New York Times Article "51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse" Is A Lie
Like most everyone who still has a head on his shoulders, I was taken aback by the New York Times Article, “51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse“, by one Sam Roberts.
It seems the Times comes under fire quite often for publishing disinformation, and this article is no exception. Fortunately, Peter J. Smith, a writer for LifeSite, did his homework and figured out the article is a lie. His article “New York Times Gets Another Story Very Wrong – This Time it’s about Marriage” sets the record straight:
“Roberts creates his own analysis by using the Census Bureau’s “Living Arrangements of Persons 15 Years Old and Over by Selected Characteristicsâ€, by including in his 51% figure of women living without a spouse: unmarried teenage and college girls still living with their parents, women whose husbands work out of town, are institutionalized, or are separated from husbands serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Perhaps most disturbing is how blatantly Roberts’ claims are at variance with US census bureau statistics. Among marriageable women over 18 years old, 56.9% of women are married, with 53% having a spouse present, 1.4% with a spouse absent, 9.9% widowed, and 11.5% divorced. Yet, 67.3% of women 30-34, and 70.5% of women 35-39 are married, a far cry from the profiles of women offered by the Times of women finding fulfillment outside marriage. …
“Obviously 97% of women between the ages of 15 and 19 are never married!†Medved fumed. “What does it tell you when he’s including girls living home with their parents as single women and then uses that to create this lie that the majority of women are unmarried?â€
So why would the New York Times lie about marriage statistics? In my analysis, feminists wish to create the appearance that women are not marrying, so that women won’t marry. Feminists spent the last 45 years trying to convince women that marriage is a trap built by control-obessed men who are all dangerous, and that sexual liberation means having children out of wedlock with as many men as possible to maximize child support entitlements. This fooled a lot of women by appealing to fear or selfishness, but it has not fooled them all.
It seems that feminists are trying a new approach — treating women like cows — figuring they can trick even more women to follow them into the swamp of impoverished victimization.
The Times article might also be an attempt to convince Democrats in Congress that feminists now hold the majority of women’s votes — and should therefore be catered to with mindless care. I have news for Congress on this level: Republicans were just unseated partially because they ignored the wishes of moderate and right wing voters, who put Republicans in power in the 1994 landslide with a strong “family values” mandate. PROWA and VAWA are greatly disliked by a large majority of voters. A great majority of responsible women do not like it. Most women in the welfare state feel stuck in it, but are not inured to it. Most would like a way out — namely a marriagiable man who has not been destroyed by the welfare state.
However, debunking the Times article does not mean that all is well. 43.1% of women of marital age are not married. This is a tremendous problem which translates into our even more serious problems such as father-absence, teen and parental suicide, teen crime and violence, poor school performance, poverty for women and children and of the elderly, the child support dilemma, and lack of health care coverage. This problem is threatening the American Experiment, making it impossible fight a robust war on terror while maintaining a consistent budgetary surplus.
The fact is this: marriage is not entitled in any way. But there are many federal programs that actively disentitle it based on orchestrated feminist theories, thus destroying it. The answer is this: Federal government must stop interfering in the marriage market. Permanent entitlements must be ended, and welfare must be reformed to function as a temporary public tithe — as it functioned prior to 1974.
I would not buy the New York Times even if I was completely out of fish wrap and my parakeet had to sit on bare cold rusty-crusty metal. But I would sure buy this internet publication if it were for sale in my town.
Perhaps you might want to register your consumer opinion with The New York Times:
Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Chairman & Publisher:
publisher@nytimes.com
Scott H. Heekin-Canedy, President, General Manager
president@nytimes.com
————————————————-
David R. Usher is Senior Policy Analyst for the True Equality Network and President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition
————————————————-
| More from David R. Usher
Stumble It!
January 28th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Well welcome to the party KVolz. Thats just the way it is. And if you own your own business my friend its MUCH worse. A slalary, at least in my state, is not an asset, so alimony is the downside, a business however is an asset which routinely 60% gets awarded away.
January 28th, 2007 at 8:25 am
That is terrible. With so much money given to the wife, how the heck is the man supposed to live off the remaining money?
What I also don’t understand is why any man would have to dish out money for her. Child support, I can see to an extent, but once a couple is divorced, the women should fend for herself like the man does.
January 28th, 2007 at 6:25 am
Family court, yes indeed. I went with a coworker to family court just for support. As we watched case after case, any thought in my head of “possibly” getting married in the future was snuffed out.
Please, before you marry, just visit Family Court for one hour. You’ll see guys who make $24,000 per year be ordered to pay their ex $13,500 per year PLUS child support of an additional $7,500.
The women leave smiling and motivated. The men walk out as if they are facing eternal damnation. The family court decisions are unfair and often the obligations are impossible to meet.
Go to Family Court, just to see for yourself. You can sleep with women, enjoy being with them, even spoil them rotten; just DO NOT marry them. It would be different if they just killed you if a marriage failed, but they set things up so you pay huge amounts every month to someone you don’t even want to know anymore.
“Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
January 25th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
“The later posts regarding divorce simply don’t make sense.”
Perhaps the later posts did not to you – perhaps you’re a slow learner….;-)
“First, they appear to assume that in every marriage, the man brings significantly more assets and/or earning power into the marriage than the woman.”
LOL…. You are the type of reader who requires extensive use of disclaimers. You will rarely see the use of words like “all” or “every” in terms of describing relationships like marriage.
While it’s true that SOME men earn less than their wives do…. those relationships are still by far the minority of marriages for several reasons:
- For starters, women GENERALLY prefer to marry men who earn more than they do – even “liberated” women.
- Men tend to hold the lions’ share of top-earning positions because that’s their key to a good life (see my first point). Relatively few women TOLERATE carrying a greater financial burden than their husbands.
- Many women previously working full-time and earning more than their husbands become part-time workers (or leave the workforce entirely) after birth of any children.
“Further, just as men sometimes pay spousal support and/or child support, women are liable for the same if income and/or custody discrepancies exist that favor the woman, and they do end up paying in some cases.”
Sure… and man bites dog sometimes…. but whom do you believe pays spousal support and/or child support in the vast majority of cases?
Get a grip, please. Mentioning exceptions to “the way things are” in no way overtturns general assumptions about vaginamony payments, child support, or the economic fundamentals of MOST of America’s marriages.
