One way to solve the gender pay gap.

https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-09-04

I've been told that gender is a social construct. So, there is no gender pay, right?

Ha ha.

https://rottentomatoes.com/m/dave_chappelle_sticks_and_stones

Not a good look.

Stephens may be the first person in history to publicly illustrate both the Streisand Effect and Godwin’s Law in a single episode.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a28892307/david-karpf-bret-stephens-bedbug-nyt-column-response/

Feature, not a bug. They simply don't care if it plays in Peoria or not.

At a campaign event in South Carolina last week, an attendee noted how Germany is considering a 19% meat tax to fight climate change, and asked Sanders if he would support one to “ensure that Americans limit their consumption of animal products?”

“You’re right,” the Vermont Democrat responded. “We’ve got to look at agriculture, we’ve got to look at every cause of the crisis that we face.”

Yeah. A meat tax will be a big hit with members of the weekend barbecue crowd who have to carefully manage their food budgets.

https://issuesinsights.com/2019/09/04/dems-aim-to-win-back-working-class-with-a-meat-tax/

On the other hand, if the Dems want to slap a tax on that gods accursed yeller sauce Skarelinians slather on their meat, I'm OK with that.

Be careful what you wish for. Democrats looking for ways to attack Donald Trump have been licking their chops at the prospect of a James Mattis tell-all memoir. Unfortunately for them, Mattis has indeed written such a book, but it tells all about Mattis’ observations of their front runner, Joe Biden, and his former boss Barack Obama.

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/09/03/mattis-wont-believe-obama-biden-bungled-iraq-allowed-rise-isis/

"The Not-So-Great Reason Divorce Rates Are Declining: What’s changed isn’t marriage, but the types of people who are likeliest to get married."

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-not-so-great-reason-divorce-rates-are-declining?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Thankfully, it's not as negative as it sounds.

Lenona,

"Thankfully, it's not as negative as it sounds."

It's more negative than it sounds! Couples are de-coupling at increasing rates, and society is deprived of the benefits of stable relationships. Fewer divorces, yes, but due to fewer marriages, and weaker male-female relationships overall, which does not make for a happy and prosperous society. Just look at the changes in the black "community" since the gubmint started "helping" black families by providing incentives to kick men out of the household.

I considered selling my weapons “back” to the government, but after a background check and thorough investigation into the buyer, I determined the buyer has a history of violence and is mentally unstable. Big risk to everyone around it.

https://twitter.com/JMaloneyLiberty/status/1169247061860147205

Marriage, as currently constituted in the USofA is a really bad deal for men.

#MGTOW

As I stole from some comedian, If I wanted to get married, I could speed the process up if found a woman I dislike, buy her a house and give her half my stuff.

At least that cuts out the lawyers.

> if found a woman I dislike,
> buy her a house

Naked cynicism of that magnitude conveys no deeper truth.

There's no way your intended irony pays off rhetorically— Why are you marrying a woman you dislike? Why is the kind who would accept, in pursuit of your union, being 'bought a house' even in the running for your lifetime alliance?

Men's rights types always come across like feckless, cowardly, needy ninnies.

Fucking communists.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/3/deceiving-sky-reveals-how-china-steals-tech-secret/

And shame on Boeing.

What communists can’t do, they steal, or cheat or bribe. Remember that anytime someone defends this piece of shit
Political ideology.

Well, that’s gonna leave a mark.

https://people.com/human-interest/conversion-therapy-founder-comes-out-as-gay/

History of Europe, Animated in 12 minutes.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UY9P0QSxlnI#

Compliments to Gustav Holst.

Hurricane Dorian is sending bricks of cocaine to Florida beaches

https://www.koaa.com/news/national/hurricane-dorian-is-sending-bricks-of-cocaine-to-florida-beaches

Rollin' with the Big Boys

"If I wanted to get married, I could speed the process up if found a woman I dislike, buy her a house and give her half my stuff."
_____________________________________

That was Georgia humorist Lewis Grizzard (1946-1994).

Also known for saying "Sex hasn't been the same since women started enjoying it."

I suspect he wasn't really joking, re the latter.

