Summary: This is a milestone post, giving a summary of the three-score posts about the evolution of marriage in America. See marriage and divorce as rational from the perspective of women. They are shaping a new American society. Also — the movers arrive today with our worldly goods, and the FM website resumes its normal publication activity.
After three score posts examining the evolution of marriage in America, a clear picture emerges why so many Generation X women marry and then divorce. And why divorce rates might rise for Millennial (aka Gen Y) women. Here is a brief description, explaining it in purely rational terms (there are, of course, many other social and psychological dimensions to this, among the most complex of institutions).
Why women marry
Marriage brings many benefits to women. Hence its continued popularity among women (their complaints concern men’s increasing disinterest). Marriage has prestige among women. Most women want children, and middle and upper class women are careful to not do so until they have a ring on their fingers (men’s assistance and money makes the first few years much easier).
And weddings have become the Party of a woman’s life, in which they are Queen for a Day. At the climax of the ceremony, the bride looks into the groom’s eyes and lies about “until death do us part.” As shown by the high rate of “discretionary” divorce.
Note: There are no equivalents for men, except celebrating the few that have great accomplishments. The huge wedding party is a change from tradition. Wedding for most women were modest — and did not feature Bridezillas. See this 1946 wedding in The Best Years of Our Lives
Women’s enthusiasm for marriage is rational and obvious. What happens next is more difficult to understand, but becomes visible if examined clearly and coldly.
Why do women divorce?
Women initiate most divorces (estimates run from 70% to 85%). Most have no obvious cause (e.g, infidelity, jail, addiction). In most cases a woman with children is poorer afterwards. So why do they do it?
The most obvious reason is that they can. Conservative saint Ronald Reagan abolished traditional marriage in 1970 by signing America’s first no fault divorce law. That, effective easy birth control, and women’s increased financial independence combined to largely liberate women from patriarchal marriage.
That made women able to divorce. Why would they do so?
Husbands are needed to father children. Husband’s work helps in their first few years. But once the youngest is in school, the calculus changes. Child support will extract money from husbands, so that women can pursue their separate destinies.
Women are raised to value their independence. We consider it commendable to put such values of mercenary considerations.
Women are often raised to see themselves as leaders (e.g., in school, in sports, in Girl Scouts). Most men grudgingly accept wives as equals; few accept wives as leaders in marriage. Divorce resolves this struggle for control.
There are indications that women rate most men (roughly 80%) as below average in physical attractiveness, and hence lower than them. It is another example of the Pareto principle. The best known is a study by the dating ap company OkCupid of their internal data. They deleted it (very un-PC), but fragments remain (e.g., here). The most detailed explanation is in Dataclysm: Love, Sex, Race, and Identity–What Our Online Lives Tell Us about Our Offline Selves
Conclusion
This is the world we live in. The women of Generation X came as close as humanly possible to having it all — careers, children, marriage on their terms, divorce on their terms. Since the incentives for divorce are so high, many wives divorced. People are rational.
The women of Generation Y are repeating this playbook. Most are succeeding, but they find fewer men are willing to marry. Men are condemned for this, as they are condemned for so many things these days. That does not make them more interested in marriage.
My guess is that Millennial women (Gen Y) will find far fewer men willing to marry. I believe that in the next ten or twenty years this evolution will pass a tipping point. Beyond that marriage will still exist, but not in its present form for most people. Nor will it serve the same function as it does in our society today. We will better understood what traditional marriage did for American when its gone.
For more about this see Starting World War G: the gender wars. Marriage linked men and women together. A post-marital America will be one of gender conflict, on many levels and in many ways. Understanding how we got here is essential to build a better future.
Dalrock’s insights about modern marriage
I recommend reading these posts about the dynamics of dating and marriage for young women. Clear insights that few dare to say.
- Intrasexual Competition and the Strong Independent Woman.
- Women’s morphing need for male investment.
For more information
Ideas! For shopping ideas see my recommended books and films at Amazon.
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about society and gender issues, about feminism, about marriage, and especially these …
- Do we want to bring back traditional marriage? What is traditional marriage?
- Why men are avoiding work and marriage.
- Will today’s young men marry? America’s future depends which of these answers is right.
- Classic films show what marriage was. Facts show its death.
- Cheap Sex is the Inconvenient Truth in the end of marriage.
- Men are going Galt. Marriage is dying. – Books from the cutting edge of the revolution.
