New York Times Article "51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse" Is A Lie

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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

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)

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.