Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 12/25/07 06:34 AM, Earfetish wrote:

"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.

Just tell that to your mom, or girlfriend.
seriously.

---

So the recap so far:

Cellar: Single mothers who've been impregnated by their deadbeat teenager boyfriends raise criminals, hence women who make as much money as men and divorce them because they're abusive drunks/ cheaters are the cause of social decline in the world. +random insults@musician/world

Musician: Here's my link. Here's my link. Here's my link. READ MY LINK, READ IT, READ IT , READ THE FUCKING LINK, PIRATE DROP HAS NOT CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING DAMN YOU I'LL KILL YOU.

funnay

---

At 12/25/07 12:03 AM, Musician wrote:

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.

I've seen plenty of articles that you have thrown around, please use one for this particular purpose.

And don't get mad at me please, i like to work in reverse [it's a good way to solve math problems IMO] and assuming you are correct atleast 80+% proving this should be a peice of cake. And cellardoor won't be able to argue with you.

---

At 12/25/07 11:57 AM, poxpower wrote: So the recap so far:

Cellar: Single mothers who've been impregnated by their deadbeat teenager boyfriends raise criminals, hence women who make as much money as men and divorce them because they're abusive drunks/ cheaters are the cause of social decline in the world. +random insults@musician/world

Nope, more like "untraditional families are bad for society because there is proof that women who work are not only more likely to divorce, but cause negative effects on their children that are only exceeded by the negative effects wrought by divorce (insert links that validate that position)"

Musician: Here's my link. Here's my link. Here's my link. READ MY LINK, READ IT, READ IT , READ THE FUCKING LINK, PIRATE DROP HAS NOT CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING DAMN YOU I'LL KILL YOU.

More like..

Musician: "Here's 2 links, they are the only ones that validate my points but I'm going to keep ignoring the plethora of facts you've provided, and repeat these links, after criticizing you for repeating yours, because I have no argument and I want to get revenge for a recent argument in which I was completely and conclusively proved wrong."

funnay

Quite.

---

At 12/24/07 06:57 PM, Musician wrote: Cellardoor I've already addressed and disproven all the arguments you continue to bring up.

Lol, nope. In fact you've been getting proved wrong so many times it's hilarious you say that, especially after you continue to ignore several links I provided that were new.

You argue that working women are more likely to be divorced

Because it's true:

Working women are more than three times more likely to be divorced than their stay-at-home counterparts, research published this week reveals.

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.

but you don't recognize that it can't be directly correlated to faults in the woman.

Apparently it can be, I've already proved it but you ignored it, yet again.

Now let's recap:

You gave this link when you said:

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.

-----------

You ignored that the article you linked to says:

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

------

The funny thing is, this only helped me out and set back your argument. Not only have I already proved that working women are more likely to initiate divorce and get divorced, but the very link you used - that you THOUGHT provided unrelated reasons for divorce - actually states causes in which 2/3 can be shown to be affected by women working.

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.

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

Absolutely, because you cannot prove that anything else is causing it, you have not provided a shred of proof about an alternate cause of divorce that can actually be applied to the argument as a major, significant influence on the chances for divorce. You've shown other more complex causes exist (which was obvious anyway), but you haven't shown the significance of it in all marriages that lead to divorce, nor in the specific marriages where wives work that are 3 times as likely to fail. You'd need to do at least the latter to counter my argument. But, of course, you can't.

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

Prove it.

What you're doing right now is creating a wider, unsubstantiated claim based on a single issue that said one of the problems that working women causes is insecure husbands. You didn't prove the statistical significance of it on how it actually effects the numbers... which show women who work are 3 times more likely to divorce than those who don't. And you also continue to ignore that women initiate 66%-75% of all marriages.

Now, unless you can prove that it's the behavior of the men that is causing these divorces that are discussed, your argument holds absolutely no water because I have proof, which I've provided, that working wives are significantly more likely to divorce, and the factors being measured are the work status of the women, and the rate of divorce. This is showing that working wives are bad for marriages; statistically it is better for a marriage if women don't work.

And this would remain true even if you did manage to prove that husbands are the ones causing the divorce in marriages where the wife works. Which you haven't done and can't do anyway. Simply latching on to a single reference to the behavior of men that includes no statistical analysis of its impact on divorce is not going to work.