January 25th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
First, I’m glad that there are individuals out there fact-checking stories such as this. While I think the Times does provide some good journalism, I also have serious issues with some of the stories I read there. The statistical analysis used by Roberts is obscenely misleading.
That said, I can’t agree with Usher’s interpretation of the story. While I met my share of anti-marriage “riot grrrls” as an undergraduate, the vast majority of women I have known have wanted to get married, and it has been the men who have balked. If there is truly a feminist conspiracy aimed at getting women not to marry, it has clearly worked far better on men than women — and the hypocrisy of decrying women who choose not to marry while reserving comment on men who make the same choice is readily apparent.
The later posts regarding divorce simply don’t make sense. First, they appear to assume that in every marriage, the man brings significantly more assets and/or earning power into the marriage than the woman. As an attorney who does some divorce work, I can tell you this is certainly not the case. I practice in an upper-middle-class area and I frequently consult with female clients who have higher-paying jobs, their own businesses, etc. who are trying to get out of marriages to men who are abusive, or men who are only sporadically employed. The statement that women “need not rely on their husband’s moral fiber for anything” is simply absurd.
Further, just as men sometimes pay spousal support and/or child support, women are liable for the same if income and/or custody discrepancies exist that favor the woman, and they do end up paying in some cases. Conversely, men do not always pay spousal support, particularly in situations where the parties have similar earning capacities.
I understand that many on this website probably have firmly entrenched ideas about “the way things are.” However, as an individual with experience in these matters, I have to point out that my experience in reality — not in theory — does not bear out many of the assumptions I see here.
January 25th, 2007 at 2:08 am
KVolz said:
The point is not that marriage is without benefits to both parties. The point is about options, and who has them. Just because you choose to have an egalitarian relationship does not mean you are required or otherwise bound to have an egalitarian relationship. A man must rely on his wife’s goodwill, good graces, and good character in order to avoid being fleeced by her. But a woman need not rely on her husband’s moral fiber for anything. It is simply her option to exercise her Trump Card whenever it suits her. Timing bad for a divorce? She can wait if she chooses. Timing good for a divorce? It’s up to her. Is she devoted to her husband, and does she honor her vows? Perhaps… but forsaking her marriage for material gain is her option, not his.
It all comes down to options. Just because you have the moral mettle to NOT exercise your options does not mean you don’t have them. And that is the central point.
January 24th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
The divorce statistics are amazing. Look at the difference between the United States and our immediate neighbor to the South (Mexico). The difference is huge. Absolutely huge.
January 24th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
I do not require a study to conclude that when a government consistently rewards one party in a unilateral divorce, there will be more single and divorced citizens.
America has one of the highest divorce rates in the world. The world has about 220 countries.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_div_rat-people-divorce-rate
With the truth known at the end of the day, which man would risk losing his children, property, liberty, and eighteen years of much of his income in a partnership?
The Internet has helped take the power away from a feminist centered media The Internet has helps to disseminate the truth of marriage and divorce. Thanks mensnewsdaily.com
Alos sitting one morning at your county’s family courthouse Monday through Wednesday is equally informative.
January 24th, 2007 at 5:25 am
Fourthwire, thanks for the input. One of the things I like about “you guys” is that I know you won’t say what someone wants to hear. You say what you think. It is very refreshing. It is enlightening to hear what men (and sometimes women) think without wondering if they are serious, or if they are just trying to make you like them
I really did not try to make it so personal. I try not to be the type that is an attention getter. I was just trying to prove a point. But I agree with you, Fourthwire. I was just a little frustrated. My husband does not do the traditional man things, such as fix things. I do that, too. But to say he does nothing is mean. I’m sure if most women looked at their man they could find some things that he does. Comfort her when she feels down, help solve problems, buy gifts for holidays, lol. It would be harsh to say that anyone does nothing. Sometimes you just have to look hard to figure out what he/she does, because you are so focused on what you do yourself. I will try to stop focusing on myself so much. That can only lead to destruction.
January 23rd, 2007 at 8:25 pm
“but do you really think that doing EVERYTHING and catering to my husband is not a disadvantage?”
No more than doing EVERYTHING and catering to his wife is a “disadvantage” for your husband, as the matter of fact.
Otherwise you would not likely bother to stay married……..
“If he were a bachelor, he would be cleaning his own apt, he would be cooking his meals, buying his groceries, running his errands, and he would have to have his driver’s license (he has none, never has).”
Leaving aside the fact that your husband apparently has no driver’s license (which indicates that your marriage is indeed a special-case), your efforts at cooking his meals, buying his groceries, running his errands fall within the norm of traditional female household chores.
Your statement that he does not handle his own financial affairs is also an indication that your husband is either too busy, incompetent at financial affairs, or that you dominate those affairs for your own reasons. And I’m not prying into your private life, either……
Presumably he handles more traditional male-oriented tasks, where YOU would benefit.
Over the past decades, as more and more women discarded all or select portions of traditionally female-oriented household tasks such as some of those that you’ve mentioned, men have typically been expected to continue those traditionally male-oriented tasks, such as those involving home repair, auto repair, yard work, trash removal, home defense, to name a few.
“Alright, I understand that COMPARED to what a lot of you men go through with divorce, those listed above are nothing.”
Bingo. And keep in mind that you are HIGHLY unlikely to be forced by courts to pay your husband (should you divorce) for past use of his services.
“I am just saying I am not at an advantage.”
You ARE at an advantage, simply because you are not vulnerable to the same types or magnitudes of risks as your husband is, as I pointed out earlier.
Mind you, the mere fact that you are posting on a forum such as Mensnewsdaily.com indicates that you are not a “typical” Western woman.
I do hope that in his own way that your husband caters to your needs and wants, just as you write that you cater to his.
January 23rd, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Compared to what you guys are talking about, maybe I have no disadvantages… but do you really think that doing EVERYTHING and catering to my husband is not a disadvantage? If he were a bachelor, he would be cleaning his own apt, he would be cooking his meals, buying his groceries, running his errands, and he would have to have his driver’s license (he has none, never has). He would be managing his money, doing his own taxes, etc….
Alright, I understand that COMPARED to what a lot of you men go through with divorce, those listed above are nothing. I am not trying to compare. I am just saying I am not at an advantage. If you disagree, that is fine. Compared to men having to give up their money and their children, my “problems” are nothing.
