As Argentinian I should tag this as clickbait
How to Pick a Mate (1946)
61–70 of 155 posts
Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)
#62There obvious historical issues with this book that make it hard to apply to today, but I was still surprised at how well written this was for it’s time. This also shows the importance of birth control in women’s lives. In 1946, sex was a roll of the dice to being pregnant. The odds are now massively improved to avoid pregnancy by using modern birth control methods.
Marriage would be so much more straightforward if many of the lessons that we had to learn anyway were presented up front. It’s too bad that so many pre-marriage “courses” are religious in nature.
Totally this. I wish schools taught relationship dynamics, family issues, basic finance, etc. rather than useless maths and archaic grammar. I never learned that stuff from my parents and spent decades learning it the hard way.
Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)
#63Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)
#64>> By marrying, a man becomes a better employment risk. Married men usually are regarded as more steady, more trustworthy employees than single men. This is logical. Marriage exerts a stabilizing influence on most men. Oh wow has that changed. Kids and families = time away from the office. Marriage is also the leading cause of divorce, which tends to reduce productivity across a few years, especially if child custody…
Interesting. What personal experiences or survey data are you drawing on for these conclusions? All of what you say sounds like solid, believable inferences but I doubt most people are exposed to enough data about the interaction of family life and work to draw meaningful generalizations. (If you turn out to be a professor of quantitative sociology, my face will be bright red :) ).
I am not a sociologist, but I do have a number of subordinates. I have people with domestic violence issues, people who cannot work late due to child custody handover times and even restraining orders between divorcing partners who both work at the same company. The single people seem to be more stable, the confirmed bachelors even more so.
Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a weird way to frame women working.
This is a quote from chapter one of the linked book. Not my words.
> Of course, since '46 capitalism has demanded women enter the workforce to compete with men and drive down wages.
That is your words and is a weird way to frame women working.
Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Marriage is also the leading cause of divorce Did you mean to say children instead of Marriage? You can't have divorce without marriage.
It's an old joke. It is also a statement illustrating a type of logical absurdity. I had a tax professor once rave at a student because her answer to "how to reduce your client's tax burden" was to have the client quit their job and have no income. "Having money is the leading cause of paying taxes!"
Ah makes way more sense.
Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)
#67> There are still other people who don’t marry because they lack a decent opportunity. Girls who choose nursing as a career, for example, cut their marriage prospects at least fifty per cent. It is much the same for librarians and social workers. In fact a girl can reduce her chances of marriage merely by going to a girls’ college. you have been warned /s
Well, I did meet my wife in college. If she had gone to a girls’ college (which I assume means girls-only, do they even still have those?) then I wouldn’t have met her. Frankly, that probably would not have reduced her chances of marriage, but I think it would have reduced mine ;-)
Wellesley College is a well known women's only college. Hillary Clinton went there, and it's still women only today (although they have partnerships with nearby schools like Harvard and MIT and Boston College for the women to take classes there if they want (and experience classes with mixed genders)).
They also have planned social activities with those nearby mixed gender colleges.
(My friend went there and told me all of this, and I assume it's still the case even though it's been 25 years :) ).
Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Judging by how you feel it necessary to even ask such a ridiculous question, I strongly doubt you would accept any answer but that which supports your anachronistic views.
Data about marriage among people who choose various lifepaths is not a viewpoint.
There is an increasingly prevalent view among the "freshman profundity" set that if you've arrived at any view that is counter to theirs, then it's because you oppose their political or moral value system. However, a good understanding of the world rarely yield beliefs that cohere with the kind of convenient, value-oriented rhetorical slogans that people get self-righteous over online.
Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gay marriage wasn't legal back then
Only about 2-3% of men report being gay in western countries today. “Over ten percent” is a much larger number.
Because there is still a stigma to it and there are still many men who hide that part of their identity (and women too). And also because being gay obviously isn't the only reason men stay single.
Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, given the author says this: > A basic argument for marriage is that it offers a logical division of labor. Imagine how much more complicated and inconvenient life would be if men had to do their own cooking and sewing, and women—all women—had to compete with men for a livelihood! Of course, since '46 capitalism has demanded women enter the workforce to compete with men and drive down wages.
Except, in real terms, everyone is now vastly better off than in 1946?
Everyone is likely better off, but not everyone is vastly better off. Some people are likely a bit better off economically but way worse off socially (since the dating market is much more "efficient" and competitive than it was in 1946, which will be a win for some, and a major loss for others).
And some people's/professions economic potential peaked in the early 1970s (truckers, for example, and some other blue collar jobs)