads work out just as well

Prove it.

"Heckert, Nowak, and Snyder (1998) found that couples where wives earn between 50% to less than 75% of the household income are significantly more likely to separate than other couples."

from your own link

LOL that only disproves your point and validates mine. WTF is wrong with you? Is your reading comprehension causing you to fuck up again?

Couples where wives that earn between 50% to less than 75%... therefore 50%-74% of the income are more likely to separate, this validates what I said!

I think the "less" has confused you. It's not 50% less to 75% less... it's 50% to less than 75% of the household income.

But thanks for embarrassing yourself and only helping my argument even further.

You mean back when people where legally required to stay married unless their spouse cheated on or abused them, even if their marriage was generally deteriorating. Yeah great times.

Prove that this existed in the US in the 1950's.

Since you're still arguing about things that you provided about Canada, why did you fail to mention the fact that marriages are less common, and divorces are MORE common in Canada since the rise in dual income marriages?

why don't you tell me how that's even relevant to this debate?

Because since the advent of dual-income marriages in Canada, divorces have increased, and marriages have decreased.

Come on now, use your brain buddy.

That doesn't mean it caused the increase in divorce

Actually it does when you consider the fact that women who work are more likely to seek divorce.

I showed correlation with the parellel increase in dual-income marriages and the increase in divorce.

That didn't show causation, but what showed almost certain causation is the fact that married women who work (i.e. part of a dual-income marriage) are more likely to seek and initiate divorce, as well as the fact that women initiate most divorces overall.

Between 1965 and 1988, Canada's divorce rate went from being one of the lowest among industrialized nations to being one of the highest, surpassing even the divorce rates in progressive countries such as France and Sweden.

And what's funny is during around that space of time, divorce rates went UP, and marriage rates went DOWN.

Get this through your head, dual income marriages are NOT one of the leading causes of divorce.

Lol, get it through your head, just like you assume that it's the husbands "insecurity" that causes the divorce, it could be argued that the dual-income marriage, i.e. the working wife, is what causes some of the other problems that lead to divorce.

if you took any time to actually look at the studies

About Malay Muslims?

you'd see that they're not even mentioned next to the other REAL causes.

Lol duh you idiot, but the three causes it did mention; time, sex, and money, can certainly be thing where problems can brew from the nature of how much time they are spending with each other due to differing careers, how their sex life is due to not spending time with each other, or the money issue... which could be just about any kind of money issue whether its debt, or whether its who is making the money.

God how many times have I countered these SAME TIRED LINKS. face it cellardoor, you have nothing new.

Funny, because after you keep getting proved wrong you keep regurgitating the same links over and over again.

---

At 12/24/07 04:13 AM, Musician wrote:

if you took any time to actually look at the studies, you'd see that they're not even mentioned next to the other REAL causes.

That study talks about time, sex, and money being the 3 main reasons:

Time, Sex and Money'' is shorthand for the top three problem areas reported by survey respondents: balancing job and family, frequency of sexual relations, and debt brought into marriage

I can show that at least 2 of these are due to dual-income work.

Concerning time:

These couples tend to experience more conflict between work and personal life, more stress, and more feelings of overload as well as lack of control and mastery of their lives than other working couples. And those partners with very demanding jobs are, by far, at the highest risk for low life quality, according to Cornell sociologist Phyllis Moen. "The fact is that in contemporary working-couple households, at least one spouse typically puts in long hours (more than 45 hours a week)," said Moen.

-- Working couples with children at home are most likely to have one spouse -- typically the husband -- working more than 45 hours a week, while the other spouse works full time.

-- Marriages in which both partners are professionals or managers report the highest conflict between work and personal life, stress and overload, especially the female partner.

-- Both men and women who are launching and establishing their careers, whether they have children or not, report high levels of stress, overload and conflict between work and personal life.

Concerning sex:

- Most working women are too fatigued or stressed to feel like having sex..

- Some working women resent their spouses for not doing their share of housework and other domestic duties (such as looking after children), and this anger spills over into the bedroom.

-------

But hey, thanks for helping me out. You just allowed me to further support my case and discredit yours, yet again.

---

Oh, and some more interesting information that supports my case:

"Women who do enter the job market are shoe-horned into men's templates of forty-plus- hour jobs, which works against women and cheats family life."

Not surprisingly, Clarkberg found that twice as many men as women are content with how much they work. "Although about two-fifths of men work more than they would prefer, the adjustment is a small one, and men tend to relatively painlessly slip into the standard role of full-time employee," she said. "Women, on the other hand, tend to want a more middling number of work hours and are caught between a rock and a hard place and must choose either to stay home full-time or work the very long hours that many jobs demand."

The researcher also found that one in six couples wish both partners could work part-time, yet only one in 50 couples actually do.

Clarkberg analyzed work-hour preferences and work-hour behavior of a representative sample of 4,554 married couples, including retired couples, surveyed first in 1987-88 and then again in 1993-94 for the National Study of Families and Households. She sought to determine how much married couples work and whether they succeed in moving toward their ideal work schedule or not.