January 23rd, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Just how are you losing NOW?
And note that he not only has the potential for losing now, your husband, by dint of being born male and America’s institutionalized misandry bears the burden of risk through marriage from the moment that your marriage became official.
Men today have ZERO benefits from marriage that are not also available WITHOUT marriage. None. Zero. Nada.
Marriage provides substantial RISKS to men: financial, legal, and emotional risks………
For women, marriage provides benefits not available to them without marriage, as well as risks.
January 23rd, 2007 at 6:12 pm
I see your point, but you don’t see mine. I am losing NOW, whereas he has the potential of losing in the future (Which he won’t). Just in different ways.
January 22nd, 2007 at 11:23 pm
“You all talk as if you assume all women have children. What about those who have none (such as myself)? In my case, marriage is not a no-lose situation. If I divorced, I would get nothing… and, believe it or not, I would not want anything.”
Kvolz, in fact marriage IS a “no-lose” situation for you, since you do not bear those risks that your husband would legally and financially bear if you were to exercize your perogative to change your mind about any number of subjects including children, spousal fidelity, finances, and other lifestyle choices.
HE takes risks that you do not have to…. since he was born with a penis.
And while you fancy yourself to be an egalitarian soul in a marriage of equals, plenty of other women claim the same….. until they grow bored, or lose interest in sex, or any other number of reasons.
Haven’t you ever met women who claim to be “independent”, all the while accepting court-ordered vaginamony or child-support checks from their ex-husbands?
January 22nd, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Anna asks: “Do you honest feel that ALL women have to be married in order to be full fledged citizens and adults?”
Personally, yes. Most normal women. And men. And it isn’t a question of simply ‘feeling’. Think about it. It is part of the human condition, for women and men, that to be a fully fledged adult we need an intimate, loving committed relationship that lasts, in which the ‘other’ is held in an esteem higher than self or any other person, thing or activity, otherwise we cannot fully know ourselves. The psychological dynamics are well known and understood. (I could provide a seminar here but it would take up a lot of space).
It isn’t simply a ‘tradition’ that we marry. Marriage is an evolved, proven and cross-culturally common way in which such committed relationships are managed and supported. No other means has stood the test of times. No society without a marriage of substance and form, ceremony and commitment has ever survived. Ours will not either.
Our society seems to tell us that working is a prefered alternative to marriage. This is a drive, driving out the person, which suits a machine society where the individual is to be suppressed and forced into slavery to the State.
Women’s drive to be mothers, the producers of new people who are destined to be free and self-knowing humans, in a stabe and supportive permanent relationship, has been suppressed by the modern State as interferes with their ability to slave for production of things. Just look at the birth rate decline. Self knowledge, self actualisation, is way down the priority list for the State.
Our work has limited ability to show us the deep aspects of ourselves beyond simple talent or ability. Important though it might be to survival and societal advancement, work does not do what marriage does to our character and self knowledge.
It is only when we are able to fully trust and love a person that we are able to reveal things about ourselves that are hidden even from our own view. It is only another person that can see some aspects of our deep self that we are unable to see for ourselves, and report them to us, lovingly and with understanding and acceptance. The loving other provides the reward of trust which enables society and the individual to function. Without these aspects of self revealed and manifested we are unable to be the fully fledged adult she talks of.
All too often though, today, with huge pressures and encouragement, the rewards of trust are witheld and betrayal and rejection substituted. Such wholesale betrayal and rejection, encouraged by a ‘machine’ society, will destroy love, self and society.
Reading some of Anna’s words has me ‘feeling’ that she considers marriage a burden that women in general must escape from and I can see that for some it may be the case. These run not from a marriage but from seeing and knowing themselves, prefering the fantasy of imagined being. The flight from marriage is a disaster for society and for individual personal growth.
The NYT article revels in this disaster and destruction like a child throwing a gleeful fit of senselessness, hurling toys around the bedroom. The author grins inanely at their cleverness at breaking things of value.
That’s even before we consider the ‘best interests of the children’.
January 22nd, 2007 at 5:18 pm
You all talk as if you assume all women have children. What about those who have none (such as myself)? In my case, marriage is not a no-lose situation. If I divorced, I would get nothing… and, believe it or not, I would not want anything. I don’t feel entitled to anything that isn’t mine. I would only take what was mine. No money, no loss from my husband. And being married in my case is not appealing. I don’t feel like I’m winning. I take care of the finances, run errands, keep the house clean, cook. He does nothing. We both have equal jobs, split payments of bills, go dutch in every area. so he is NOT the “breadwinner”. I don’t take his money for my benefit. So saying that marriage is a no-lose situation for women is too general, and not always true.
January 22nd, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Mr. Usher writes:
“In my analysis, feminists wish to create the appearance that women are not marrying, so that women won’t marry.”
With all do respect, that analysis belongs at the bottom of your bird cage. Marriage has, and will continue to be the holy grail of career moves for women. There are few exceptions to this fantasy and desire for marriage. The entire female life and support cycle from Barbie to grave revolves around this premise. Feminist could care less how the dirty deeds are preformed, but they know dropping revenue resources when they see it.
Maybe, just maybe the NYT is inflating numbers not to deceive, but to warn women that they are losing ground in the extortion business. The exact numbers aren’t important, the trend is clear and women should be concerned. The primary vehicle for money is evaporating, and with DNA testing becoming more available to the extorted, the plan “B” bitches are left trying to extract biker chump change child support. It’s bad news all around for women these days.
Let’s assume for a split second that Mr. Ushers analysis is correct. That would suggest women influenced by this article would stop hassling boy friends over commitment and marriage. We could only wish for such things. Additionally, only an idiot would promote marriage in this day and age. I can’t help but laugh at Mr. Usher’s concerns over dwindling nuptials, this is great news as far as I’m concerned.
and, what the heck is this “Pro-marriage reform movement”? Something doesn’t sound quite right with that banner. That’s like putting up a big neon “Air-Conditioned” sign at the entrance to Auschwitz.
It appears that Mr. Usher is concerned over the falling attendance at this massacre, go figure.
N.
January 22nd, 2007 at 9:14 am
What I have been writing about are women of true character, conservative principles, and reject the way liberal women have raised their gangsta sons.
Hello Thurston,
Agreed. Nixon, despite his many flaws, had a saying about “the silent majority”. Perhaps it’s no longer a majority but there are many women (and men) who value the principles you have mentioned but they are not represented in the media or politics perhaps because they are so busy in the background. Like air and water.