---

Then you argue that female headed households lead to detrimental effects

Because I proved it.

Let's go through the facts again:

Working women more likely to seek divorce:

Working women are more than three times more likely to be divorced than their stay-at-home counterparts, research published this week reveals.

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.

Working mothers' link to school failure

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

The long-term study for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, based on over 1,200 young people, says that where mothers went back to full-time work children were less likely to achieve A-levels.

There were also links between both parents of pre-school children working full-time and an increase in psychological problems in adulthood.

Although the working patterns of fathers exerted an influence on pupils' achievement, researchers claimed that maternal employment had a much greater impact.

--------

Get that? The employment of the mother has a greater [negative] impact.

Furthermore.

Working mothers damage to their child's health

This one made me laugh:

Working mothers have "fatter children"

Researchers found a direct correlation between working mothers and obese children.

The offspring of mothers who work long hours have less access to healthy foods and physical activity and are more likely to be found in front of the television set, the study suggests.

Study links working mothers to slower learning

Adding fuel to the debate over mothers who work, a new analysis of the largest government child-care study has found that early maternal employment has negative effects on children's intellectual development.

''What we found was that when mothers worked more than 30 hours by the time their children were 9 months old, those children, on average, did not do as well on school-readiness tests when they were 3 years old,'' said Jeanne Brooks-Gunn of Columbia's Teachers College, the lead author of the study. ''In other work we've done, we've seen that those negative effects of early full-time maternal employment persist among children who are 7 or 8.''

despite the fact that the majority of female headed households are single mother households

Yes, and these cause ALL SORTS of problems:

"Children from mother-only families have less of an ability to delay gratification and poorer impulse control (that is, control over anger and sexual gratification.) These children also have a weaker sense of conscience or sense of right and wrong."
Source: E.M. Hetherington and B. Martin, "Family Interaction" in H.C. Quay and J.S. Werry (eds.), Psychopathological Disorders of Childhood. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1979)

Forty-three percent of prison inmates grew up in a single-parent household -- 39 percent with their mothers, 4 percent with their fathers
Source: US Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of State Prison Inmates. 1991

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes
85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: Center for Disease Control)
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978.)
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes (Source: Rainbows for all God`s Children.)
70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992)

-------

The majority of these problems are linked to single-mother families.

which generally have the same problems as single father households.

Apparently not.

And so here we are at your last pathetic attempt to defend your case

You mean yet another example of how my case completely and utterly defeats your own and you systematically ignore all the areas you were proved wrong like you always do?

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.

The link you provided mentioned 3 of the biggest reasons; time, sex, and money. I proved that 2 of those things are negatively impacted by working wives.

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

Yes, and that's why emphasized the 2 first ones.

That's 2/3 baby.

It only fortifies the fact that marriage with a working wife is much more likely to fail.

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.

LOL

You can't prove that families where the wife is the breadwinner and the husband is the homemaker are as or more successful in the first place. No can you prove they are common enough to sway the statistics that have already completely compromised, in fact - OBLITERATED your entire argument.

This is another example of how you can't even address the context and nuance of the issue.

It's a FACT that marriages with working wives are more likely to fail. it's a FACT that working mothers cause problems for their children. It's a FACT that divorces are HORRIBLE for children, and that the increase in divorce rate is mirrored by the increase in proportion of divorces being initiated by women, which mirrors the amount of women who work while marriaged.

All interconnected, all showing a negative affect on society.

All things you keep ignoring and continue to argue against, even though you know it's true, simply because you're DESPERATELY trying to salvage your pride after getting disproved in prior debates, especailly the most recent and most notable, right here.

How interesting, the study says that a working couple has negative effect on both the wife and the husband.

Yes, this only helps my argument. I've been stating the whole time that it is better for the man to work and the wife not to for a cohesive, functioning family.

---

which suggests that it's not working women that has a negative effect on the relationship, but rather working couples in general.

First of all, I've already proved that working women cause a problem.

Secondly (which I'm almost positive you're going to completely ignore) the impact is apparently much worse for women, especially mothers, than it is for the men:

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.

And this that relates to both kid and the marriage itself

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.