It's more negative than it sounds!
_______________________________________

I disagree. The article pointed out that getting married early, the old-fashioned way, doesn't help couples stay together, especially if the two people involved aren't financially stable - or if they never finished academic or trade school. So, young people are giving themselves more time to think before getting hitched - and maybe slowly and carefully determining their sexual and financial compatibility as well. (Whereas less than a century ago, parents often sent their sons to college but not their daughters - and even ordered their daughters to stay at home till they married, which didn't help their ability to become independent, if necessary. I have it from a good source that many women who married before WWII will tell you they got married "so I could leave home." Not to mention that in the 1950s, refusing to marry or not WANTING children just wasn't done, and the marriage age for women was likely the lowest in the 20th century. That would help to explain the soaring divorce rates in the 1960s and 1970s.)

*I* would argue that having compatible financial attitudes is probably even MORE important than wanting the same sexual habits in one's spouse.

And if men - or women - don't see the point in getting married IF they don't want children, well, having children in this century is a two-edged sword for the economy. Whether it's bad for childfree people not to marry is a different discussion.

than wanting the same sexual habits in one's spouse.
______________________________________

Correction: "than having the same sexual habits in one's spouse."

Well, that’s gonna leave a mark.

human-interest/conversion-therapy-founder-comes-out-as-gay/

Yeah but what kind?

For years 'teh gays' and leftists have been claiming that conversion therapy is prime facia evidence of homophobia on the part of heteros

If this is true that would mean conversion therapy is not the fault of evil straight white men looking to oppress minorities

"For years 'teh gays' and leftists have been claiming that conversion therapy is prime facia evidence of homophobia on the part of heteros"

Remember when Jesus said kidnap the gays and brainwash them until they like girls instead?

"“just over half of women in their early 40s with a high-school degree or less education are married, compared to three-quarters of women with a bachelor’s degree.”

Chen connects this trend to the decline of well-paying jobs for those without college degrees, which, he argues, makes it harder to form more stable relationships." ~Lenona's Link

And that shows Chen doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. Measured in constant terms there are more 'well-paying jobs' out there today than 50 years ago. Yet the marriage rate and divorce rate are higher.

Lenona, you keep missing the forest for the trees on this issue. The raise of divorce in the 70s is directly related to the implementation of no-fault divorce. It became very easy to divorce so more people did it. As for people who get married later in life having more stable marriages, so what? That isn't significant on this issue because people aren't just waiting to get married. They aren't getting married period. Look at the statistic from Chen I quoted at the top. Women in their 40s would be those later in life types. Yet 40% of them aren't married. (1-(0.50*0.7+0.75*0.3)=42.5% not married) Chen tries to make things complicated but really it isn't. Fewer people are getting married which is the majority cause of few people getting divorce. If you never married you can't get divorced. Simple as that.

"Men's rights types always come across like feckless, cowardly, needy ninnies." ~Crid

And yet Crid isn't married and to my knowledge has no kids. He has chosen the MIGTOW life. Odd parallels with that conversion therapy guy.

He has chosen the MIGTOW life.
_____________________________________

Um, no. He's mentioned his girlfriend at least once. Don't make assumptions.

And I didn't say no-fault divorce had nothing to do with the divorce rate in the 1970s. I would merely argue that there's a very good reason that only a handful of fundies, these days, seem to think it's a good - or at least harmless - idea to get married (and expect to STAY married) before you're even old enough to have graduated college yet.

Not to mention that even if a loving couple chooses never to have kids, marriage brings all sorts of serious responsibilities with it that too many people never think about until they happen. Such as those caused by premature Alzheimer's or a horrible accident that means the victim can never work again. So, those who DO consider them in advance may conclude that it's "better to be alone than to wish you were."

" the marriage age for women was likely the lowest in the 20th century. That would help to explain the soaring divorce rates in the 1960s and 1970s." ~Lenona

No fault divorce was first enacted in the US in California in 1969. Prior to that the divorce rate was rising. In 1960 it was around 9 per 1000 married women. By 1968 it was 11. Not much change but rising. After no fault and irreconcilable differences divorce became legal it jumped to 23 by 1980. The median marriage age did jump over that time frame, which doesn't match with your theory. But it is also irrelevant. The rising age was mainly due to second and third marriages. The median marriage age for first marriages for women (the trend lines are the same for both genders, men just get married later) was 20 in 1950, 20 in 1960, 21 in 1970, 22 in 1980. This does not support your theory Lenona. A difference between 20 and 22 is unlikely to make much difference and it is going the wrong way.

You may be right about the bump in divorce in the 40s. Though I would expect that was caused by WW2.