In theory, there are plenty of good women to be found in all the demographic groups but when I was on the dating market in the states I found it difficult because even when the women were of decent character, they were incredibly passive.
Go overseas and the women are polite, well-mannered AND both approachable and even friendly. In the states, the women tend to be wallflowers and the good ones have to be weeded out of the ones who are hostile to being approached. Only in the states (at least until the EU recently caught on) could men lose their job for telling a woman she looks nice. (Just like that, no vulgar wording.)
January 22nd, 2007 at 9:09 am
Seems to me a repsonsible feminist propaganda outlet would stick to deriding men instead of proclaiming the wonders of female unattachment, however falsely.
That is because, as Mr. Dias points out, marriage is a no-lose situation for women. It’s now no more than a piece of paper that entitles women and lawyers to cash flow should she decide to cash in. She gets control of the children with or without marriage, because we like to pretend that all women are great parents and all men are not, and we make the children pay the price to maintain the illusion. Besides, its PC, and PC is more important than truth now, including the truth about what we are doing to children, especially to the likes of the editors and publisher at the NYT.
Other than through sheer ignorance or putting himself at very high risk hoping to benefit his children, why any male would willingly engage in such an arrangement as contemporary “marriage” is the more interesting question.
January 22nd, 2007 at 6:29 am
Feminism threw moral out the freakin window long ago.
“Committed relationship”? In the eyes of most State laws, this is just as good (for women) as marriage.
A smart man would bode well by standing clear.
TMOTS
January 22nd, 2007 at 4:53 am
In that case, noone should get married, they should just be in a committed relationship, so that if it ends, there will be no legal bindings… hahaha, most people would not buy into it. It is MORAL to marry, it is TRADTIONAL, so everybody should do it because that is what you are ’supposed’ to do. (I’m being sarcastic)
January 22nd, 2007 at 3:54 am
Seems to me that marriage provides no benefits to the husband, but only to the family and the wife. A breakup puts the man in the red. While married, there are plenty of benefits, and yet the option to dissolve the marriage portends greater benefits to the wife than to the husband. Accepting these constraints — stability and (hopefully) love, in exchange for power and options — is what men are faced with in consideration of marriage.
Does a man actually need marriage in order to achieve the benefits of marriage? And I’m not talking about the legal benefits granted by laws to married individuals — I mean intangible benefits. Does a man really need marriage in order to obtain the benefits commonly associated with it? He need only maintain a mental commitment to the relationship. In such a non-married scenario, you might say this is the case with his non-married female partner (she can also end the marriage on a whim), except being unmarried makes them both equals. Being married gives the wife all the options and all the leverage — namely, the options to end it with a jackpot at the end of the rainbow, with kids and house in tow.
January 21st, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Thurston 861 : “Theirs will be the first backlash. Theirs will be the first need for Truth, Honesty, Trust, Responsibility, Commitment, and Love. ”
These words have been redefined out of existence. They were held to ransom by academics and the lexographers couldn’t raise the pennies. They were slaughtered by such as the New York Times.
Words in Passing
We were not ready.
We were distracted.
Exhausted.
Battle had taken its toll
The Family faltered while
The children played.
Malevolent Smile.
She was Ready.
Definite. Ordered.
The Blue Pencil, poised.
Poisoned.
Flooding in, the swamp re-defined the land,
The familiar, the family, the Form.
The first was Fair, our childhood’s most cherished friend:
Resolver of squabbles, distributor, sharer,
Fair cared for all:
a string of rubies around her doomed, pale and lovely neck.
It was so sad.
They said it was consumption.
All used up, in tatters, shrouded,
she just faded away.
Next to go was that sturdy, quarrelsome Equality, which surprised us all
as he was so in demand, they said,
by all,
especially some;
aye, and relied upon.
For so many years a staunch friend and fighter.
His burial dressage, a white cheesecloth, yoked neck.
Naked beneath,
his scarred skin a testament.
Parchment.
Burned Beyond Recognition.
Truth tried hard.
Was Tried. Hard.
Derided, Derrida-ed,
denied existence;
perjured,
Falsely accused,
she struggled
as she was garrotted.
Died hard.
Soon after that, Justice
suicided off a nearby cliff.
Lover’s Leap, a place then
from which many a couple had gazed out,
seeking the broader vista.
Now has Disabled Access.
Was it in despair?
Perhaps sympathy with the others.
No-one saw her silent fall.
Was she pushed?
Who could gain?
Her handmaids will argue for a time and time,
billing innocents by the hour.
The old, wise man, Honour, lost his marbles, they said.
He languished as the village idiot for a while,
The butt of jokes and calumnies.
Taunted.
His body was found in a ditch one day.
Starvation.
They left it there.
The loss of these good companions all
has been followed now
by Liberty and Freedom,
two noble and leathery old soldiers.
They put on their dress uniforms, immaculate,
faced each other squarely and
blew each other’s brains out.
Such fine shots, both.
They left a note. Signed as written together.
They could no longer support the malignancy of the vile regime,
the note said.
They felt duty-bound to remove themselves
from further abuse,
the note said.
They took Duty with them.
An Altar was discovered in the woods
On which the charred bones of hermaphrodite Trust
Were found,
Sacrificed to Narcissus
Who had been elevated to the Pantheon.
Tears flowed down Olympus’ stony sides.
Even God cries.
The book closed.
After, there was Laughter, Music, Whine.
High pitched.
So much fun.
The departed were only words
After all.
Oppressive words.
Now dead.
Like Fathers.
Dead, white males.
What, three were maids?
So? Whatever, said the wenches.
No one noticed Love fall to her knees.
Her calls for help were drowned by song.
Trampled to death under dancing feet.
The last to succumb.
Four maids down.
The Impostor was on the scene quickly.
Ready, Definite.
Re-defined.
By Order. She said.
Scripted.
The Princess of Lies rides
over barren lands.
Long hair, spider-silk, chain-mail
down her back.
Across her breast,
Over her steed’s flank.
Hooves on skulls.
The children gabble and cry.
No words
describe
their pain.
They were
forbidden.
January 21st, 2007 at 9:00 pm
PolishKnight.
I thought I was very clear about the kind of person that conservative guys are looking for.
