quote:
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
It seems to me that the wording is quite accurate. And it's clearly explained in the article. I can't see any valid reason for your insinuations. I might as well accuse you of using the usual conservative smear-tactics.
quote:
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.
The figures you used as a basis for calculation came from the US Census. However you did your own calculations as well - and you did not provide the definitions of the figures (which are required if you are use them to be effective. Does the "divorced women" figure only include women who have divorced and not remarried. It matters to your calculations but you never bothered to say?)
quote:
LOL! PaulK, lets think about this from a logic point of view.
OK let's. From a logic point of view does it make sense to say that divorced women - who do not have a spouse - are living with their spouse ? That's what you said. Does it even make sense to say that all married women - including those seperated and waiting for divorce are living with their spouse ? That's what you said.
And now you laugh when I point out that you're wrong ? You don't even admit your error, nor try to do the calculation correctly ?
quote:
Who wants to read about women that aren't currently living with their spouse? Nobody.
So this is what you are getting upset about ? A boring article that nobody wants to read ?
quote:
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. Let me ask you something. Do you think its acceptable to add 15 year old girls in that? Do you think its acceptable to add widows, who have been married for 60 years until her husband died in that figure? Do you think its right to include military wives in that figure whose husbands are on deployment? The only one's who should be legitimately considered are single women and divorced women who have no aspirations to marry again.
If 15 year old girls are permitted to marry they certainly should be included. The US Census seems to think it made sense. You tried to justify your claims by alledgeing that the US Census did the math - when in fact not one of the things I criticised was directly due to the US Census. If it's even a potentially valid explanation for you then it is a valid explanation for the NYT.
Should we include elderly widows ? If the NYT is pointing to an increase in the figure then it is certainly valid to do so - after all they would have been included in the older figures. And 60 year old widows can and do remarry.
Should we include military wives ? If the issue is living without a spouse then it seems like a good idea - after all a spouse who is absent for long periods will affect the lifestyle. And again such families would have been included in the older figures.
Even your quotes from the articls make it clear that they are talking about a "statisitical shift" - a change in the figures.
quote:
And then they try to cover their tracks, sort of, but then lay it all out for us as plain as day:
i.e. if you actually read the article the facts about the figures they use are clearly laid out. Which really pulls the rug from under any claim that it represents a serious attempt to mislead.
quote:
Now let me ask your personal opinion. What is the motivation for such an article?
As far as I can see the editors thought their readers might be interested. in the fact that women were increasingly living without a spouse - whether through not being currently married or through having a spouse absent from home for long periods (something that is probably less common now then it would have been even a few decades ago).
What's more interesting is the motivation for your attacks which rest on playing with the figures which made no sense, trying to blame the US Census, laughing at corrections and not even attempting to do the correct calculations. The rest seems to be paranoid speculations about the motivations behind the article.
™ Version 4.2