- Marriage today – and its dystopian future.
- Red Pill knowledge is poison to marriage.
- The coming crash of marriage: why, and what’s next.
An important book about marriage in the 21st century
Men on Strike:
Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood,
and the American Dream – and Why It Matters.
By Helen Smith.
She is a psychologist specializing in “forensic issues” in Knoxville TN. She has a PhD and two MA’s in something or other. From the publisher about this book…
“American society has become anti-male. Men are sensing the backlash and are consciously and unconsciously going ‘on strike.’ They are dropping out of college, leaving the workforce and avoiding marriage and fatherhood at alarming rates. The trend is so pronounced that a number of books have been written about this “man-child” phenomenon, concluding that men have taken a vacation from responsibility simply because they can. But why should men participate in a system that seems to be increasingly stacked against them?
“As Men on Strike demonstrates, men aren’t dropping out because they are stuck in arrested development. They are instead acting rationally in response to the lack of incentives society offers them to be responsible fathers, husbands and providers. In addition, men are going on strike, either consciously or unconsciously, because they do not want to be injured by the myriad of laws, attitudes and hostility against them for the crime of happening to be male in the twenty-first century. Men are starting to fight back against the backlash. Men on Strike explains their battle cry.”
Note this will also exert evolutionary pressure on those women as well as those already on the men. Those that manage to marry will make up the future. And many,many women will be consigned to the dustbin of history.
info,
Lots of speculation out there about the biological effects of human mating, in past and present. I don’t know much about the subject, and wonder how much anybody really knows.
Perhaps this giant social experiment will produce useful data, no matter if the result is good or bad.
Gen x divorces at a lower rate than boomers. In fact everyone divorces at a lower rate than boomers( silent, millennialis)
The younger generations might reverse the trend.
Could you provide a cite for this please? Is this total number of divorces? Is it based on the average length of the marriage? So many unanswered questions.
Rando,
Lots of articles making bold assertions about marriage rates. There are probably papers giving real analysis, which would be interesting to see.
Here are a few articles, all similar, from the general media.
http://fortune.com/2016/06/17/baby-boomers-divorce/
https://stories.avvo.com/relationships/divorce/numbers-breakdown-divorce-generation.html
Mandy,
Comparisons among generations are difficult as they have different patterns. Most esp, age of first marriage has risen substantially.
Most experts predict that The Gen X divorce rate will be similar to that of Boomers: approx 53%.
The boomers also married more than the generations following so that skews their numbers. Growing up in the 1960s was likely challenging. Here is another source: “Divorce is actually on the rise, and it’s the baby boomers’ fault.“
Mandy,
Thanks for the link to that! However, it grossly exaggerates the (possible) decline in divorce rates: “The flipside of this finding is the relative rarity of divorce among younger Americans today.” There are some indications of a small decline, but it is too soon to say.
This is, imo, an important and usually ignored point: more people are cohabitating without marriage. Cohabitations split at high rates, with similar results to divorce. Almost identical results, if they have kids.
“Growing up in the 1960s was likely challenging.”
In what way was it more challenging than before or after the 1960s?
Isn’t part of the question marriage itself, as a contract/covenant between two individuals? Maybe a good chunk of the solution would be to make it part of the culture that marriage is a negotiated (in advance) settlement stipulating specific expectations, anticipating the problems…. And not a one size fits all convention with little tidbits here and there being modified. Making it as much as possible such a drab and serious arrangement, based on the tedious realities and dreadful, down to earth minutiae, would maybe deter the un-ready and the not so serious mostly attracted by the ego flattering imagery of the status, and the trappings, expected blast and paraphernalia of the wedding, in order to make it a proper initiation rite to an actual adult life (made of responsibilities and commitments and consequences and such less than fun stuff).
In other words, it would be more about a mandatory negotiation forcing both parts to go into the excruciating details, forcing awareness of the commitment and its consequences, preserving (by default) the interests of both individuals (a prenup as the baseline, not an option) and the kids if any pops up (written in as the most important priority)…. The goal being to make marriage a really advantageous situation for those who commit to it, but a really big and sobering experience to engage in from the get go. As a selection process weeding out those with the least resolve, the easy and selfish strategies, and/or the shallowest motivations.
