Posted On: Thursday - July 13th 2023 9:59AM MST
In Topics: Feminism
This one comes under the No Shit, Sherlock Department, Office of Human Nature. I ran across an article from the Institute of Family Studies*with some small bit of data on divorce rates of couples with varying husband/wife ratios of money-earning.
The title says: Husbands with Much Higher Incomes Than Their Wives Have a Lower Chance of Divorce. The writer of this short article is one Rosemary Hopcroft. I give her credit for publishing the data here, as, from the 2 posts listed by her on a site called This view of Life, she sounds like no kind of Conservative.** She could have ditched this data due to its lack of a good fit with the Feminist dogma, but perhaps a Professor of Sociology at the Univ. of N. Carolina - Charlotte doesn't do a lot of research work so ... As it is, she gives no opinion on her results, which is just fine.
It is true that more than half of all marriages in the U.S. are now dual-earner marriages and the share of women who earn as much as or significantly more than their husband has roughly tripled over the past 50 years. According to the PEW Research Institute, in 1972 the wife was the primary or sole breadwinner in only 5% of marriages, but by 2022, this had risen to 16% of marriages. There was also a decline in marriages where the husband was the primary or sole provider, from 85% in 1972 to 55% in 2022, and an increase in marriages where both spouses earned about the same, from 11% in 1972 to 29% of marriages in 2022.No, it's not, she shows in some quick bar graphs:
But is it accurate to state [as the Wall Street Journal did and Professor Hopcroft refutes here] that a wife out earning her husband is no longer associated with an increased chance of divorce?
The vertical scales are different between these two graphs showing the same quantities. This information would have been a lot easier to interpret if they'd been the same scales.
Yes, first of all, those are 2 very wide "cohorts", of 30 years apiece. Lots of thing were different in 1989 vs 1960 and from 2020 vs 1990. Marriage vows might have meant more earlier on in each, etc. Well, we're just looking at the one dependent variable in each large cohort, that being divorce rates. The independent variable is the 3-state difference in husband - wife's income: wife's income above husband's, husband's income between 0 and $38,000/yr above wife's, and husband's income more than $38,000/yr above wife's. How long it's been like that is another question. Just the year of the survey? I'd like to see more variation in the independent variable, but this is what it is.
It seems that the traditional male breadwinner family is still very much a reality in the U.S., and those couples where the wife has a higher income than the husband still have a greater chance of divorce than couples where the husband has a substantially higher income. This is not only true in the United States. In highly egalitarian Sweden, a higher share of income earned by the wife creates an increased risk of divorce, per one study, and another study found that even an unexpected windfall (winning the lottery) leads to a greater chance of divorce for female winners and a lower chance of divorce for male winners. These results suggest that the spouse who provides the most financially in the marriage matters differently to husbands versus wives, and they are consistent with the claim that women still value the financial prospects of a spouse more than men do.Uhhh, no. We value other things. Those are instincts. Women, even if they have more than enough money, have an instinct to value the status and financial prospects of men. The writer of this article mentioned Evolutionary Psychology in her very first sentence. She's should not be surprised by the results here.
We at Peak Stupidity have said it before - in our Feminism 101 post - and we'll say it again, "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature!"
Just for fun, and I don't know how I came upon this, I will include an audio clip from the late El Rushbo on, as he called them, the Feminazis. No, Rush Limbaugh wasn't a real Conservative, he didn't get it all, and so on, but I do miss the guy.
"We're fierce, we're Feminists, and we're in your face!":
* Be careful of how you imagine an "Institute". One may very well envision a campus, if you will, of glass walled 2 to 4 story buildings. Many an "institute", however, may consist of one computer hutch in the walk-in closet of an unemployed political science graduate. "There are no positions available at the present time."
** One is the very exact "...genetic differences between individuals within groups are much greater than any average differences between groups of individuals, however that group is defined." crap that the HBD folks debunk almost daily. That was verbatim from a pro-Covid-Panic post of hers. Her other one is an anti-Trump post.