All that aside, the statistical likelihood of a given marriage ending in divorce has not changed since 1975. It is the same chance today as it was then. The fall in the raw divorce rate is purely due to the fall in the marriage rate. People getting married later in life, economic changes, changes in who gets married, all of it has had zero effect. Your risk of divorce is still the same as it was 40 years ago. People just aren't getting married as often.

Something else to consider: According to historian Stephanie Coontz (re the 1950s): "Young people were not taught how to 'say no,' they were simply handed wedding rings."

I'd assume that one reason for that was that society was anxious for a baby boom anyway, given the human cost of WWII - and the shortage of young men.

So, given that teens could not easily get the Pill before the 1970s (even unmarried women had trouble before Eisenstadt vs. Baird, in 1972), shotgun marriages would help explain why the average age for first-time marriage was that low, for so long.

Just because no-fault divorce exists does not mean that every couple who marries is likely to get divorced on a WHIM, per se. Getting married only because "we have to" doesn't suggest happiness in the future.

Btw, in Judy Blume's 1972 YA novel about divorce, the cause is never made clear to young readers, but many adults would say it's obvious; there are three children and all of them were likely unplanned, given their ages, the mother's age, and the unspoken possibility that the mother was on the Pill the third time but forgot to take it. Unplanned children are no trivial matter, emotionally speaking.

"Just because no-fault divorce exists does not mean that every couple who marries is likely to get divorced on a WHIM, per se." ~Lenona

I never said that. But no fault and irreconcilable differences greatly lowered the bar to getting a divorce. It made it possible for people unhappy with their marriages for a wide variety of reasons to get a divorce. Certainly some of those reasons were foolish whims. At the same time many people had very good reasons to divorce that were not legally approved.

Those changes in law are pretty much solely responsible for the increase in the divorce rate. Age at marriage and such weren't significant contributing factors. Fictional novels aren't a valid counter argument to this reality.

That aside I personally find it fascinating how consistent the divorce rate has been. Since 1980 roughly 50% of marriages end in divorce. Certain groups (older, higher education, income, etc) had a lower risk of divorce but as the demographics of who gets married and who doesn't have changed over the years the average hasn't moved. Instead those lower risk groups have consistently seen their risk of divorce rise as higher risk groups stopped getting married.

That is why I called Chen naive. He is assuming the risk in the sub-populations doesn't change over time. But that has already been shown to be a false assumption.

I find this even more interesting when you break things out by racial demographics. African Americans have the same risk of divorce as pretty much anyone else. But back in the 80s they stopped getting married. The never married rate was mostly under 10% (1940 was a bump). Then in 1980 it started to climb. In 2016 the black never married rate was 50%. It is probably higher today. It has risen each census. When you plot the black and white never married rates on the same chart you get the same curve just time delayed for the whites.

What happened in 1980 that turned African Americans against marriage? I don't know. I've seen people blame the drug war and the sharp increase in the number of black men in prison. It tracks statistically for the start of things. But after 2000 things fall apart. Why are whites turning against marriage? I'm convinced it is because so many of them grew up in divorced homes and see little reason to bother with marriage. But that is just my opinion.

And through all of this that sticky statistic holds true for both ethnic groups. 50% of marriages still end in divorce. Even after 50% of the people never get married. Those 50% who still decided to get married are no better at picking a partner and forming a stable marriage.

At the same time many people had very good reasons to divorce that were not legally approved.
___________________________________________

Such as?

Besides, being stuck in a miserable marriage is very often NOT preferable to divorce, even if both spouses have agreed to sleep around as they please. Just because fewer divorces used to happen doesn't mean that should have been the case. Many spouses didn't divorce because they had no money to live separately. So even if violence was happening, they stayed married.
___________________________________________

Fictional novels aren't a valid counter argument to this reality.
____________________________________________

Maybe not, but everyone knows that a good novelist will at least TRY to be realistic whenever possible and do the proper research. (Besides, she was born in 1938, so she likely knew a LOT of couples who got married only because "they had to.") Blume certainly did her research; she quoted from Dr. Richard A. Gardner's very popular juvenile book on divorce more than once.

Quote: "Fathers who live close by but do not visit and fathers who live far away and hardly ever call or write either do not love their children at all, or the love them very little."

So there's no reason to believe her novel wasn't a good bellwether, re the causes of divorce.

At any rate, I think it would be foolish to suggest that any ONE reason is to blame for the marriage rate's going down or for the DESIRE for divorce going up. I can think of at least three more very significant reasons.