Strength, Values, Principled, Hardworking, and Character that edures suffering and struggle.
Self-sufficient individuals do not make up every individual of any particular group. That is a given.
What I have been writing about are women of true character, conservative principles, and reject the way liberal women have raised their gangsta sons.
January 21st, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Anna wrote and pontificated:
As for those who who choose not then, why can’t you just live and let live…and mind your own business?
Because… Anna, feminism is in bed with socialism and proclaims that the government should be a sugar daddy to provide for career women and their children. If you wanted society to mind it’s own business, then your ilk could go into the forest like Ted Kaczinski.
About black men and the gangsta culture: Let’s all remember, gentlemen, who raises these young boys: Black women and the Democratic welfare and education state. Black women are the most loyal Democratic demographic. So it doesn’t make sense to me why conservative white men who are frustrated with feminist white women would consider trying to fish in the professional black woman pond. They would probably be even MORE leftist than most white women (even if they did attend church religiously. Perhaps ESPECIALLY so.) After all, the revered Doctor Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. was a commie and race hustler.
January 21st, 2007 at 6:13 pm
David, I would also like to add poverty and jail for men to the below sentence.
“This is a tremendous problem which translates into our even more serious problems such as father-absence, teen and parental suicide, teen crime and violence, poor school performance, poverty for women and children and of the elderly, the child support dilemma, and lack of health care coverage.”
January 21st, 2007 at 5:25 pm
That is precisely your message David.
I will not depart standing with you regarding that message.
It will please you that the Black women I have mentioned knowing who found marriage to a Black man not to be a survivable option, greatly agree with you also.
They did not choose free sex. Nor did they choose illegitimate birth even though monitary entitlements are held out for the taking. Thus, they did not choose welfare.
Both, one by reason, the other by experience, concluded abstenence, chastity, independence, and hard work were the only certain and reasonable direction for physical, and emotional, health and survival.
Your reason and logic is echoed by these particular women. Their conclusions drawn from their own observations and understanding of the realities of their world.
It is not mere coincidence that these intelligent Black Females, who struggle to survive, have reached the same conclusion as the intelligent White Man named David R. Usher.
People seemingly at the opposite end of the spectrum in agreement.
I will dare to present this as direct evidence of the TRUTH that you stand for.
The heavy stone of the TRUTH is beginning to roll back on the feminists, as what would seemingly be their most opressed minority has awoken to the lie of the feminist solution.
Please remember Mr. Usher, that one day these women are still going to need a solution as they (like Star Parker) LEAD the revolution against the feminist Welfare state.
Theirs will be the first backlash. Theirs will be the first need for Truth, Honesty, Trust, Responsibility, Commitment, and Love. They racially face the Second War Front of the Black Male “Culcha.”
Do not forget to tell them of the Shattered and Victimized White Gentlemen who need women of Strength, Values, Principle, and Character.
Let Anna know that such Women are very desirable and are of the greatest value.
Let her know, and show her that the NY Times and its feminist ideals really does not care, becasue they do not care about Strength, Values, Principle, and Character.
January 21st, 2007 at 3:25 pm
The interesting thing here is revealed by the truth that if one keeps a mind that is too open, somebody will come along and fill it full of garbage. There are plenty of recovering feminists who can speak to this truth.
It is the failure to question everything, to do a “reality check”, that lead weak-willed women and feminist men (who are easily led around by the nose with the “liberated feminist” lure of unmitigated free sex), out of marriage and into the trap of big government.
January 21st, 2007 at 3:02 pm
should really proof my posts. I meant to use the word darned in the beginning.
The infectious rate in NC is refereing to the AIDS infection rate in NC of Black women. Fifty percent higher than in White women.
In this society where sexual promiscuity is equally marketed to all this is a very telling sign that terrifies intelligent women.
As for Dianaties I tried to make a reference to Princess Diana.
January 21st, 2007 at 2:55 pm
David, you might be trying to talk to me, not “Mark”.
Please look at my comment again, for if Anna is a Black woman, she might have some danred good reasons to not believe that marriage is a solution or a good way to go, if she is so racist to only consider Black Males.
I suspect that she is, because she has said that she has determined that she is better off without a (assumed Black) man.
There are serious problems with the dominate Black Male “culcha”of nano-pimps, gangstas, and stealth bisexuality which in NC is infecting Black women with in a disporportionate number to infections of white Females.
I after knowing two highly intelligent black females on two ends of the marriagable spectrum I cannot blame them for not considering marriage as something viable for them as long as they are racially exclusive.
Those variables aside, Anna’s position would be shallow and convenient. But please David, consider those variables as a reality, a deadly and mentally destructive reality.
As for Dynasties, there are industrial Dynasties as well as political and propoganda Dynasties. Th Royals of England even had their celebration ofiana joining and quietly made her go away.
The issue of the article was marriages and what women allegely want according to the skewed marxist feminist NYT. All Anna did was point out the difference between the LA times and NYT. I merely supported her observation by pointing out the different mentalities of the American Brahmin of the North East and the Disposible Neuvo Richie of LA.
That observation does nothing to say that the American Brahmin actually value marriage in any true capacity. Social/Economic Climbing is still the same whether done in NY or Buckingham Palace.
People have been selfishly using and disposing of people for a long time, and it still is not right.
You and I agree on that. Our disdain for a belief in feminine independence that makes divorce to be marketed as whimsical choice carrying no consequence to it is equally agreed.
But we are talking about a marriage that is as close to an ideal as possible being destroyed by an invading diseased logic.
For the Black woman, David, they do not even have a fair chance from the beginning, to even get married.
In my discussions with these two Black women that they do agree with the Values of marriage that have been prolifereated. They want a MAN, a REAL, HONEST, TRUTHFUL, and TRUSTWORTHY man.
Only in that is fulfillment, and actual marriage. But the Black Male Culture does not value the Black Female, nor does it VALUE the attributes written above.
Black Male Culture is missing Character and Value. Marriage into such cultre cannot be touted as a CORRECT, PROPER, HEALTHY, or HOPEFUL endeavor.
This is why my present Lady left the previous White boyfriend. He went Ghetto! He adopted all of the culture hook line and sinker.
The Black Male Culture is plainly the manifestation of an extreme view and behavior of men, its absolute rotteness and decay has victimized Blakc Females.
The White Marxist/Feminist Culture has wrought its rotteness and decay upon what was once a thriving and successful Society, it victimizes White Men.