Comments:
Adam Smith
Sunday - July 16th 2023 1:14PM MST
PS: Good afternoon, everyone
Here's that graph...
https://i.ibb.co/jJ7rFrB/Student-Loan-Debt.jpg
And here's a slightly different version...
https://i.ibb.co/XkSXTC6/Student-Loans.jpg
Cheers!
☮
Here's that graph...
https://i.ibb.co/jJ7rFrB/Student-Loan-Debt.jpg
And here's a slightly different version...
https://i.ibb.co/XkSXTC6/Student-Loans.jpg
Cheers!
☮
Dieter Kief
Sunday - July 16th 2023 1:26AM MST
PS
Uhh - the graph is gone. But the social facts are true nevertheless: Women do study more things that won't pay off quite well - and are having a harder time to pay back the student loans - and now the US government takes care of that problem which means - as a result, - that the nanny-state dynamics are not least driven by - - -women. - And that makes sense*** in a large variety of hindsights.
*** makes sense is not meant as IS Justified.
Uhh - the graph is gone. But the social facts are true nevertheless: Women do study more things that won't pay off quite well - and are having a harder time to pay back the student loans - and now the US government takes care of that problem which means - as a result, - that the nanny-state dynamics are not least driven by - - -women. - And that makes sense*** in a large variety of hindsights.
*** makes sense is not meant as IS Justified.
Moderator
Friday - July 14th 2023 1:39PM MST
PS: Dieter, that tweet stopped loading before the graphical portion could come on, and it's just the same at the HailToYou site where you embedded it. Does that mean it's being censored in some way?
Moderator
Friday - July 14th 2023 12:55PM MST
PS: I happen to see that info on some tweet (was it the usual Johnny Walker?) in unz comments, Dieter. Thanks for bringing this up. If it's the one I'm thinking, the graphs were a big confusing or arbitrary as far as their time-line/data.
Dieter Kief
Friday - July 14th 2023 10:21AM MST
PS
Women fail to repay their student loan credits with a much higher rate than men. The Biden admin most likely reacted to that fact to.
https://twitter.com/philippilk/status/1679762690720268294?s=20
Women fail to repay their student loan credits with a much higher rate than men. The Biden admin most likely reacted to that fact to.
https://twitter.com/philippilk/status/1679762690720268294?s=20
MBlanc46
Friday - July 14th 2023 8:57AM MST
PS Hail: Indeed. Or to not make any binding commitment to a male, at all. And they say that man are commitment-phobic.
Mr. Anon
Thursday - July 13th 2023 8:34PM MST
PS
"Fierce". God, I hate that word. Almost as much as "powerful". So many women now love to talk about how "fierce" they are. In addition to being unfeminine, it is simply untrue. What they call "fierce", I would call "shrewish".
"Fierce". God, I hate that word. Almost as much as "powerful". So many women now love to talk about how "fierce" they are. In addition to being unfeminine, it is simply untrue. What they call "fierce", I would call "shrewish".
Moderator
Thursday - July 13th 2023 7:22PM MST
PS: I fixed my language explaining what the 3 bars in each graph represent, but yeah, this was not the most systematic and comprehensive of studies one could make into this matter of divorce vs. income ratio.
I hadn't read your 2nd comment when I made my comment earlier today, Mr. Hail. Yeah, that part about institutes was just a side thought I had, brought up by an old commercial on the "Ponds Institute", in an ad for some women's hand or face cream. "Maybe if Family Studies get to over the million-dollar mark, they can hire someone who makes clearer graphs." That was LOL funny! Thanks.
Thank you all for the comments on this more confusing of posts.
Alarmist, I don't get it at all. If it was about "LUV!", then why not stick with MacKenzie who saw him through the good times and bad. If you're going for bimbo or super-richest-man-in-the-world trophy wife, get the best trophy, dammit! Go for a 21 y/o super-hottie. What, is he too shy?