Among her other findings:

-- Only 8 percent of husbands surveyed worked part-time.

-- Women in full-time, dual-earner marriages were most likely to say they worked too many hours. Women working part-time, or full-time working women with husbands working part-time, were much less likely to feel squeezed for time.

-- Men showed different patterns. Husbands whose wives did not work were more likely than men in dual-earner marriages to report they worked more than they preferred. Indeed, men in full-time, dual-earner marriages were among the least likely to feel overworked.

-- Women, but not men, with young children felt time-squeezed. It was the mothers of young children, not the fathers, who said they would prefer to work fewer hours.

-----------------

Oh and here's something else:

Children of full-time working mothers are more likely to perform badly at school, research suggests.

---

And:

Stress loads are high for working mothers:
British women recently surveyed in a health magazine reported that juggling the dual roles of mother and worker is extremely hard. Findings include:

- Over 60 per cent of working mothers feel they take out their stress on their families.
- Close to half of all working mothers would prefer to be full-time mothers, while around one fifth would like to work from home.
- Just four per cent of working mothers would elect to work full-time if they had the choice.
- Nearly eight out of 10 working mothers would quit their jobs if they could.

---

At 12/24/07 02:41 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Points 1-7: Stuff that makes intuitive sense and has a strong suggestion of being true in the topic

I'm fine with this part of your argument. However, it's the part where you try to connect all of this to the actual point that I take issue with.

8) Therefore in order to keep the natural order of things, it's wise that in the event there are children in a marriage, it is wise for the father to be the bread winner and the wife to deal mostly with the kids.

I don't think that this one is necessarily true, but I'll grant that with today's societal influences, as well as biology, it is very likely to be statistically true.

However, I do think that the father should take an equal role with the children when he gets home from work. I'm assuming that you'd agree with this too thought, since you seem aware of the importance of interaction with the father in the children's lives.

Both parents have an active role, but the father's main job is to create rules, to create an example of responsibility, and to provide for the family. This naturally puts the father in the leadership role, i.e. the senior partner role,

This is where I think your argument becomes a non-sequitur. The father goes out and makes the money, but why does that make him the one who sets the rules and makes the final decisions?

Personally, I see marriage as a decision to share your life completely with someone else, meaning that despite who actually has the job, the money belongs equally to both partners.

So although they are partners, the greater responsibility of the father puts him in a position of leadership... not domination, but leadership.

As above, who is to say that the father's employment gives him greater responsibility than the one raising the children? Or, even if he was in a position of greater responsibility (which is a somewhat reasonable assumption, because you can have a job without raising kids but can't really raise kids without having a job), why should that give him any greater amount of personal influence over the relationship?

Marriage isn't a game of chess. Even if having employment gives you a greater amount of leverage over your family, I'd consider it immoral and a violation of trust to actually exercise that power to become the primary maker of rules and decisions.

Divorce leads to fractured families, women usually get the kids, and this creates enormous problems for those kids, both due to the simple fact they don't have two of their parents, but because they don't have their father in their life.

True, even with visitation rights, kids don't really get enough time with their fathers, and with dual custody arrangements, the kids have to constantly move back and forth.

This is a difficult problem to solve on the surface, but I think the actual, simple solution is for people to not rush into marriage, and to be sure that they're doing what they want to before they get married, and especially before they have kids. In my mind, at least for myself, having kids is an 18-year commitment to staying together and maintaining a healthy relationship.

---

With all the articles that cellardoor uses, the fact that he is considered to be the most overrated poster makes me wonder why he even tries.

This would be a time where i would say to traditionalism;

"Let then eat cake"

---

At 12/24/07 11:43 AM, Elfer wrote: This is where I think your argument becomes a non-sequitur. The father goes out and makes the money, but why does that make him the one who sets the rules and makes the final decisions?

Personally, I see marriage as a decision to share your life completely with someone else, meaning that despite who actually has the job, the money belongs equally to both partners

Elfer, cellardoor believes this because he believes women are inferior beings and he wants it to be true. If you look at his entire argument you'll see that it's completely based off of taking statistics that are generally true of both men and women, and only presenting the studies on women.

a good example:

At 12/23/07 02:41 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: - Children reared by a divorced or never-married mother are less cooperative and score lower on tests of intelligence than children reared in intact families. Statistical analysis of the behavior and intelligence of these children revealed "significant detrimental effects" of living in a female-headed household. Growing up in a female-headed household remained a statistical predictor of behavior problems even after adjusting for differences in family income.

He present's this fact as if it proves that single mothers are somehow inferior to single fathers, despite the fact that this proves true in both single mother and single father families.

"Children from single-father and single-mother families perform roughly the same in school, but both are outperformed by children from two-parent families."

Basically, his whole argument has been based on incredibly misleading facts, because there are no substantial facts to back his claims. But he continues to provide these misleading sources because he wants to believe that men are superior to women and that men are the only beings intelligent and strong enough to be the breadmaker of the family, or to make decisions for the family.

---

Didn't I already pwn u Musician?

