Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Married couples now a minority in Tennessee

Marriage in decline:
The U.S. marriage rate dropped 14 percent between 1998 and 2008. Even Tennessee, which has some of the nation's higher marriage numbers, saw a 30 percent decline, from 82,947 marriages licenses requested in 1998 to 58,464 in 2008.


The article mentions that more services are needed, given all the single family households. I wonder how this will play out in terms of personal responsibility--will more and more of these households expect government entitlements?

30 Comments:

Blogger ZorroPrimo said...

Am I imagining things, or does every single book on marriage written by women neglect to state that men are not marrying because of the preposterously unfair legal structure leveled against men?

Venker & Schlafly's "The Flipside of Feminism." Carolyn Graglia's "Domestic Tranquility." Countless others.

Left wing or right wing, no woman wants to acknowledge what every MRA web site has on its banner: presumptive paternity and no-fault divorce are deal-breakers.

Why is this so hard for women to grasp?

Or is it just that no woman wants to set into motion the demise of their financial golden parachute when she decides to jump out of the plane?

I have always had a hard time swallowing the "Gov't-sponsored, feminist-driven financial redistribution scheme" concept that many men claim marriage really is, but the more I have been looking into the matter, the more marriage just looks like a way to keep her floating at his expense.

Sorry for the bleak cynicism, but the statistics on marriage kinda bear me out.

11:02 AM, May 10, 2011  
Blogger JG said...

" ... the more marriage just looks like a way to keep her floating at his expense."

---

Lots of men (not me) seem to not only accept it, they want a situation like that. Not the divorce part, the part where the woman sponges off the man in a marriage.

I really don't understand it, but I guess I don't have to.

11:24 AM, May 10, 2011  
Blogger Jay said...

Fewer marriage licenses does not necessarily mean fewer marriages. I got married recently and didn't ask anyone's permission except my bride's and her father's.

Of course, in this case, it probably really does mean fewer marriages. There just aren't many reasons to do it any more.

12:05 PM, May 10, 2011  
Blogger Mirwalk said...

@ JG
I think it has to do with the men needing to feel that she needs him. To maybe give himself a bargaining position in the marriage. She withdraws the sex in the marriage for a punishment or something to force a decision. The money usually is his. Of course this doesn't work out that often, but it may be the reason they think it should be that way.

12:51 PM, May 10, 2011  
Blogger DADvocate said...

"The single thing that would eliminate more poverty than anything else in this country would be if fathers in this country would marry the mothers of their children,"

How about if mothers marry the fathers? Of course, as Zorro points out, it's a no win situation for men to marry. Hell, paying child support, if you have to, is probably cheaper in the long run than losing half of everything and then some (because it will be more than half) when divorcing.

The services provided to single parents, mothers primarily, enable no marriage. The service providers help temporarily and hurt ultimately. Plus, in the one area where it should be for the kids, liberals demand it not be.

12:53 PM, May 10, 2011  
Blogger TMink said...

I think less marriage (less healthy marriages more accurately)will equal more expenses, entitlements included. For everyone involved, especially the kids. Kids who grow up without their father living in the house suffer so much. And the government will either incarcerate, feed, and/or support through bogus dissability claims those kids. Some they will house as well.

Remember when that used to be embarassing?

That seems like such a long time ago.

Trey

12:57 PM, May 10, 2011  
Blogger dr.alistair said...

as men, we tend to idealise women as these innocent flowers that must be protected, carried, sheltered and provided for as if they were children. i see this in men who have young daughters as well. the lttle darlings can be absolute monsters and daddy will pick them up, dry their tears and get that new bright shiney thing she spotted and latched on to. i see this in a few friends who pay escorts (sad, sad bastards) hundreds of dollars a night to sit in the coffee shop or got to a restaurant or go shopping (another few hundred) or in guys who carry their wive`s purse around the mall for hours...

are we somehow mis-directing this parental urge onto an adult version of a daughter somehow?

they don`t seem to mind so much though.

1:30 PM, May 10, 2011  
Blogger JG said...

I remember seeing a story about a "Romeo Bandit" kind of guy - he wooed an older woman who just coincidentally had money from her dead husband, and lots of it. He borrowed a ton of money from her after he gained her trust, then just moved on to the next rich old widow. Rinse, wash, repeat. Get some money out of the old bags.

He had to serve jail time.

I remember thinking at the time that that was just Standard Operating Procedure for lots of women. It's just normal for women to get things paid for, get gifts, not return borrowed money, even take cash without explicit permission with a giggle and move on when they damn well please to the next sucker.