@LK
What makes it hard is that as wives age their temptation to divorce declines. So as time goes on boomer divorce rates are falling due to that fact alone. Boomers show up as a bend/inflation in the divorce by age curve as time goes by. See Figure 1 here: http://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/college-of-arts-and-sciences/NCFMR/documents/FP/FP-12-05.pdf
Notice how in 1990, divorce rates were much higher for the younger cohorts than the were twenty years later. Likewise notice the bulge in divorce rates late in life now that Boomers had aged into the older brackets. The NCFMR chart would be more helpful if it gave us some earlier snapshots, as I believe you would see even higher divorce rates say in 1980 for the youngest age brackets. As it stands, the youngest bracket in 1990 (15-24) is a mix of boomers and Gen X.
I made an animated gif of UK divorce rate curves over time using ONS data that goes back much further. It is like a wave of divorce moved through the data:
https://dalrock.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/animation.gif
Because Boomers continue to have high divorce rates even into retirement, there have been a rash of stories wrongly claiming that boomers are experiencing a spike in divorce as they reach retirement. This simply isn’t true. Divorce rates have dropped dramatically for every cohort of Boomers as they have aged. It only looks like a spike because the data doesn’t show cohorts. The spike is Boomers showing up on the scene, not Boomers suddenly divorcing more:
https://dalrock.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/boomerdivorcechart1.png
It is wonderful to read that women think 80% of men are less attrractive than average! But then logic has never been the strong point.
As Pope put it:
Pleasures the sex, as children birds, pursue,
Still out of reach, yet never out of view;
Sure, if they catch, to spoil the toy at most,
To covet flying, and regret when lost:
At last to follies youth could scarce defend,
It grows their age’s prudence to pretend;
Ashamed to own they gave delight before,
Reduced to feign it when they give no more.
And in case this should seem misogynistic, take it together with his tribute later in the poem to his great friend, Martha Blount.
George,
“But then logic has never been the strong point.”
They are the same species as men, and just as logical. But society — us — have spent generations focusing education programs on building the self-esteem of women. Never say that social engineering doesn’t work! This has been a total and massive success!
Remove accountability from a human being. And he/she will find the lowest common denominator. Because the way of the world is that excellence is hard and ignobility is easy.
info,
“Remove accountability from a human being …”
It’s called freedom. Women have been unleashed from control (even soft control) of family and friends, able to follow their own inclinations.
They remain accountable to reality. That is, they enjoy or suffer the results of their actions.
The oddity is that we ignore the purpose of the social controls on women (those on men are equally strong, but are now tightening). So we assume that we can unleash women without even considering the effects on society.
The lost accountability is ours — society’s — as our leaders make changes without being accountable for the long-term results. And we support them, actively or passively.
Calculus is a good word for it. Modern marriage seems to be something akin to a casino. You need to be able to do the math. Men, in general are better at math, they mostly are not winning the marriage game, and they’re starting to notice. Roulette can be fun, I guess, but the best shot you have at winning is 48%. Your odds are better at baccarat, where the house edge is very small. Blackjack is beatable, but if you have the skill set, the casino will chuck you out as soon as they get on it. Men are now starting to do the math.
There are two things you’ll never see in a casino, a clock and a window. You can have a hot streak, but the House wants you sticking around until you lose that money you won. Most women get an early streak, the SMP being what it is, but there’s no clock, there’s no window, they’re not good at math, or mostly not as good as they think, and they can just keep playing the game too long. No, I’m not about to cue up The Gambler.
Humans respond to incentives, and we set up an incentive structure without much regard to what we were incentivizing. . (And yeah, conservatives, including a certain Governor of California mostly went along with that.) I don’t hold it against the winners of the sexual revolution that they enjoyed their winnings. If I could have spent my twenties and thirties having sex with a whole bunch of hot women I would sure as hell have done it, but I didn’t happen to win that particular lottery. But when the party ends, people who didn’t get to enjoy it are going to get stuck with the cleanup. Changing behavior means changing incentives. Reforms won’t be easy, because divorce laws will have to be changed, and that will be God’s own job to enact, if it can even be done.
The Man,
That’s a great and fair summary!
The inherent obligations that kept marriage viable are obsolete. Not too long ago marriage was undertaken under the auspices of love. BUT, several complimentary obligations kept husband and wife together. The husband slaved at a job to provide money and headship for the family. The wife provided sex, children, and worked hard to keep a good home. Each complimented the other. There were other variables at work but this, in essence, is what kept marriage as an institution alive.