Which of course supports my argument.

HAHAH WHAT?

Actually it completely obliterates your argument because you've been arguing that dual-income working couples are good this whole time. I've been arguing AGAINST this idea, and have argued all along that the best family is the traditional family.

Overall it's pretty clear to me that you have no real evidence to link female leadership to relationship failure.

Even though I've already proved it, and you have failed miserably at trying to claim otherwise.

You have a lot of shiny links, but as I've proven, none of them really support your point.

Actually I've not only my links, but your links to validate my argument and obliterate yours at the same time. You've only provided one or two credible or applicable things this whole time. The rest of your argument is just a lot of your imagination; you'll latch on to something and use it to argue a larger point that is COMPLETELY unsubstantiated and unsupported by those very things you latch on to.

---

Anyway, this is getting cyclical. Your points keep getting discredited, you keep having your points batted down one after the next and you know it. But you keep arguing a lost argument, because as is typical with you, you care more about your stake in the argument than you actually do about the facts.

You're just getting boring now. I'm done.

---

Oooh, quadruple post... got yer dander up, have we?

But poor, poor cellar... still mistaking the symptoms for the disease. Still unwilling to realize that correlation is not causation. Still unwilling to admit that there are factors you haven't considered. Still trying to win via Argumentum ad Nauseum or Proof by Assertion (Wiki it).

But hey... your wife will be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen where she belongs, because it's "natural". You should be proud to carry on our beloved traditions.

---

At 12/26/07 01:43 AM, Ravariel wrote: Oooh, quadruple post... got yer dander up, have we?

But poor, poor cellar... still mistaking the symptoms for the disease.

Ravariel, the 29 year old student whose learning disabilities are apparent not only because of his late-student status, but also due the fact that he can't even attempt to fathom facts that shatter his fragile little mindset.

Ravariel, a small-minded, late-blooming bottom feeder who is so blinded by bias that he simply overlooks all that is said and takes a stance based on predetermined desire to bash certain users who he has lost to in former arguments.

Still unwilling to realize that correlation is not causation.

You're unwilling to realize that I showed correlation and causation at the same time.

Still unwilling to admit that there are factors you haven't considered.

Factors that nobody has shown to be significant or to have an overriding affect in marriages in which the wife works.

Still trying to win via Argumentum ad Nauseum or Proof by Assertion (Wiki it).

And you're still resorting to Ad Hominem as the sole source of your argument in the issue, in which you jump into a debate against someone who is already arguing other people, and focus your entire participation on the personal attributes of that person.

That's how pathetic you are. You're so damaged personally because you embarrass yourself in real debates, that you have a lingering bias against a single user that causes you to perpetually devote several posts just to that person alone, while making little of any mention of the topic in the entire process.

---

So just for fun, let's try and find some of these facts:

- What's the average man-only household?
.....why is he alone?
.....what's his salary?
.....what's his age?
.....where's the woman?

-What's the average woman-only household?
....same questions.

When a divorce occurs, who fights to keep the kids? When is it that man who wants the kids, and when is it the woman?

What are some societies where women are predominantly household leaders? If any?
If there aren't, why is that? Has there ever been any, and what happened?

All you've shown is that women who are financially stable will divorce more often than women who are not, which is full of good sense and has only become possible recently as women have started earning the same money as men and getting into the same jobs.
You've not shown that it's those same women who raise their kids poorly.

Can you show that single men of equal financial and social standing as a single woman will raise his kids better?

---

At 12/26/07 02:01 AM, poxpower wrote: All you've shown is that women who are financially stable will divorce more often than women who are not

Yep, and therefore marriages where the woman works are more likely to fail. And this is by 3 times, not just by some marginal percentage... we're talking about a 300% increase in likelihood. I've also shown that women working is bad for their children, if they have them, in addition to the fact that the divorce itself causes all kinds of negative side effects on the children.

So it doesn't matter if there is some super complex underlying factor, because the facts are OVERWHELMINGLY validating my point that traditional marriages are healthier.

You've not shown that it's those same women who raise their kids poorly.

That doesn't matter, because the fact that they are working causes problems for their children, increases the chances that they are going to get divorced, and as I've shown, fractured homes are incredibly bad for kids.