1:37 PM, May 10, 2011  
Blogger JG said...

I guess the difference is: Women report men like that to the police, men marry women like that. And give them even more stuff.

1:40 PM, May 10, 2011  
Blogger ZorroPrimo said...

Slightly off-topic: The two single largest reasons I despise the American political left are (1) their historically and consistently imbecilic foreign policies and concomitant hatred of our military, and (2) their determination to eradicate the single-greatest unit of human energy that leads to civilization: marriage and its blossom, the nuclear family.

Other than that, they're just plain stupid. With those two, they're nothing but evil incarnate.

1:41 PM, May 10, 2011  
Blogger TMink said...

That and their allergic aversion to data and how things actually play out vs. how they hope they will work.

Trey

4:17 PM, May 10, 2011  
Blogger ZorroPrimo said...

Social engineeeeeeeeeeeeeeeringgggg!

CONSTRUCTING A BETTER AMERICA AND WORLD THROUGH THE USE OF ARROGANCE AND SELF-CONGRATULATION!

4:31 PM, May 10, 2011  
Blogger randian said...

Doesn't feminism teach us that single motherhood makes a woman empowered and independent? Why would an empowered, independent woman need, or even want, "free" government services? Doesn't she cherish her independence?

4:51 PM, May 10, 2011  
Blogger JG said...

The Gub'ment is her new boyfriend. And he can beat you up. And he's a lot richer than you will ever be.

4:52 PM, May 10, 2011  
Blogger JG said...

And she can also get money from chumps on the side, so it all works out.

Gub'ment the main boyfriend, though.

4:53 PM, May 10, 2011  
Blogger JG said...

Gub'ment doesn't care if you hump her. But Gub'ment gonna come looking for you if you get her pregnant. Oh yeah.

5:09 PM, May 10, 2011  
Blogger Cham said...

Helen and many of the posters are assuming the marriage rate is plummeting and the birth rate is staying steady. I have no idea what is going on in Tennessee, but in my area and in many other areas the birth rate is also decreasing right along with the marriage rate. All I get from the census numbers is that fewer people are marrying (US population currently is 51.3% married vs 54.4% in 2000, more people are never-married at 30.7% vs 27.1% in 2000, and 18% are widowed, divorced or separated vs 18.5% in 2000). The biggest change is that never-married percentage against the married percentage. To make any assumptions about whether we will need more "services" would be to find out whether any of these groups are becoming richer, poorer or staying the same, what the economic status of parents, and if there are fewer children being born overall.

5:54 PM, May 10, 2011  
Blogger ZorroPrimo said...

I won't claim to have studied the phenomenon for decades, but my gut tells me we need no services at all.

Correct the flaws within the structure and human nature will do the rest.

Women still want to get married...in ripping numbers. Men do not.

Clue #1.

6:32 PM, May 10, 2011  
Blogger DADvocate said...

bogus dissability claims

A female friend of mine works for a state entitlement program agency (as she puts it). Recently she told of how many welfare families have kids with some sort of disability, usually behavioral. She also described how she may take one of these kids to a doctor's appt, etc and they display no signs of a disability.

She works there because she needs a job, but despises the system and the corruption/dependence cycle it creates.

Today my 15 year old daughter went to get her nails done in preparation for her first high school prom. I had to wait 10 minutes when I picked her up. There were two young women there, together probably sisters, with no wedding rings and 3-4 kids between them. I didn't think about from where the financial support but, rather, what a pitiful childhood those kids will have with self-absorbed mothers and probably little fatherly presence in their lives.

I could go on for hours about self-absorbed, entitled women between the ages of 18-35 that I've come across. Some of them become familiar with reality when they get older.

7:26 PM, May 10, 2011  
Blogger Doom said...

About intervention...

If I had to guess (though it isn't really a guess) I would suggest that the problem IS government intervention. If the government wants to help it should extricate itself from the arena posthaste. Stripping tax laws, social work interventions, food stamps, and almost all other involvement between married men and women, and their children (and others as well). While it might get really ugly, really fast, and for a while, a balance would eventually take hold. A natural balance. Anything else, I am guessing (really guessing here, though based on reliable history) will only make matters worse.

Actually, this will occur one way or another. Either society, and the government, will hit a tipping point and collapse (though in which order I can't tell as they seem neck and neck in the race over the cliff). Or this society will become so weak it will simply not be able to tend laws on arcane books as foreign interlopers of one stripe or another will take over. Or the government will remove itself from family law and and the many interventions it is currently forcing. If it is failure or outside interference, neither will support the artifices of today's, let alone yesterday's, social norms.