1. We've all heard that money problems are one of the leading causes of divorce. So the death of thrift in American society would have certainly aggravated those problems - big time. Some would argue that thrift started to die in the 1950s, when people were living in the shadow of the bomb and thus chose to wallow in material goods and hedonism whenever possible, and those habits slowly but surely got worse ever since then. (For one thing, reporters said that one big difference between the first Woodstock festival and the 1989 festival was that at the first, while there was plenty of garbage left, it was REAL garbage, almost nothing valuable. "Waste not, want not." Whereas at the second, more than 200 tents were left behind, along with backpacks and who knows what else. The young owners were just too lazy to take them back - and likely hadn't been the ones who bought them anyway.)

2. Putting children first instead of the marriage. (This is RAMPANT, according to the media.) Putting the marriage first is just common sense. What else will you have when the child leaves, after all? Making kids do a certain amount of growing up on their own is not wrong or unfair. Not to mention the constant reluctance to make kids do anything that might make them cry, such as telling them to eat what they're served, do their homework/chores, say things like "thank you" or "I'm sorry," which brings us to the next point...

3. The constant erosion of good manners, which got unfairly condemned as "elitist." (Trouble is, of course, people DO use etiquette as a weapon of snobbery, just as language can be used to curse people out. That doesn't make either one inherently bad.)

From Miss Manners, Feb. 12, 1995:

"...All right, children, if the idea of combining romance with good manners is so funny, please explain something to Miss Manners:

"Why is it that when love dies of nonviolent causes, the cause of death is always cited as some form of inconsiderate behavior?

"Why is it that the birth of love is always accompanied by a burst of courteous behavior?

"And what happens in between?

"The accounts Miss Manners hears of love gone flat rarely mention the word 'etiquette.' They go something like this:

"'When I first knew her, she was always cheerful and made an effort to look great, and seemed interested in everything. i don't know what happened.'

"Or, 'He didn't used to go around looking like a slob and criticizing everything and making fun of my friends. But that was before he started taking me for granted.'

"...Miss Manners is less interested in who started lowering standards than the fact that they did get lowered. At the beginning, both lovers were on their best behavior (or what passes for that in today's no-frills relationships), and each liked the effect enough to want to live with the other on intimate terms.

"At that point, the idea kicked in that intimacy is incompatible with etiquette. Such pernicious thoughts appeared as 'Now we can relax; we needn't be so self-conscious' and 'We should always be totally open and frank with each other' and "I can really be myself with you.'...

"...Certainly the etiquette of intimacy is different from that of early acquaintance. Otherwise, nobody would ever get to pick up a chicken bone or spend a day in a comfy old bathrobe.

"But informal etiquette is still within the realm of manners. That is to say, it still exhibits consideration of others - and even laces that with such charming conventions as pretending to be interested in what the other person has to say, or to consider the other person worth making a fuss about.

"Otherwise, people who behave politely during early courtship, and then turn rude with the excuse that they are only being themselves, are committing fraud. That wasn't the self the other person signed on to love..."

Oh, yes - here's another big one:

Ann Landers, July 06, 1993

Dear Ann Landers: I recently read your column about divorce being too easy to get. I believe that is a mistake. The real problem is that it is too easy to get married. There are places where people can get married the same day they take their blood tested. I have heard that some states don’t even require a blood test. When people are in a hurry, they go across the state line so they don’t have to wait. Why do they do this? Because they are afraid if they don’t get married at once, the fish will get away. Well, I have news for them. If love is here to stay, it will be here today, tomorrow, next week, next month or even next year. If people would take a little more time to get to know each other before they marry, there wouldn’t be so many divorces. There should be a law in all states that makes it mandatory to be officially engaged for at least six months. That means couples should apply for a marriage license, and if they are still together six months later, they should be allowed to get married. This would certainly do a lot to knock down the horrendous number of divorces. I am speaking from experience, Ann. If I’d had to wait six months, I would never have hurried and would have avoided a very nasty divorce.
— Learned the Hard Way

Dear Hard Way: The laws vary by state. Some states demand a waiting period from the time a marriage license is requested until it is granted. In my opinion, this requirement should be adopted in every state in the union.

That is amazing Lenona. You've refuted statistics, facts, and history with fictional narratives and dreams. What can I say? There is no way to refute random thoughts in your head.