I'm not saying women are inferior in caring for children as an inherent characteristic. I'm saying that if someone values their marriage, wishes to make it last, and wants to do what's absolutely best for their children, they would be much more likely to achieve this if they have a traditional family.

Can you show that single men of equal financial and social standing as a single woman will raise his kids better?

No, and that's not even my point.

I'm saying what the marriage should be like to be more functional, more likely to survive, and better for the kids.

It doesn't matter what the myriad, intangible causes are for the difference between sexes in raising children, providing for themselves and others in society, and so forth.

You're missing the point. I'm not arguing that women are inferior or how or why or anything, I'm simply showing the facts that the traditional family is better for marriages, and better for children based on the overwhelming proof that regardless of the possible unmeasurable factors, the FACTS show that traditional marriages are healthier.

---

At 12/26/07 01:57 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Ravariel, the 29 year old student whose learning disabilities are apparent not only because of his late-student status, but also due the fact that he can't even attempt to fathom facts that shatter his fragile little mindset.

Oh, my. Going the "omg ur retarded" route? Pure class, right there.

Ravariel, a small-minded, late-blooming bottom feeder who is so blinded by bias that he simply overlooks all that is said and takes a stance based on predetermined desire to bash certain users who he has lost to in former arguments.

AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA! Wow, you really can't see past your own nose, can you?

You're unwilling to realize that I showed correlation and causation at the same time.

Because you haven't. You've shown a myriad of statistics that prove nothing. Working women and divorce rates? Not a causal factor, merely a catalytic one. All the bullshit on single-mother families: irrelevant. Your OWN STATISTICS showed that women who made over 75% of the wages in the household had no significantly greater risk of divorce. Something you've ignored the entire time.

None of your links show ANYTHING relating to the original topic (which I'm not entirely certain you even remember), which is whether or not a matriarchal household is any different than a patriarchal one. Guess what: working and wage earning have NOTHING to do with that. A matriarch can as easily stay home with the kids as go work. But your view of what constitutes the "leader" is so myopic that you don't actually realize that you can lead from any "position" in a household.

You don't get that women who are subjugated will obviously be less inclined to initiate divorce... and yet you parade the statistic of this around like it's a goddamn GOOD thing. As men are more likely to do shit divorce-worthy, the correlation between higher wages and higher divorce rates and higher rates of divorce instigated by women becomes more clear.

You're good at FINDING statistics... however, you're very very bad at reading them. But hey, just insult my intelligence and my integrity and tell yourself that that means you "win". Or you could fill another four posts with links you've already linked to. That means you "win", too.

Factors that nobody has shown to be significant or to have an overriding affect in marriages in which the wife works.

Again, mistaking the symptom for the disease.

And you're still resorting to Ad Hominem as the sole source of your argument in the issue,

lolirony.

in which you jump into a debate against someone who is already arguing other people,

Sorry... wasn't aware I couldn't join an ongoing discussion with my take on the issue. So solly.

and focus your entire participation on the personal attributes of that person.

...followed instantly by:

That's how pathetic you are. You're so damaged personally blahblahblah

You are a walking self-contradictory irony factory, you know that?

NOONE here makes more Ad-Hominem attacks than you. Noone. And you DARE try to say that it's all I do? And then you dare question anyone's integrity?

If nothing else, you've got balls.

---

At 12/26/07 02:13 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Yep, and therefore marriages where the woman works are more likely to fail. And this is by 3 times, not just by some marginal percentage... we're talking about a 300% increase in likelihood. I've also shown that women working is bad for their children, if they have them, in addition to the fact that the divorce itself causes all kinds of negative side effects on the children.

But isn't the reverse true?
What's the percentage of stay-at-home dads who divorce their wife compared to the percentage of dads who make all the money, or dads who work along with their wives?

I bet that exactly 0 stay-at-home dad has ever divorced a woman, thus "proving" that men should never work. Man I wouldn't divorce my wife if she made all the cash, that would kick ass.

You've not shown that it's those same women who raise their kids poorly.

That doesn't matter, because the fact that they are working causes problems for their children,

Again, reverse is probably true. I bet that even if the woman stays at home, the more the dad works, the worse it is for the kids, thus "proving" that men should work as little as possible.