One exhibits the Extreme Male position, and the other exhibits the extreme Female position. Both are projected with great sums of money upon our population placing the minds of the people into self-destructive dualism.
The victims in the middle are thinking, self-valuing, healthy, intelligent Black Females and White Men.
In the middle is the solution, for the extremes are unacceptable. In the middle are the victims alone, and acknowledging their need of companionship. friendship, love, and hope.
David, they will find each other. Please consider Anna as a victim of that extreme who is looking at the exterme opposite of the White Marxist/Feminist problem, and sees marrying that is no better than me jumping into another realtionship with a Marxist/Feminist Gold Digger.
January 21st, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Actually it was Michael Medved who broke this story. It’s well written:
Journalistic Malpractice in “Marriage is Dead” Report
By Michael Medved
Thursday, January 18, 2007
On Tuesday, January 16th, 2007, the American people awoke to startling and disturbing news: for the first time ever, the majority of women in the country were living without a husband.
All the TV networks, radio news broadcasts, pundits, talk show hosts and leading newspapers reported on the devastating milestone, and saw it as yet another indication of the ongoing collapse of the traditional family. Some commentators hailed this development as an encouraging sign of newfound freedom, while others decried it as a reflection of decadence and dysfunction.
With all the debate and pontification about the new minority status of married women, it’s just too bad that no significant media outlet (beyond this writer, on my nationally syndicated radio show) made the single most important and salient observation about the big news–
That is, it’s not true.
January 21st, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Mark, Anna’s points are shallow and convenient.
Hollywood is all about dynasty building, but in a different way. They do it with glam and pushing the limits of outrageousness. New Yorkers do it with big business and old money.
Either way, the ultra-rich can afford divorces and still afford a lavish lifestyle. They have few qualms about trading wives, husbands, diamonds, and Maseratis. But a lot of these high-profile divorces are still very ugly — particularly where children are involved. Divorce and illegitimacy deeply hurts the children of even the ultra-rich.
The average American family cannot afford to support two households, much less one. The average American family cannot afford a cash outlay of $25,000 minumum that a contested divorce costs. It is the entitlement of divorce and illegitimacy creating the illusion, in women’s minds, that divorce is a “no lose” proposition — that the average woman can act like Heather Mills — that is the problem destroying the average and low-income American family.
January 21st, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Anna has some points.
NYT v. LAT proves that New Yorkers have a High Society of old Blue Bloods who are interested in Family Dynasty Building. Neuvo Richie LA does not.
LA/Hollywood Divorce stories made Divorce a common word in America and introduced the disposible Family/Society.
Any coincidence there?
Now Anna, the NYT article is so skewed there can be nothing from it that can be taken to heart by anyone, except in your case where you wonder why they care at all.
In answer to your other observation you repeat the “the ole she’s got a j-o-b AND an m-a-n…so why don’t you?” line.
Your own words reveal some things.
First, that you have heard this line more than once because you remembered it.
Second, you have heard it enough times for it has had an effect on you enough for you to perform an opinion about it.
Third, having heard it enough times it reveals that a number of people around you saying it find a great value as a woman to have a M-A-N (which is by the way the most natural expression of Femaleness), and also know that those they are communicating it to agree with the value of such a situation a find such a position to be enviable or respectable.
Fourth, you hear this so much that it is old to you.
There may be a great number of reasons you do not agree with the statement.
There is no value, and no pride should be taken in having a man who is a drug addicted man-child, collecting welfare, nano-pimping a single woman, drug selling gangsta, and/or stealth bisexual.
Certainly there is no more intrinsic value in such a man than say an alimony/child support/ welfare collectiong, drug addicted, materialistic, polyamourous woman.
With these points in mind, having a M-A-N, or a W-O-M-A-N in ones respective life is a very subjective and reletivistic claim. Responding to such a claim with well known facts about the well known character of the claimants lover in an argument is usually the cause of violence and the arrival of the police.
People who are secure do not need to make such statements of fact that lead to such confrontations.
You can disagree with the statement as much as you want, but the fact remains that the elements are valued and envied by the majority of the recipients of the words. Otherwise, they would not be spoken.
This being the case, the fact is that the present day system is not condusive to helping women find a good man. The Welfare and Family Court State make them victims which eliminate them from being marriagable/economically viable.
They are throw aways, even if they had the character to remain with one woman and take care of the children for 14 years, the system that processes them does not leave a marriagable man as a by product of the due process of law provided. (Should make one wonder if the due process is about that mythological thing known as JUSTICE.)
The facts of the above two paragraphs may well explain the single comment in the whole article regarding Black Females (only 30% being married), which has so concerned Anna.
It is hard for anyone to see why that single comment “implies that black women are somehow not desirable marriage material.” nevertheless she received it that way, and of course the results do speak for themselves.
On the otherhand, the statistic might just be that the men who might deem a black woman to be good marriage material do not possess the means or personal selfworth to marry a black female 70% of the time.
Thus the statistic in itself says nothing about the character of the marriage viability of the Black Female Market, but only the potential consumers of that market, so to speak.
People being diverse the truth lies somewhere in between.
It has been my experience since bing the man who remained faithful and took care of the children in a 14 year marriage, and who is now the unmarriagable by product of due process of law, that the only hope for white guys like me is the arms of a hard working, conservative, independent-minded, Black woman.
Because they are racially disassociated by the diseased popular Black Male culture of irresponsible nano-pimping, gangsta, and/or stealth bi-sexuality.
They are psychologically and pathologically abused by such “culcha” and refuse to volunteer into it. They are of high standards that they are not going to even consider a M-A-N just because he is Black.
The salvation of their emotional lives may be State Abuse Victims like me; Divorced White Gentlemen, just as my lady now has found.
Because my lady is conservative, professional, hardworking and carries a high self-worth that keeps her standards high, she is above an beyond the Black Male Culcha. She is racially without a potential suitor, and struggles alone.
Because I am a State Abuse Victim at the hands of a self entitled materialistic White woman, I am now no longer economically viable for marriage by any similar white woman which makes up the vast majority of their Culture of princesses who will avoid struggle at all cost and will live hapily ever after.
We two racially disassociated indivduals have found each other, and despite the fact that neither one of us can do anything much for the other financially, we have truth, trust, honesty, love, and mutual emotional support as we share our struggles of what life has brought.