Today, marriage is based only on fleeting notions of romantic love without the supporting complimentary obligations. Allow me to share some assertions and facts that are ‘problematic’ for our deluded gynocentric culture:
– Humans aren’t naturally monogamous; they are inclined towards pair bonding
– Women are far more likely to believe in “soulmates”; they are also far more likely to destroy a marriage over general dissatisfaction; first in and first out, otherwise known as fickleness.
– See lesbian divorce rates for evidence that this isn’t about the standard lazy gynocentric fare we read in the media (husbands not being emotionally available, not communicating enough or not doing enough chores)
– Divorce has no stigma attached to it anymore for women, quite the opposite really, and divorce courts reward women disproportionately
– Wives lose their physical attraction to their husbands far faster than the reverse; after 3 years, attraction takes a nosedive
– There is no assumed headship in marriage today; it’s almost always a power struggle. Wives actually win this struggle more than men but that’s due to an unwillingness to compromise (happy to share links to study if requested) and a culture that celebrates the unapologetic ‘strong, independent woman’ tripe; it’s no wonder as women are far less likely to argue fair – for example, they threaten divorce in arguments far more than husbands
– Men can easily get sex outside of marriage eliminating a major historical incentive for men to get married
We’re left with fleeting romantic love, the desire for children and an indeterminable desire for pair bonding.
The obligations that bonded husband and wife, that so clearly made them complimentary in yesteryear have been SHATTERED. No judgement. It just is.
What does this portend for the future? Less marriage? More “open” relationships? More children out of wedlock but growing up with pair bonded couples?
Miguel,
“Not too long ago marriage was undertaken under the auspices of love. ”
I guess that’s true, sorta of. But marriage has been a key part of western civ for millenia, and romantic marriage is at most a few centuries old.
Marriage had firm roots in both economics, sociology, and psychology. Women got a degree of economic security and protection, plus kids. Men got a helpmate and patriarchy.
Now we’ve fiddled with the dials to see what happens. Like monkeys in the control room of a nuclear power plant. I doubt the result will be good.
Consider it a giant experiment by the Left. Like Communism in Russia and China. We’re the lab rats. Let’s hope this time the outcome is better.
“Humans aren’t naturally monogamous; they are inclined towards pair bonding”
Humans lean towards sexual polygamy and emotional monogamy.
“Wives lose their physical attraction to their husbands far faster than the reverse; after 3 years, attraction takes a nosedive”
This is largely due to two factors: both partners become lazy and forgo the attitudes and behaviors that made them initially attracted to each other, and modern marriage expectations divest the man of the authority and social dominance that flames arousal.
“Men can easily get sex outside of marriage eliminating a major historical incentive for men to get married”
A small number of men, primarily the most socially savvy and successful, can utilize their freedom to get as much tail as they want. Their less-esteemed brethren are promptly ignored and thrown down the memory hole, either doomed to loneliness or flagellation/dead bedroom by a miserable wretch. Thanks to dropping testosterone levels across generations and a cornucopia of technological diversions, we might hear little complaining about it.
“What does this portend for the future? Less marriage? More “open” relationships? More children out of wedlock but growing up with pair bonded couples?”
Unfortunately, Larry is reticent on projections of the future. He is, quite rightly, apprehensive of anyone’s ability to play augur with the forces currently at work. My own pessimistic forecasts are as follows:
– Marriage rates will continue to decline. Marriage itself might retreat into a social artifact that is the purview of the wealthy, others high up on the social ladder, and the rising bourgeoisie.
– I think open relationships will see a slight uptick as they are pushed as the next evolution of human relationships. They will be summarily rejected by men once they realize the provisions were rigged to suit women’s hypergamy.
– More children will grow up with single mothers but there will be less pair-bonded couples helping to raise them. A general malaise and disillusionment with women is starting to spread across the country, and part of the proliferating anomie will be indifference to the plight of these gung-ho moms. Men will be more reluctant to play a supporting role in her life journey, being disposable already when anointed as husband.
Most of my friends are of the Left. I find the easiest and fastest way to get them to open their eyes to the value of traditions and historical institutions is to simply ask them this: “If you buy a field and it’s surrounded by a fence, do you immediately tear down the fence or do you first investigate why it is there?” I have seriously caused some mini epiphany moments among a few ‘Feel the Bern’, 72 gender supporting, ‘socialism is awesome’ Millenials. ;)
In short, don’t destroy what you don’t understand. See Chesterton’s Fence…
Miguel,
That’s a powerful analogy!