I'm not saying women are inferior in caring for children as an inherent characteristic. I'm saying that if someone values their marriage, wishes to make it last, and wants to do what's absolutely best for their children, they would be much more likely to achieve this if they have a traditional family.

Well the problem is that the traditional family puts the man as the independent one and the woman as the dependent one, and there is no real way to actually KNOW what society would be like if the "traditional" family had always been working women and stay-at-home dads.
All I see in your stats is that men are usually more likely to have careers, thus forcing women who want divorces into harder situations and forcing women who want to work to also work with their spouse, because the man won't abandon his career for his kids, something a woman is much more likely to do because of societal influences rather than financial reasons or competence as a leader or whatever.

the FACTS show that traditional marriages are healthier.

You're highly suggesting that it is WOMEN who should work less to ensure that a marriage works better, which puts them at the mercy of the man.
If the guy is a douche, the woman gets dumped and falls into the statistic of "single-woman head of household" where she has no cash and must work long hours to feed her kids because she doesn't have 10 years of experience in some accounting firm. Result? Kid 10 times more likely to be a fucked-up criminal, and the fault in the stats will lie with the woman, while in fact is will be the man's.

This has been the model forever and it is still like that in the more ass-backwards countries where women and kids routinely gets abused by the men. It's extremely crucial to keep it a CHOICE because if men start taking for granted that their wife stays at home, trading in her freedom, then the relation WILL turn into one of domination, it's only natural.

So basically that's why you don't elect a person who openly states that it would be great if women stayed at home and men made the money.

---

At 12/26/07 02:23 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 12/26/07 01:57 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Ravariel, the 29 year old student whose learning disabilities are apparent not only because of his late-student status, but also due the fact that he can't even attempt to fathom facts that shatter his fragile little mindset.

Oh, my. Going the "omg ur retarded" route? Pure class, right there.

Lol look what you're doing right now...

It's funny how overtly hypocritical you are in everything you say. You enter a thread, devote your entire participation simply around ad hominem, no real argument about the issue, and then you criticize for questioning your intelligence.

AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA! Wow, you really can't see past your own nose, can you?

You really have a problem with thinking don't you?

You're unwilling to realize that I showed correlation and causation at the same time.

Because you haven't.

I have, and you know it.

Be honest for once in your life. You're saying what you're saying right now because you WANT me to be wrong, and you want to pretend that I am because that is your entire purpose.

You have no care at all about the topic, and you will ignore all the facts I provide because you've already made up your mind and have no desire to be confused with any facts.

You've shown a myriad of statistics that prove nothing.

I've shown a myriad of statistics that prove the entire basis of my argument.

Traditional families are better, for marriages, and for children.

Working women and divorce rates? Not a causal factor, merely a catalytic one.

Working women have 3 times the divorce rate as non-working women.

That by itself is an ENORMOUSLY significant difference.

However, what seals the validity of this is that the 3 main causes of divorce in the link provided by musican, 2 of them I proved to be highly problems that are also affected by working women.

I doubt you even read it all. In fact, I'm positive you didn't.

All the bullshit on single-mother families: irrelevant.

Yup, more proof you're absolutely positively full of shit.

Your OWN STATISTICS showed that women who made over 75% of the wages in the household had no significantly greater risk of divorce.

Irrelevant.

Something you've ignored the entire time.

That's because it's actually irrelevant due to how marginal it is given the fact that regardless of the income level, women who work while married have 3 times the divorce rate.

Now, I'd like you to put your money where your fucking mouth is for once and go and find some stats that show that the amount of marriages where the woman makes 75% of the household income are common enough to sway the FACT that women who work, are much more likely to divorce, period.

None of your links show ANYTHING relating to the original topic (which I'm not entirely certain you even remember), which is whether or not a matriarchal household is any different than a patriarchal one. Guess what: working and wage earning have NOTHING to do with that.

A matriarch can as easily stay home with the kids as go work.

Holly hell, this is excellent proof of how you didn't care to read it all. I showed that mothers themselves that work say they don't want to, say they want more time with their kids, say it makes them take out their stress on their family. And this is in addition to the fact that I showed that it has detrimental effects to kids educationally, emotionally, and physically for fuck sake.