I hadn't read your 2nd comment when I made my comment earlier today, Mr. Hail. Yeah, that part about institutes was just a side thought I had, brought up by an old commercial on the "Ponds Institute", in an ad for some women's hand or face cream. "Maybe if Family Studies get to over the million-dollar mark, they can hire someone who makes clearer graphs." That was LOL funny! Thanks.
Thank you all for the comments on this more confusing of posts.
Alarmist, I don't get it at all. If it was about "LUV!", then why not stick with MacKenzie who saw him through the good times and bad. If you're going for bimbo or super-richest-man-in-the-world trophy wife, get the best trophy, dammit! Go for a 21 y/o super-hottie. What, is he too shy?
The Alarmist
Thursday - July 13th 2023 1:41PM MST
PS
Until you get Jeff-Bezos-Rich, at which point she gladly takes her $100m while you screw around with a plastic hispanic.
Until you get Jeff-Bezos-Rich, at which point she gladly takes her $100m while you screw around with a plastic hispanic.
Hail
Thursday - July 13th 2023 11:40AM MST
PS
Re: Mr. Blanc:
The way it evolved, there are often are no "husbands" involved at all. Men and women competing directly in the same labor-market would naturally tend to reduce the marriage rate. That has happened. Marriage (something called marriage) still exists for younger people, but not in the way it worked fifty years ago in which people sought to pair-up for mutual benefit. It's hard to say what marriage really is, now.
There is still a degree of instinct to marry, even among High-Earning, High-Education, Woke-Western Women. But as these women are, for various reasons, primed against marriage with the men they're competing directly against (and for ideological reasons see as sort-of-bad people) (= White males), well, that douses a lot of fires that in days of yore led to marriage in the first place. It is also fuel for a separate and troubling fire in which relatively-high-earning but-relatively-less-attractive-or-older White woman take an exotic husband from some distant land, creating a kind of simulacrum of family-life they (by their earning power) control. Anyone in a deep-Blue area will see overt cases of this, at a certain low-but-steady rate, these days.
Re: Mr. Blanc:
The way it evolved, there are often are no "husbands" involved at all. Men and women competing directly in the same labor-market would naturally tend to reduce the marriage rate. That has happened. Marriage (something called marriage) still exists for younger people, but not in the way it worked fifty years ago in which people sought to pair-up for mutual benefit. It's hard to say what marriage really is, now.
There is still a degree of instinct to marry, even among High-Earning, High-Education, Woke-Western Women. But as these women are, for various reasons, primed against marriage with the men they're competing directly against (and for ideological reasons see as sort-of-bad people) (= White males), well, that douses a lot of fires that in days of yore led to marriage in the first place. It is also fuel for a separate and troubling fire in which relatively-high-earning but-relatively-less-attractive-or-older White woman take an exotic husband from some distant land, creating a kind of simulacrum of family-life they (by their earning power) control. Anyone in a deep-Blue area will see overt cases of this, at a certain low-but-steady rate, these days.
MBlanc46
Thursday - July 13th 2023 11:29AM MST
PS One of the principal reasons women desired wage-labor was to make it easier to dump no-longer-desired husbands.
Moderator
Thursday - July 13th 2023 11:17AM MST
PS: I may have to paste in more text from the article to explain some of this that you question, Mr. Hail. (i.e., the situation with the wife not working, - comes under the greater than $38,000 difference, I believe, unless, what, the guy doesn't make $38 K, then what? I think she covered it though.)
Maybe I've got to explain this better. Unfortunately, I'm out of time, and won't get back to this until tonight.
Let me quickly fix something right now in my explanation.
Maybe I've got to explain this better. Unfortunately, I'm out of time, and won't get back to this until tonight.
Let me quickly fix something right now in my explanation.
Hail
Thursday - July 13th 2023 11:15AM MST
PS
-- On the importance of "institutes" --
"The Institute of Family Studies" / "Be careful of how you imagine an "Institute". One may very well envision a campus, if you will, of glass walled 2 to 4 story buildings. Many an "institute", however, may consist of one computer hutch in the walk-in closet of an unemployed political science graduate."