Excellent summary. It brings Wonder Woman to mind.
Thanks for the clip from Best Years of Our Lives. Whenever TCM plays it I watch. I agree with your comment about the movie.
In case you didn’t know, the young Sailor actually lost his hands during WW2. He is the only actor in Academy Award history to receive two Oscars for the same role. The young Sailor played himself.
Longtrail,
Harold Russell’s story is amazing. Here’s his Wikipedia bio.
It’s all a matter of the chicken or the egg, what happened first.
I was born in 1962, end of the baby boom.
We saw where traditional marriage led, as it was our cohort’s parents who married early and followed the dad goes to work/mom stays home pattern of life. My mom was part of that fraction that had a masters’ degree in the 1950s. She worked as a teacher until she “showed”, then was offered the choice of being discharged or resigning. She resigned, and did not resume teaching until the 1970s.
The 1970s was where the chicken/egg question gets interesting. How did families weather the wage freeze imposed by the Nixon administration (my father was a teacher, also)? Mom goes to work.
How did families weather the energy crisis? In Pennsylvania and New York, exploration for natural gas had been stopped for years, and industry was caught off guard when the Blizzard of ’77 clobbered them. Steel mills closed down for weeks in both states, as both states struggled to ration fuel. That was only the prelude: the steel mills permanently closed their doors; so did many of the small industrial firms they fed. And so on, and so on…like dominoes. The family solution: Dad languishes at home; Mom goes to work, and hopes the resulting warping of the family dynamic doesn’t result in divorce.
How did families weather the farm crisis? One of those fellows hung himself in the fields behind our house; down the road, another put a shotgun in his mouth and pulled the trigger when they saw now alternatives after they became overextended on loans. Most farm families didn’t do that; Mom went to work, off the farm.
So bloviate all you want about what movies and TV portray, and consider something else. Mom went to work so the family could survive. Businesses put money into improving working conditions for workers and the land (factories were a lot noisier, hotter, colder, dirtier, crankier, and more toxic places not so long ago) rather than keeping our husbands’ jobs stable. It was expected for wives in my generation to work outside the home; we did. I remember weeping with terror into my plate of scrambled eggs when my infant daughter rejected bottle-feeding, and I had only a week to go before going back to work.
My job allowed my husband’s consulting business to continue and thrive, yet allowed me the sick leave/vacation time to care for my elderly parents. My job allowed me an early, small pension to presently care for my ailing, elderly husband. My job paid off the mortgage and paid for our daughter’s schooling as a nurse. It will help finance the years in which I will no longer be able to cut the grass, clean, cook, and launder on my own.
My life was never Sex in the City. But yes, I was a woman who had a job.
Shelly,
Did you read this post? Your comment gives no sign of having done so, as your “rebuttal” is irrelevant to the points made in it.
“Mom went to work so the family …”
Women in the West have always worked. Women have very often worked outside the home. In stores, as craftspeople, as servants, on farms, etc. “Leave it to Beaver” is not a good slice of Western history.
Note Shelly’s “rebuttal”. It illustrates the different styles of the Left and Right in debate. These are tendencies, not absolutes…
The Left makes up something (often, as here, quite unrelated to the topic under discussion), gives a rebuttal to it — and self-righteously declares victory! They will seldom reply when the irrelevance of their rebuttal is shown. Sometimes they will give another fake rebuttal. Often they will spew insults and leave.
The Right gives rebuttals based on fake info (e.g., faux history, faux economics). They are immune to even the most authoritative evidence that their info is bogus. They will argue at length, producing floods of misinformation.
Sorry for posting a peripheral. Self-righteous, yes; victorious, not exactly…
Shelly,
“Sorry for posting a peripheral. ”
Nothing wrong with that, if you relate it to the post. But much of your comment was in the form of a rebuttal to this post — which it wasn’t (even remotely). For example —
The film (not TV) mentioned here did not discuss women working outside the home. As I explicitly said, it was about the marriage ceremony.
George First above says:
It is wonderful to read that women think 80% of men are less attrractive than average! But then logic has never been the strong point.
I think he’s having trouble with the idea that 80% of a population can be below average, perhaps thinking that 50% have to be below average. While 50% have to be below the median, the only thing you can say for sure is that if they’re not all equal, at least one is above the average and at least one is below.