You're good at FINDING statistics... however, you're very very bad at reading them.

Lol, that's funny because you just proved you didn't read much of anything I posted.

But hey, just insult my intelligence and my integrity and tell yourself that that means you "win". Or you could fill another four posts with links you've already linked to. That means you "win", too.

I won, because I actually proved my case.

I showed that statistically, marriages where the wife doesn't work is better. This shows that traditional families, which happen to be patriarchal with the man as the breadwinner, are much healthier for the marriage (if the goal is to preserve it) and for the children.

Again, mistaking the symptom for the disease.

Again, mistaking the fact that the overwhelming evidence shows that regardless of what the cause of the diseases is, marriages with working women are more likely to fail, and are not good for children.

And you're still resorting to Ad Hominem as the sole source of your argument in the issue,

lolirony.

HAHAHA

Do you actually think about the things you say?

I've been arguing the issue the whole time. You jumped into a thread and posted a few posts that had nothing to do with the thread but everything to do with what YOU thought of ME.

---

At 12/26/07 02:39 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 12/26/07 02:13 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Yep, and therefore marriages where the woman works are more likely to fail. And this is by 3 times, not just by some marginal percentage... we're talking about a 300% increase in likelihood. I've also shown that women working is bad for their children, if they have them, in addition to the fact that the divorce itself causes all kinds of negative side effects on the children.

But isn't the reverse true?

Prove that it's true.

What's the percentage of stay-at-home dads who divorce their wife compared to the percentage of dads who make all the money, or dads who work along with their wives?

Find it, and find that it's significant enough to sway the facts I've provided.

You and I both know that such marriages are rare, therefore it's irrelevant. It will be irrelevant even if you show that if the roles are switched, families will have the same rate of failure, divorce etc..

Because I've showed that statistically, traditional families are more successful, period.

All you're doing now is getting into a sex vs. sex issue that I don't care about because I'm talking about the facts about marriage, what works (statistically) and what doesn't.

---

At 12/26/07 03:02 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Your OWN STATISTICS showed that women who made over 75% of the wages in the household had no significantly greater risk of divorce.

Irrelevant.

It's extremely relevant, in fact, that one statistics proves more than your entire "myriad of links" combined, because is shows that households with women breadmakers are NOT significantly more likely end it divorce compared to "natural" families.

---

At 12/26/07 03:06 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Prove that it's true.

I don't know if it's true or not, but you can't reach any conclusions until you also know.

Find it, and find that it's significant enough to sway the facts I've provided.

Ok I'll try tomorrow if musician doesn't do it.

Because I've showed that statistically, traditional families are more successful, period.

I don't think that's what the other dude was arguing, he was clearly under the impression ( as I am ) that you're pushing the woman into the "must take care of kids" role without knowing all we should know before affirming this.

---

At 12/26/07 03:14 AM, Musician wrote:

At 12/26/07 03:02 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Your OWN STATISTICS showed that women who made over 75% of the wages in the household had no significantly greater risk of divorce.

Irrelevant.

It's extremely relevant

Nope, actually it's not because you haven't proved the significance of it in marriages.

in fact, that one statistics proves more than your entire "myriad of links" combined

I think that's your way of saying "I'm a coward who can't address your links, so I'll latch on to a single thing and suggest it's proof"

because is shows that households with women breadmakers are NOT significantly more likely end it divorce compared to "natural" families.

Lol you just said "breadmakers".

Breadwinners.

Anyway, you'd have to show that these are common in order to say that statistically women are better off being breadwinners than being housewives and so forth in order to negate the FACTS that women who work are more likely to get divorced by three times, and that their work has detrimental effects on children.

You'd have to show that these are common among marriages in which the wife works, in order to say that the traditional family is not the wisest choice if the goal is a healthy, lasting marriage and healthy, well-brought-up children.

I'm sure there's families that work out fine with the woman as the breadwinner and the man as the caretaker of children. However, this are rare, and based on the facts, the traditional family is much more effective.

---

At 12/26/07 03:34 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: I'm sure there's families that work out fine with the woman as the breadwinner and the man as the caretaker of children. However, this are rare, and based on the facts, the traditional family is much more effective.