Then again, like with me, it might already be far too late. Perhaps there is no medicine to fix the problems and only lumps remain.

1:27 AM, May 11, 2011  
Blogger TMink said...

"Recently she told of how many welfare families have kids with some sort of disability, usually behavioral."

Because people in the behavioral health fields are too often professional victimhood certifiers. I have had mothers, it has always been mothers, ask me to fill out disability paperwork for kids whose ADD is not as bad as mine.

If I don't get disability, and I don't because I don't deserve any, than neither do their kids. So they find another psychologist or social worker who helps them steal from those of us who work.

Trey

10:45 AM, May 11, 2011  
Blogger Cham said...

We all have the data to prove the marriage rate is decreasing. People are speculating as to why this is, but what don't have is anyone actually performing a competent study to what are the reasons for this. I have my opinion as do many other people, but opinions are opinions. I wonder what is preventing the statistic/data community from delving into this.

4:52 PM, May 11, 2011  
Blogger ZorroPrimo said...

@Cham:

See post #1 and use your imagination.

I don't know if it's true, but I came across a little factoid that stated that in the State of California, there have been a number of attempts to enact a law called "Marital Informed Consent." I'm sure you know what medical informed consent is, and this law (barely an expense to the state, and intended to reduce the number of divorces due to stupid people getting hitched for the wrong reasons) sought to get the husband and wife to study a prepared document that outlined the salient legal realities that would be in place in the event of a divorce. Wouldn't YOU want to know what might happen in divorce court before you signed on the dotted line? Isn't it wise to read the contract BEFORE signing it?

Sounds kinda intelligent, huh?

It was repeatedly defeated...by lobbyists from the National Organization of Women and other feminist groups.

Apparently, someone doesn't want someone else to know what's down the line if things go south.

Mystery solved.

5:51 PM, May 11, 2011  
Blogger ZorroPrimo said...

Personally, I'd love teh idea of "happily ever after," but the legal construct today merely facilitates predatory behavior in the relationship, and no-fault also puts women at disadvantage ("First Wives Club"-style dumping of the woman who raised your kids because your 28 y.o. secretary doesn't use the wrinkle cream your 55 y.o. wife does). So it cuts both ways. The divorce rate is a direct result of No-Fault.

Marriage is for religious people, the wealthy and idiots. Anyone else, particularly men, is asking for an ass-raping in family court.

5:56 PM, May 11, 2011  
Blogger TMink said...

"Marriage is for religious people, the wealthy and idiots."

Good point. It is interesting to me that some cvery conservative Christian ministers are refusing to marry people who get a state marriage license. I do not see how this changes the horrible legal system, as the marriages would be common law after awhile, but it is an interesting development.

Trey

11:09 AM, May 12, 2011  
Blogger ZorroPrimo said...

Trey: Wow! I never saw that coming. What do you think these ministers have against the "state" system. Are soc-con Christians going "marriage Galt?" (or rogue, or feral, so to speak)

3:14 PM, May 12, 2011  
Blogger Comment Monster said...

Read Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics." It will change you. If you can get a girl to read it, good luck on that, it could change everything.

10:06 PM, May 14, 2011  
Blogger kmg said...

ZorroPrimo,

Am I imagining things, or does every single book on marriage written by women neglect to state that men are not marrying because of the preposterously unfair legal structure leveled against men?

No imagining, you are absolutely correct.

What is funny is that every MRA/PUA blogger says this every day, yet these women are too dense to listen.

The good news is that women will be too baffled to know what is happening.

1:33 AM, May 17, 2011  
Blogger kmg said...

The funny thing is....

Feminism, far from making women equal, has actually exposed female inferiority for all to see. Many aspects of female inferiority would not be noticed if not for feminism MAKING us notice them, by forcing women to do things they are ill-suited for.

1:38 AM, May 17, 2011  
Blogger kmg said...

Zorro,

Why is this so hard for women to grasp?

Bcause women don't understand cause and effect very well. They are no better than 7-year-old boys in this regard.

Here is a fun experiment : go ask various women about a simple cause and effect scenario, like what happens if a particular government policy is enacted. Most women will have no ability to forsee consequences that men could easily predict.

That is why no women are in fields that involve complex predictions, like hedge fund managers, etc.

1:42 AM, May 17, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home