Darius Wlodarski waited 44 hrs to get an iPhone 6.
Why the dedicated wait? After about 20 years of marriage, Darius’s wife didn’t think he was the “best” husband and father and had left him a month ago. In a typical “beta-provisioning” move, he made a promise to himself to get one of these phones in the hopes it’ll “make her happy”. If this isn’t a manosphere cliche, I don’t know what is – and the comments on this video concur.
Family Diversity is the New Normal for America’s Children is a paper which discusses changes in family structures from the 1950s to the modern day, and it had what I considered some interesting observations.
At the end of the 1950s, if you chose 100 children under age 15 to represent all children, 65 would have been living in a family with married parents, with the father employed and the mother out of the labor force. Only 18 would have had married parents who were both employed. As for other types of family arrangements, you would find only one child in every 350 living with a never-married mother
So, in the 1950s, out of 100 kids:
65 kids lived in a house where Dad worked, and Mom kept house
18 kids lived in a house where both parents were employed
65+18 = 83% of kids are raised in a house with married parents
and only 1% of kids had a never-married mother. (I’m guessing the never-married Dad rate was even smaller).
Today, among 100 representative children, just 22 live in a married male-breadwinner family, compared to 23 living with a single mother (only half of whom have ever been married). Seven out of every 100 live with a parent who cohabits with an unmarried partner (a category too rare for the Census Bureau to consider counting in 1960) and six with either a single father (3) or with grandparents but no parents (3).The single largest group of children – 34 – live with dual-earner married parents, but that largest group is only a third of the total, so that it is really impossible to point to a “typical” family
Today, out of 100 kids:
22 kids live in a house where Dad worked, and Mom kept house
34 kids live in a house where both parents work
4 kids live in a house where Mom worked, and Dad kept house
7 kids live in a house with unmarried partners (which was virtually non-existent in the 1950s)
23 kids live with a single mother, and 50% of those Mothers were ever married
6 kids live with a single father, or with just the grandparents
If you total this up, only 60% of today’s kids live in a house with married parents. I left the 7% of kids in a house with co-habitating partners out as often as not the situation involved a biological parent and their current partner and didn’t represent a stable, biological family structure.
Here’s a graph of all the “then” and “now” results:
Kids need a stable and predictable environment to grow up into healthy productive adults. If you take that away, all manner of problems follow. Given the dramatic drop in married-parent households from the 1950s today, the current social difficulties isn’t surprising.
The paper then goes on to discuss why family situations have changed – for those who’re interested in such things I recommend reading the entire paper.
Joseph Daniel Unwin MC (1895 — 1936) was a British ethnologist and social anthropologist at Oxford University and Cambridge University.
In Sex and Culture (1934), Unwin studied 80 primitive tribes and 6 known civilizations through 5,000 years of history and found a positive correlation between the cultural achievement of a people and the sexual restraint they observe. “Sex and Culture is a work of the highest importance,” Aldous Huxley wrote;
Unwin’s conclusions, which are based upon an enormous wealth of carefully sifted evidence, may be summed up as follows. All human societies are in one or another of four cultural conditions: zoistic, manistic, deistic, rationalistic.
Of these societies the zoistic displays the least amount of mental and social energy, the rationalistic the most.
Investigation shows that the societies exhibiting the least amount of energy are those where pre-nuptial continence is not imposed and where the opportunities for sexual indulgence after marriage are greatest.
The cultural condition of a society rises in exact proportion as it imposes pre-nuptial and post-nuptial restraints upon sexual opportunity.
According to Unwin, after a nation becomes prosperous it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses it cohesion, its impetus and its purpose. The process, says the author, is irreversible:
The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it has been absolutely monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs.
Compare this with current cultural behavior, and the future seems pretty clear.
The video (follow the link) has a panel relating observations the Manosphere has known for years – women earning more, they can’t find a “real man” only beta pajama-boy types, women are putting off marriage for careers and making money.
This revelation is not good news for society.
Single Americans are now the majority of the adult population, according to new government statistics. It’s the first time the total has risen above 50% since the Labor Department began keeping track in 1976.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics said in its August report that about 124.6 million Americans were single, comprising 50.2% of the over-16 population.
Single Americans made up 37.4% of the population in 1976 and the percentage has steadily moved upward.
The percentage of adults who have never been married is 30%, up from 22% in 1976 and the percentage who are divorced, separated or widowed has risen from 15% to nearly 20% in that time span.
The Outnumbered panel discussed why the country seems to be trending away from marriage over the last half-century.
Andrea Tantaros believes part of the reason is that women are now earning more and have more career options, so they’re waiting longer to get married.
Jedediah Bila pointed out that it’s better to be single than “unhappily married,” noting how many friends rushed into marriage in their 20s only to get divorced.
Watch the discussion above and let us know what you think about the new statistics.
A story of “feminism”‘s dire impact on woman as told by Mallory Millett – sister to arch-feminist Kate Millett. Kate’s books and writing spawned Women’s Studies courses across the nation, and her doctrine has become a way of life for too many gullible women. Reading this article is like finding the root of an infection after it’d insinuated itself into the host body to the point it’s hard to tell where one ends and the other begins. From http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/mallorymillett/marxist-feminisms-ruined-lives/#.VAW9lif7mH8.twitter
[Kate’s meeting opened with a chant that] was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice: “Why are we here today?” she asked. “To make revolution,” they answered. “What kind of revolution?” she replied. “The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted. “And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded. “By destroying the American family!” they answered. “How do we destroy the family?” she came back. “By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly. “And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied. “By taking away his power!” “How do we do that?” “By destroying monogamy!” they shouted. “How can we destroy monogamy?” “By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.
Later on the in article, Mallory recounts the whirlwind reaped by women who followed this doctrine:
I’ve known women who fell for this creed in their youth who now, in their fifties and sixties, cry themselves to sleep decades of countless nights grieving for the children they’ll never have and the ones they coldly murdered because they were protecting the empty loveless futures they now live with no way of going back. “Where are my children? Where are my grandchildren?” they cry to me. “Your sister’s books destroyed my sister’s life!” I’ve heard numerous times. “She was happily married with four kids and after she read those books, walked out on a bewildered man and didn’t look back.” The man fell into despairing rack and ruin. The children were stunted, set off their tracks, deeply harmed; the family profoundly dislocated and there was “no putting Humpty-Dumpty together again.”