But that's actually a part of my argument, which I forgot to add to my thread. The title is called "51% of women now living without a spouse." The problem is in the wording and I wouldn't hesitate to say that its deliberate. The implication is that everyone reading the article or even seeing the headline will no doubt surmise that they are referring to women who have opted not to marry at all. Lets get real, that's the first thing that's going to pop in somebodies head, and they know that.
Funnliy enough, that was not the first thing that popped into my head. I took "51% of women currently living without a spouse" to mean just that. I immediately (mostly subconsciously) took into account the divorce rate,a guesstimate of those who are separated (whether it be voluntary or forced) from their spouses, lesbians (although many may have answered that they were indeed living with their spouse), women who have not married yet, widows, and those who have chosen not to marry.
I did not interpret it to mean that 51% of women have chosen not to marry and that we are now firmly planted in a new society moving towards the total abolition of marriage. The article alludes to possible shifts in the perception of marriage as "the main institution that organizes people’s lives," and to possible shifts in "social and workplace policies, including the ways government and employers distribute benefits," but that only means that we may no longer be able to assume that someone is, ever was or should be married and that there may come a day when insurance companies finally let us cover those whom we wish to cover on our policies or that hospitals may have to recognize the wishes of a patient regarding disclosure and visitation, not that we are "heralding the dawn of a new age" of marriage becoming an obsolete institution like you suggest in your OP.
You chose to interpret it that way because you, like many others, feel that the institution is under attack and that liberals and homosexuals are heading the vanguard supported by the vilely liberal NYTimes. At least, that is my suspicion.
But instead they manipulate it where it could mean women just not currently living in the same domicile. Well, who would want to read an article about that? No one. So as long as they can put a little spin on it, they can attempt to justify their figures so long as they word it carefully, and yet, they realize that people will automatically assume that its referring to women who have opted not to marry.
I don't see any spin in the statement "51% of women currently living without a spouse." It seems pretty straightforward to me. And the article under the headline supports my interpretation.
My figures derive from the US Census whose only function is to keep statistical figures. They already did the math, I'm simply relaying those tabulated figures for everyone to see in a very clear manner that NYT's distorted and convoluted their own article.
However, the analysis (of US Census figures) and the article, unlike you, took into account not only divorcees, but also women living apart from their spouse whatever the reason and they even say so in plain English for all to see.
LOL! PaulK, lets think about this from a logic point of view. Who wants to read about women that aren't currently living with their spouse? Nobody.
However, that is exactly what the headline says. The news is not the headline.
The blatant assertion is that women are throwing off the archaic shackles of marriage in droves and abandoning traditional values in an attempt to forge a new way of life
No, the assertion is that many women are currently unmarried or living without a spouse. Some women may have consciously chosen never to marry or to wait until they have a stable career and a life of their own before getting married, while others may have divorced or been widowed and decided that they do not need marriage to define them (and guess what, the article adresses this very issue!) and that may indeed be a trend. The article reports on these aspects and quotes sociologists regarding what this might suggest for society as a whole.
Let me ask you something. Do you think its acceptable to add 15 year old girls in that?
Yes, since one can get married at 15 (albeit with parental consent) in many states and, more importantly, that is the bottom end of the age group used by the US Census.
Do you think its acceptable to add widows, who have been married for 60 years until her husband died in that figure?
Yes, because they are not currently living with their spouse.
Do you think its right to include military wives in that figure whose husbands are on deployment?
Yes, because they are not currently living with their spouse and the article does mention them (twice, even!)
The only one's who should be legitimately considered are single women and divorced women who have no aspirations to marry again.
That would be an interesting study, but since the US Census does not ask this question the NYTimes could not have accurately reported on that. Their analysis suggested more women are spending more of their lives outside of a marriage and discussed what that might mean for public policy and personal attitudes, not that most women won't eventually marry or marry again.
Listen to the tone of the article. Its very obvious that they want to make people think that women are abandoning marriage:
" Coupled with the fact that in 2005 married couples became a minority of all American households for the first time, the trend could ultimately shape social and workplace policies, including the ways government and employers distribute benefits.
Several factors are driving the statistical shift. At one end of the age spectrum, women are marrying later or living with unmarried partners more often and for longer periods. At the other end, women are living longer as widows and, after a divorce, are more likely than men to delay remarriage, sometimes delighting in their newfound freedom."
Dude, how do you get "women abandoning marriage" from "Several factors are driving this statistical shift??" According to the US Census (not the NYTimes) married people
for the first time became a minority. The NYTimes analysis employed sociologists to help understand why this might be.
And then they try to cover their tracks, sort of, but then lay it all out for us as plain as day:
"In a relatively small number of cases, the living arrangement is temporary, because the husbands are working out of town, are in the military or are institutionalized. But while most women eventually marry, the larger trend is unmistakable."
Ah, yes, there it is.
Yes, there it is. The honesty you say is lacking in the article.
The numbers are there for all to see. The analysis just suggests a couple of reasons why we are seeing the trend we are seeing.
Now let me ask your personal opinion. What is the motivation for such an article?
To report on an analysis of Census figures. The motivation for the analysis is to figure out why unmarried couples became a majority for the first time. Pretty straightforward.
™ Version 4.2