... than the typical family in which the wife works*, based on the statistics.

Thus making the traditional family the best bet.

---

At 12/26/07 02:23 AM, Ravariel wrote: You don't get that women who are subjugated will obviously be less inclined to initiate divorce... and yet you parade the statistic of this around like it's a goddamn GOOD thing. As men are more likely to do shit divorce-worthy, the correlation between higher wages and higher divorce rates and higher rates of divorce instigated by women becomes more clear.

Oh please. Subjugated women? Unless we're talking about Muslim marriages or forced marriage cults, you're going pretty far out there.

Women are just as likely to cheat (every guy that cheats...there's a girl who cheats too). Finances are also an issue. You're just tossing out prejudice as objective fact here.

---

At 12/26/07 03:35 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: ... than the typical family in which the wife works*, based on the statistics.

Thus making the traditional family the best bet.

I think you're also taking liberties as well cellar. The traditional family is the nuclear family. I think you're trying to overstate your case here. While there is certainly ironclad evidence that a two parent family tends to be better for a child than a one parent family, I think the evidence that a woman earning money (or even being the primary earner) contributes to divorce...is weak. When someone is career driven, their spouse (and kids) feel like they are taking a back seat to the job. This causes estrangement and drives a wedge in the marriage. It's not the money so much as it is the commitment to the job taking priority over the commitment to loved ones.

---

GUYS LISTEN: I'm going to teach you something about debating tactics here.

Try to remember the point you're getting at. When you get into really long posting, you give your opponent the opportunity to re-direct the argument as he sees fit. What was the original trigger that set off this mess? Cellar's claim that a woman was the "junior partner" in a relationship.

Now you're stuck arguing over statistics. How did that happen? Let me explain.

Cellar's argument is composed of two parts

1) A household where the man is the primary breadwinner is healthier and more stable
2) Because of this, women should be considered a junior partner in the relationship

Number one made you angry because it flagrantly goes against principles of equality and so forth. However, when we get into this, logic leads to one conclusion while looking at statistics leads to another. You can argue for days and not get anywhere (which is what happened here).

However, even if we assume that this first one is true due to everyone on the face of the Earth being a fucking moron who can't cope with anything other than tradition, Cellar's argument is still not in the clear. We still have the second point, which tries to connect the statistics to the conclusion.

However, upon examination, the second point is a complete non-sequitur, as I pointed out on the last page. Even if point one is true, point two does not automatically follow from it.

So, my question to you is, why are you people getting mired in the first point, which is steeped with circumstantial evidence, instead of just going straight for the throat?

---

At 12/26/07 03:14 AM, Musician wrote:

At 12/26/07 03:02 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Your OWN STATISTICS showed that women who made over 75% of the wages in the household had no significantly greater risk of divorce.

Irrelevant.

It's extremely relevant, in fact, that one statistics proves more than your entire "myriad of links" combined, because is shows that households with women breadmakers are NOT significantly more likely end it divorce compared to "natural" families.

Respond to me.

[Scroll up]

I won't stop bothering you; sorry, it's for the good of the people.

---

At 12/26/07 03:34 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

stuff

Ok so I've done research, can't find much about stay-at-home dad stats mainly because they're not that common yet.

In any case, all you've shown is that when women work more, the kids suffer, and your conclusion is that a traditional family would be better. What you don't consider is that the roles can be reversed and I can't find anything that says that this is bad.

So yes, to affirm that the "traditional" family as you see it, i.e. men make the money, and women stay at home, you need to prove that stay-at-home dads are lousy parents.

I can't do it, I can't find any relevant stats on them, but still the burden of proof lies with you if you're ready to affirm that women should be the ones staying home.

Personally, I think women are probably better single parents emotionally, but dads are better single-parents financially, I don't know which of the two makes worse kids and at what age, neither do you anyways.

---

Guys read my damn post. IT IS FUCKING GENIUS DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME.

---

At 12/26/07 11:40 AM, Elfer wrote: Guys read my damn post. IT IS FUCKING GENIUS DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME.

ok FAINE

At 12/26/07 09:32 AM, Elfer wrote:

Number one made you angry because it flagrantly goes against principles of equality and so forth. However, when we get into this, logic leads to one conclusion while looking at statistics leads to another.