---

Cellardoor I've already addressed and disproven all the arguments you continue to bring up.

You argue that working women are more likely to be divorced, but you don't recognize that it can't be directly correlated to faults in the woman. THEN you argue that it doesn't matter what actually causes the divorces only that if a woman works it increases the chances of a divorce, so it shouldn't be promoted. That's laughable because most of the additional divorces are caused by men feeling insecure or more comfortable with dumping a financially independant women, then it's NOT working women that cause more divorce but rather husbands insecure with working women that cause divorce.

Then you argue that female headed households lead to detrimental effects despite the fact that the majority of female headed households are single mother households, which generally have the same problems as single father households.

Of course you ignore this because it proves you wrong and you grab a long list of studies you found at dads4kids.com an obviously biased website which ignores the fact that most of these studies apply to motherless homes as well as fatherless homes (as I proved by countering every single one earlier in this argument on page 4).

And so here we are at your last pathetic attempt to defend your case, and as we see... it has the exact same flaws as all the arguments you've made before...:

At 12/24/07 05:17 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: That study talks about time, sex, and money being the 3 main reasons:

one of the studies does.

Time, Sex and Money'' is shorthand for the top three problem areas reported by survey respondents: balancing job and family, frequency of sexual relations, and debt brought into marriage


I can show that at least 2 of these are due to dual-income work.

first of all, there are TONS of things that can cause sexual tension between couples, couples where both wife and husband work are NOT the largest cause of lack of sex in marriage.

secondly, you certainly can't link money, dual income families make much more profit than families that don't.

Thirdly you make the same flaws in this argument, because you still can't prove that any of this applies to families where the wife is the breadmaker and the husband is the housemaker.

Concerning time:

These couples tend to experience more conflict between work and personal life, more stress, and more feelings of overload as well as lack of control and mastery of their lives than other working couples. And those partners with very demanding jobs are, by far, at the highest risk for low life quality, according to Cornell sociologist Phyllis Moen. "The fact is that in contemporary working-couple households, at least one spouse typically puts in long hours (more than 45 hours a week)," said Moen.

-- Working couples with children at home are most likely to have one spouse -- typically the husband -- working more than 45 hours a week, while the other spouse works full time.

-- Marriages in which both partners are professionals or managers report the highest conflict between work and personal life, stress and overload, especially the female partner.

-- Both men and women who are launching and establishing their careers, whether they have children or not, report high levels of stress, overload and conflict between work and personal life.

How interesting, the study says that a working couple has negative effect on both the wife and the husband. which suggests that it's not working women that has a negative effect on the relationship, but rather working couples in general. Which of course supports my argument.

Concerning sex:

- Most working women are too fatigued or stressed to feel like having sex..

- Some working women resent their spouses for not doing their share of housework and other domestic duties (such as looking after children), and this anger spills over into the bedroom.

Lol the same source that you linked to has this to say on the problem: "One solution to the problem is for men to do their fair share around the home. " Maybe the solution for this is NOT for the woman to stop working, but for the couple to actually get some counseling... but wait that would be an actual and reasonable solution. can't have that!

Overall it's pretty clear to me that you have no real evidence to link female leadership to relationship failure. You have a lot of shiny links, but as I've proven, none of them really support your point.

---

"How interesting, the study says that a working couple has negative effect on both the wife and the husband. which suggests that it's not working women that has a negative effect on the relationship, but rather working couples in general. Which of course supports my argument."

If you had some sort of source that showed different level's of difficulty in marriage based on earnings ratio's...

Since it's a matter of the fact that both parents are earning money causes problems, if there were families where the mother worked and the dad was a stay at home that worked equally sucessfull as the traditionalist counterpart, you would probably win the argument.

---

At 12/24/07 10:43 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: if there were families where the mother worked and the dad was a stay at home that worked equally sucessfull as the traditionalist counterpart, you would probably win the argument.

there are.

---

At 12/20/07 01:32 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 12/20/07 01:30 AM, Elfer wrote:

People are just dumb, and they're being completely hornswoggled by the major parties.

Yes, but only under the guise that just the rich and powerful can and will become president. People need to break this mentality.

John Edwards is worth $620 million. I don't see him in any office other than a senators.

---

At 12/25/07 12:58 AM, crazy-eye2 wrote: Edwards is worth $620 million. I don't see him in any office other than a senators.

John Edwards is running for president

---

At 12/25/07 01:18 AM, Musician wrote:

At 12/25/07 12:58 AM, crazy-eye2 wrote: Edwards is worth $620 million. I don't see him in any office other than a senators.

John Edwards is running for president

is this the 2nd time? I don't remember. I know this: Clinton Clinton Bush Bush ____ ____

---

Guys, guys, I think you're forgetting something crucial here. Mike Huckabee has the big package.

---

I've asked a lot of people, men and women, from a lot of different political spectrums, whether the following statement is sexist:

"The wife should submit to the husband as a housewife. This is the natural order of things, and any deviation is harmful."

And they all say it is. Women are particularly dismissive of it.