Here’s a sample averaging 7.94, of women’s ratings of ten men — 7.8, 7.8, 7.8, 7.8, 7.8, 7.8, 7.8, 7.8, 8.0, 9.0
Caspar,
I’m sure you are correct about George’s first sentence. But his second sentence (“But then logic has never been the strong point.”) is silly. We’re the same species, “rationalizing” not “rational” animals. Neither men nor women are strong on logic in our daily lives.
Yes, its certainly true that for any trait there is a distribution of scores in a given population that will put 80% below the mean, as in your example. Is this true of male attractiveness? Is this what women are seeing?
I’d thought it was probably roughly normally distributed. But researching a bit, maybe it is not. Maybe its a bi-modal or at least very skewed distribution, with 20% stars and 80% mediocrities.
If this is what women are seeing, it would explain quite a lot.
And there also seems to be a difference between the distributions of men and women, from the rather sparse evidence I have been able to find on this. It would be interesting to know whether men in general regard 80% of women as being below average in attractiveness. I haven’t found hard evidence, but it seems a bit unlikely.
If it is wider than this – if 80% of the male population are regarded as below average not just in attractiveness but in overall desirability and fitness for partnership – then that is a recipe for an underlying cause of a rather far reaching slow burning social disaster. There does seem to be some anecdotal evidence of this in the material Larry has quoted in the past.
Where have all the good men gone? Well, they were right in front of you, but you could not see them.
George,
“whether men in general regard 80% of women as being below average in attractiveness.”
The findings of the OKcupid study: men see women’s attractiveness as a normal distribution (a bell curve).
“then that is a recipe for an underlying cause of a rather far reaching slow burning social disaster”
We don’t know how strongly held that belief is.
Larry’s original statement:
I did not really get into this, about whether that means a bunch of women were surveyed and each gave a selection of individual men each a rating that tabulated to 80% of the men being rated below the mean, or does it mean asking women on the street to guess what proportion of men were “below average”. I suspect it’s more like the latter. I think the upshot is that most women only notice 20% of men, and they are “attractive” because they are noticed. It’s a tautology.
George says, below:
If I’m as like most men as I suspect, then while most men recognize a continuum of attractiveness, we don’t rate them that way on the street so much as with a go/no-go gauge, yea or nay, hit it or quit it? For the ones that fall within my criteria for minimal attractiveness, the Yea rate is 100%. All men, all things being equal and morality aside, would say yes to sex with all women that meet their minimum attractiveness criteria (not overweight, deformed, disfigured, or otherwise ill-favored). As I tell my daughters, the fact that all men look at you with desire doesn’t mean you’re special; it means you are just like 99.99% of all the women out there.
Reason:
On the subject of rationality, all are capable of reason; however, we make few decisions based on reason but on habits, training, emotional states, aesthetic preferences, laws of physics, etc. Not everything is or can be reduced to rational choice or even simply choice for that matter, as Ayn Rand would have us believe.
Caspar,
“whether that means a bunch of women were surveyed and each gave a selection of individual men each a rating that tabulated to 80% of the men being rated below the mean, or does it mean asking women on the street to guess what proportion of men were “below average”. I suspect it’s more like the latter.”
No. It is the former. As it says in the post, this is a result of data from the online dating site OKcupid. Click on the link to see some of the photos rated.
Pingback: How women’s calculus of marriage shapes America | Dalrock
Just wanted to say, I’ve only just stumbled across this website today and have devoured many articles here. It’s so refreshing to see objective and non-partisan analyses to highly polarizing topics without injecting your own bias into things and with sources provided for every supposition put forward. Only when reading about these issues here do I get a true sense of an unbiased observer without a stake in the game, just watching carefully, guessing cleverly and logically what might happen next.
Discussion of these issues across many platforms has created vastly polarized and insular communities of zealots convinced of their own self-righteousness and steadily bolstered by the ever increasing volume of their echo chambers, in which by their own design they have closed all windows and doors. In this environment, stumbling by accident onto a website like this is like finding water in a desert that you’d expected to die in.
Keep up the good work Larry K. I’ll be following keenly in the future, thanks for all your hard work!
Naz,
Thank you for the feedback. It’s always appreciated, of any kind.
Maybe OT: “Patriarchy: It’s A Man’s World — and Sociobiology Says It’s Women’s Fault” by Lance Welton.
ACThinker,
Slightly off-topic, but posting interesting material is always welcomed! Even that, which is DoublePlusUngood! Turn your TV to the appropriate PC channel for decontamination.