No, all the stats I remember were only talking about one issue, that being that women who work alongside the man ( both parents, then ) make for worse families.
Which is a self-evidence. At this point I don't remember what musician was talking about either.

However, even if we assume that this first one is true

The first one IS true, however they both failed to find ( as did I ) any facts about households where the woman is the moneymaker while the man is not.

What cellar is doing is comparing a family where both parents work with a family where only one parent works, then he goes on to assume that single-parent households comprised of women create more criminals, but ignoring a mountain of facts that can influence this and depend on the man.

Clearly, it would be better for NEITHER parent to work and both constantly care for the kid.
And clearly, it is better when only one parent works.

But if the debate is "should that parent be the woman or the man?" then I don't remember seing any evidence that strongly concludes it would be either, mostly because stay-at-home dad households are still too rare to make any assertions, just like gay households.

What we know from history is that a household where the man works and the woman takes care of kids has worked in the past, but things have changed so much that I don't think you can honestly apply those experiences to current society.
And it doesn't take into account the happiness of the parents either, only the success rate of raising kids properly, which also has so many factors besides the parent's sex that you couldn't make any conclusions unless you have like 50 charts.

So, my question to you is, why are you people getting mired in the first point, which is steeped with circumstantial evidence, instead of just going straight for the throat?

I don't think his second point exists.
He's not saying that woman are inferior, or second-in-command, but clearly if you say that they should be the ones not working, it puts them automatically in a position of dependance and gives the man enough leverage to be the "leader".

It's like saying that it's just as important to have people who pick up the trash on the curb every morning as it is to have doctors. While that's true, guess which one people would rather be.

---

At 12/26/07 12:00 PM, poxpower wrote: I don't think his second point exists.
He's not saying that woman are inferior, or second-in-command,

Third page, second post.

At 12/21/07 03:52 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: I believe that the natural order of a family entails a patriarch, the father and husband, to be the leader of the family.

The position of motherhood is equally important to fatherhood, and husband and wife are equal in importance. But they are partners, and the wife is the junior partner.

"Junior partner" seems to contradict the idea of "equal importance."

Saying that the man should take a leadership role and have authority solely by virtue of being the man also contradicts the idea that the two members of the relationship are equals. When one person gets the final say over another in all decisions, then one acts as a superior and the other acts as a subordinate.

Haven't you kids ever been in love?

---

At 12/26/07 01:19 PM, Elfer wrote:

When one person gets the final say over another in all decisions, then one acts as a superior and the other acts as a subordinate.

Yes, that's what I'm saying, but not because of an inherent inequality of the sexes, just because of the inequality of this relationship structure. Which is what I think he meant.

Or, in better words: He doesn't think women are inferior people, he's just saying they are better-suited to that particular role which necessarily puts them in the position of the dependant one through no fault of their own. If a man was in that position, he'd also be the "junior partner".

Only thing I think has not been demonstrated is is women should necessarily occupy the position of the stay-at-home parent, or the majority of the time. I think the numbers just aren't there to be found in light of the fact that we haven't had stable stay-at-home dad relationships for long enough.

---

At 12/26/07 03:55 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Oh please. Subjugated women? Unless we're talking about Muslim marriages or forced marriage cults, you're going pretty far out there.

Not really. In the most extreme cases, such as abusive and overly-controlling relationships (yes, they do exist, and are far more frequent than anyone wants to admit) it generally takes years (if ever) for the wife to come forward. The lighter the subjugation, the easier it is for a woman to get out from under it. And making money is one way to be able to get out of a bad marriage easier, because you can support yourself.

That's why all this talk of working women and divorce rates is bunk. Just because a woman isn't working doesn't make the relationship better it only means she can't divorce without some serious risk to her and possibly her children's welfare. The more she makes, the easier it is to do that. Both sexes are aware of this... hence the higher divorce rate.

Women are just as likely to cheat (every guy that cheats...there's a girl who cheats too). Finances are also an issue. You're just tossing out prejudice as objective fact here.

Actually... you're right. I double-checked and from what I can find... it's about even. Women from 40-60% cheat at some time in their relationship... men are from like 45-55% depending on the survey.

So I retract that statement.