So perhaps Anna, the scourge of feminist/marxist divorce laws of our time has finally brought out the true character of the majority of white women (unwilling to bear the struggles of life), which will now result in a windfall blessing of opportunity of the so far alone and neglected Black Woman who has known nothing but struggle, saw character and value in herself to be her sole hope, yet longing for someone who will stand with her.
Perhaps culturally disaffected White Men, and culturally disaffected Black Women will find VALUE in each other’s struggle, see the mirror image of character in each other, and bring that statistic up revealing her shining VALUE.
With the facts of the market forces being what they are, the only reason why such a formula will not work is because the woman will not take on a hard working man who has struggles.
That will be her choice, as desirable and capable as she might be.
If she wants a life with no struggles, she can join the gold diggers in the family court system.
As with my lady and I, we have not much more than our struggles, but we have each other.
I think that there was a time before American Materialism and the Worldview Skewing Grand Delusion of Media that such was what most people understood marriage to be, and expected.
January 21st, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Anna,
If you want to have kids, and have the necessary help, income, health care benefits, a workable retirement income, love, and a safe community to live in, what else do you propose other than marriage that has not already been proven a failure?
Marriage should not be forced on anyone. What we need to do is to stop fooling women into thinking that marriage is unimportant or unnecessary. We must end entitlement of self-destructive personal choices.
Speak clearly now, or forever take the extreme spin elsewhere. It won’t work here.
January 21st, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Do you honest feel that ALL women have to be married in order to be full fledged citizens and adults? You seem to make a lot of presumptions about marriage being the perfect solution. I wonder just clear are YOU thinking right now? or are you just obsessed with the idea that somehow marriage is the only way? Well, folks will continue to get married…you don’t need to worry about that. As for those who who choose not then, why can’t you just live and let live…and mind your own business?
Well, it’s been real…ttyl
January 21st, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Sorry, Anna,
Caring about what happens to women and children is healthy and normal. This is what responsible men have done for thousands of years — and marriage is the one institution that handles all desires and needs of women, children, and men naturally.
Not caring about marriage, and what subsequently happens to women and children, is not normal.
Prioritization is the crucial element: big government has repetitively failed to replace marriage with big government. If you think most women would rather having to wait in line for a welfare check, would rather having to “do it all” on less money, and have their kids raised in a day care center while they have to work, while waiting for a Senator to fix the dishwasher, you are not thinking clearly.
January 21st, 2007 at 12:43 pm
No spin here, Mr. Usher. Just an opinion. I guess I wonder why does it bother you to have so many women unmarried? Why should it bother anyone? Marriage is a personal decision, not a decision to be made for business or societal reasons. 51% of women are unmarried…so what? 49% of women ARE married…or is it simply not enough that the entire female population isn’t subjugated by a wedding band? Trust me, I’ve been there done that where marriage is concerned…and I truly am better off on my own. The women are merely waking up to this. It’s MEN who are afraid of being old and alone…that’s why they insist on being married.
January 21st, 2007 at 12:37 pm
I don’t know if anyone noticed, but KVolz made an interesting point regarding the 51% figure. Given the demographics, it’s quite correct to point out that if 51% of women are unmarried, a significantly higher percentage of men must also be unmarried. And even if the 51% figure is a lie, the very fact that the numbers can be manipulated enough to make them appear that high is cause for concern.
If one looks at historical examples of cultures in which high percentages of males were left without mates, a disturbing and worrisome picture emerges. Such societies invariably degenerate into disarray. Males are the more aggressive of the sexes, and marriage helps to channel that aggression to productive purposes. There’s nothing like being responsible for, and close to, a couple of kids to focus a man’s energies, after all.
Without that focus, men tend to drop out of the mainstream, and indeed we are already seeing such a trend, even if the numbers aren’t as high as the Times claims. Just look at college enrollments. When men drop out of the mainstream, they cease to provide the intellect and active services that keep the infrastructure functioning, and their energies can too easily be channeled into some rather unsavory endeavors. That is a formula for economic and social collapse, and a weakened state ultimately strips women of any protection they may receive from it.
So what will women do when the lights go out and there are roving bands of thugs in the streets? If we reach the point where we can no longer produce for ourselves the things we need for our basic survival, how can we defend ourselves? And in the every-man-for-himself culture that will inevitably arise out of such a weakened culture, who do women think will defend them?
January 21st, 2007 at 12:12 pm
I don’t remember Anna even saying anything feminist… saying that you’re not a failure if you don’t marry is not feminist at all.
Not all women think low about men. Some men don’t impress me, but not all women impress me, either. Has nothing to do with gender. As a whole, I usually respect men.
Every woman is different, so asking what women want in marriage is very general.
I am not a money whore… I am a working woman, and would be offended with the thought of my husband “providing for me”. I do not expect my husband to hand his money over to me. I pay half of the bills, and anything to do with my wants, or with my car, I pay in full. In an ideal marriage, I would want to get along financially, and have similar ideals. I would want a husband to talk to, listen to, and grow with. One who will bring me out once in a while (in my case, we go dutch when we go out). I have no children, but it would be ideal to have one or two. In that case, I would hope that my husband would help out, and not just leave all of the child-rearing to me. I would also want a husband to be able to carry on interesting conversations once in a while. What I want in marriage is a man that I can grow old with, and work problems out as they arise. And who can put up with me
January 21st, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Thank you again Mr. Usher!
“There are three kinds of lies. There are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statitics.” I believe you will find this in the annuls of comments from the floor of the House of the English Parlamint.
Yes, thank you for bringing the truth to this audience. The underlying facts are important, and the fact is that the Feminist/Marxists have again shown ther hand as controling the Editorial Staff of the legal paper of record according to the U.S. Supreme Court, the New York TImes.
It is further evidence of their either involuntary ir intentional pduplicity in counting girls 15-18 as marriagible.
If they were impregnatable there would be cries of RAPE and Statutory Rape.
Marriage laws and Statutory Rape laws make this skewing more evidence of the suspect duplicity of the Editorial Staff of the Paper of Legal Record of America.
It is clear that not only are the enemies of men ideas, but it is clear that there is a program and intelligencia of those ideas.
This article proves that and proves who is in control of forums for the ideas that control America.