You're NOT wrong, Mr. Moderator, -- but, as a general-attitude, this will tend to underestimate the importance of these places.
Many "institutes" are tied directly to universities. The universities are associated with power and influence, and the institutes within them are along for the ride.
Other institutes have real ties to governments or at least political parties. Some countries with multi-party systems (not two big-tent parties like the USA) give all political parties who demonstrate x-% support public monies to run "political-party think-tanks," producing studies or work as they see fit without competing with campaign-funds. This might sound bad to a libertarian point of view, but it seems to work well and produces interesting things that otherwise would never appear, or appear in xerox'ed form handed out on street-corners by unshaven men. (Many such men do have good ideas; even if quite many are crazies, not so like the woman who went berserk because a "UFO-alien in a human-suit is riding her airplane and she wanted everyone to know it.)
With annual revenues at $750,000 in 2019, this particular place, Family Studies Institute, must count among respectable ranks of the small-fry "institutes" out there. The medium-fries will have revenues nearer to $10,000,000 in 2020s-inflated money. Maybe if Family Studies get to over the million-dollar mark, they can hire someone who makes clearer graphs.
-- On the importance of "institutes" --
"The Institute of Family Studies" / "Be careful of how you imagine an "Institute". One may very well envision a campus, if you will, of glass walled 2 to 4 story buildings. Many an "institute", however, may consist of one computer hutch in the walk-in closet of an unemployed political science graduate."
You're NOT wrong, Mr. Moderator, -- but, as a general-attitude, this will tend to underestimate the importance of these places.
Many "institutes" are tied directly to universities. The universities are associated with power and influence, and the institutes within them are along for the ride.
Other institutes have real ties to governments or at least political parties. Some countries with multi-party systems (not two big-tent parties like the USA) give all political parties who demonstrate x-% support public monies to run "political-party think-tanks," producing studies or work as they see fit without competing with campaign-funds. This might sound bad to a libertarian point of view, but it seems to work well and produces interesting things that otherwise would never appear, or appear in xerox'ed form handed out on street-corners by unshaven men. (Many such men do have good ideas; even if quite many are crazies, not so like the woman who went berserk because a "UFO-alien in a human-suit is riding her airplane and she wanted everyone to know it.)
With annual revenues at $750,000 in 2019, this particular place, Family Studies Institute, must count among respectable ranks of the small-fry "institutes" out there. The medium-fries will have revenues nearer to $10,000,000 in 2020s-inflated money. Maybe if Family Studies get to over the million-dollar mark, they can hire someone who makes clearer graphs.
Hail
Thursday - July 13th 2023 11:01AM MST
PS
I find those graphs hard to understand at a glance.
If someone had access to raw-data to construct these and "called it a day" after producing these two graphs, I'd say the person failed.
I agree that data based on decade-of-marriage, not arbitrarily huge time-bands, would be useful. Second, the three x-axis categories are not clearly defined and the divisions are not explained. Column 2 and 3 are both "husband earns more," but this is not even visually explained by the graph. And what about a column for "wife does not work"? As if there are no such households or the phenomenon is laughably trivial and can be folded into "Income gap over $38,000" (technically true, but misses something if the "gap" is something versus zero).
I find those graphs hard to understand at a glance.
If someone had access to raw-data to construct these and "called it a day" after producing these two graphs, I'd say the person failed.
I agree that data based on decade-of-marriage, not arbitrarily huge time-bands, would be useful. Second, the three x-axis categories are not clearly defined and the divisions are not explained. Column 2 and 3 are both "husband earns more," but this is not even visually explained by the graph. And what about a column for "wife does not work"? As if there are no such households or the phenomenon is laughably trivial and can be folded into "Income gap over $38,000" (technically true, but misses something if the "gap" is something versus zero).
Wondering why $38k as the split? Does it have something to do with tax brackets?