My fellow vitcims of the welfare and Family Support State, not only must we be busy making ideas to oppose the false ideas of the controllers, we have to publicly confront their falsehoods, and then we have to create Forums of Great Reasoning that compells others to come and drink waters of Truth.
January 21st, 2007 at 11:56 am
Anna,
Your spin does not hold water. Lets apply feminist theory to business:
If companies could earn a living by going out of business, and federal government forced responsible companies to permanently pay the salaries of companies that went out of business, our economy would collapse. Lots of people simply would put their company out of business and join the welfare state.
Or, perhaps we should make unemployment benefits equal the former salary of an employee, and force companies to pay that salary for 18-20 years after leaving a company. Would anyone but the most responsible people work under this arrangement?
This is exactly what the welfare state has done to the marriage market. Being unmarried should be regarded as a frictional statistic: perhaps in the 15% range. Everything over that speaks to our entitled social disaster presently hurting women and children far more than it is hurting everyone else.
Race is an issue to the extent that welfare state entitlements have disproportionately affected the marital decisions of poor women, the majority of which are black or hispanic. When marriage is not important, we can decisively predict that it will result in a community that cannot succeed, that will have very high rates of crime and violence, and a lot of unwanted and subsequently unsocialized men who have no stake in society. In this regard, black leaders who strongly promote welfarism greatly hurt their own constituency, keeping families broken, and blacks from harnessing the social structures that successful people apply to get ahead. I do not feel uncomfortable saying this because I have a lot of blacks who strongly agree with me on this.
January 21st, 2007 at 11:35 am
And hey NYT you should have also added all those women who wish they were no longer in a marriage but have not got up the courage to leave yet. They should be counted as living without a spouse because at least their heart is already no longer in the marriage. Hillary is already their husband.
January 21st, 2007 at 11:16 am
51% of women aren’t married, eh? Doesn’t mean they’re failures. It means they’re not married that’s all. People read waaaay too much into this story.
My one real issue with this story is making the comments re: black women. It implies that black women are somehow not desirable marriage material..
Do you know what I find really confusing? Why should anyone care whether the women regardless of race are married or not? But then the New York Times tends to be obsessed with such things. One of the most read sections of the paper? Weddings and Celebrations. Apparently, it’s considered something of a coup to show up there for some reason. As though somehow if a woman is married, she is a “success”…it’s the ole she’s got a j-o-b AND an m-a-n…so why don’t you?
Ever notice the Los Angeles times doesn’t even have a weddings section? Ever wonder why? Perhaps Angelenos aren’t as obsessed as some New Yorkers with making marriage into a status symbol? LOL…
January 21st, 2007 at 10:32 am
I suppose if the NYT were to respond to the criticisms of their statistical analysis they would say something like: “Yeah, well, ok, sure, but in the higher, more cosmic sense the article is right.” At that point further discussion become impossible, but there may be an interesting hidden question in here regardless — What do women expect/want from marriage?
I am guessing, but I suspect if a survey were taken of women, a real scientific survey, the majority of all ages would respond that what they are seeking in marriage is a mini-welfare state. That being the case, the tradeoff to them is between the really big welfare State and the tiny limp one at home (i.e. “marriage.”) As the State swells ever larger and penetrating into lives (sorry, couldn’t resist), and the male is ever more emasculated, I think increasingly women are going to go with the “Big State.” If I’m right, this is not good, not good at all. You really can kiss just about everything good bye at that point.
Yet to be fair, women may have a point. The State will be there long after her worked-death hubby has passed on to his early demise. The State doesn’t complain about her irresponsibility or childishness, but rewards, even encourages it. And, if one wants a really good f*ck, historically the State can be counted on to give it.
So it would be very useful to know what women are thinking about marriage these days, as long as we don’t get our hopes up. We already know what they think about men (not much), and given something so loathsome as media portrays the standard issue male, who in their rational minds would want to marry that?
January 21st, 2007 at 9:29 am
It is disturbing that such an esteemed publication would lie about something like that. When I hear something that is supposed to be a fact, I want it to be true. I don’t want it to be something that was just said to try to prove something, as part of someone’s agenda.
That was an interesting essay, Usher.
January 21st, 2007 at 9:23 am
I don’t think a woman “needs” a husband any more than a man “needs” a wife. It might make life easier in some ways, but women can remain single without deteriorating. However, I think it is in the best interest of women who have children to stay married.
Just in case the above looks harsh, I am not against marriage at all. I think people should be very careful before entering into a union, though. Really think about it before leaping into such a commitment. I think that it is easier financially to be married, whether you are a man or women, IF both the woman and the man have a job. In that case, it is inevitably easier, because of the extra income. But not all marriages are like that. And two heads and 4 hands work a lot better than only one head and two hands, whether you are male or female. But on the other hand, I think women are capable of being single. They are capable of having a job, taking care of finances, keeping their apt/house in good condition, and carrying on with life. I’m sure it is lonely at times, but they can handle it. I don’t think women should just leap into marriage just for the security of it. their is nothing wrong with waiting until the “right” man comes along.
I have no respect for those who go out and deliberately have children out of wedlock (unless she is in an extremely committed relationship). It is not good for the child. I also don’t have respect for those who are quick to divorce and collect child support without really TRYING to make their marriage work. Marriage/divorce should never be looked upon as a “money-maker”, and I despise the women who give other women a bad reputation like that.
As for statistics, I never quite believe them anyway.
In response to #1, TMOTS, even if 51% of women were not married, it would not mean the same percentage of men would be unmarried…. the last time I knew, there were more women then men. That is, if you believe the “statistics”, lol.
January 21st, 2007 at 8:17 am
The main point of this NY Times article is to try to continue to promote the idea that “Women are just as Strong as Men and so therefore don’t need a Man”.
We all know that just a bunch of cow chips..
Check out this article about How women are actually screwing themselves big time with this mentality..
January 21st, 2007 at 7:54 am
Percentage numbers are liars. That is unless you give the total involved in the percentage. Statistice can be twisted to show anything you desire to prove. The truth is hidden from the casual reader. I’m very glad there is some one who cares enough to discover the facts.
January 21st, 2007 at 7:16 am
TMOTS, get back to Femischool Sir and redo the new stats! Thinking like that will soon get you burned at the stake.
January 21st, 2007 at 6:49 am
And this surprises you? Even if it were true, that would translate into 51% of men are not marrying either! Wouldn’t it?
TMOTS