What word? Funnily? I could have said "Oddly" or "Strangely" (both of which are synonyms) but I wished to convey a humorous note to my disagreement. It may seem "gramatically incorrect" to you, but it is definitely a word and was used in a gramatically correct context. Unlike "conversate." I don't know who you know that uses "conversate," but I do not feel that it is on the same level
Oh, no, please don't misunderstand me. I know that "funnily" is a word. Its just a word that irritates, kind of like being using "conversate" when they could use "converse." And for whatever reason, I've met a few Oregonians that are particular to using "conversate" and it grates my nerves.
You took your above biases away from this study. The quote you imparted to me told you what I thought of immediately without even reading the article.
I disagree, as I feel there is an intentional tone throughout the article that can best be summarized by the choice of quotes the articles compiled.
PS - have you ever read studies about how many people own cats? Dogs? Flat screen Tvs? More than one refigerator?
No I haven't, but I don't doubt that such statistics have been compiled.
How many people have more than 2.5 kids? How many people own or rent their homes? How many people are in debt over $10,000?
This I've heard of in the interest of their sociological and economical implications, just as the article in question makes inferences from the sociology of it.
You just impart some ulterior motive on the part of the NYTimes for their info and then shout "WHO CARES?" to give it more meaning.
But, seriously, who really wants to know statistics?
Nobody wants to know statistics by themselves. The reason people find statistics interesting is its ability to show trends that are either positive or negative to society. They don't care about neutral points, which would be how many women just so happen to not be living in the same domicile as their spouse. That's so absurd as to be laughable. The article is geared towards exposing a trend that is becoming more and more prevalent among females concerning the general attitudes about marriage. That seems so transparent that me even mentioning its transparency seems redundant.
Besides you implied, erroneously, that the study only " compile[d] statistics on how many women just so happen to live away from their spouses?" when the study did everything but. The article even told the reader that the statistics showed only a small percentage of women answered based on the temporary absence of their spouses.
But that's my point. Its NOT about anything other than to show people that a trend is forming in the attitudes of women, i.e. the more puritanical to the progressive. If you concede this point, what are you arguing with me about?
That women who are choosing not to marry or re-marry or marrying later in life or spending more time between marriages, should they divorce. It is an "unmistakable trend" of women spending more of their lives outside of marriage...not that they are abandoning marriage...
There are more people abandoning traditional roles at a fast pace-- men and women. However, the 51% is a horribly inflated number when juxtaposed by the US Bureau of Statistics who does this for a living.
The "sacredness" of marriage is a construct of religion.
Then what's the purpose of marrying at all? I would like to hear your opinion on the matter.
The "civil" purpose of marriage is to bind people into a contract in order to provide financial protection for their spouse and/or their children. That is all it has ever been.
What? Financial protection is all that marriage has ever been? That's beyond ludicrous. I guess brides and grooms throughout history are just giddy after a proposal over those tax breaks they'll receive. Very romantic. It gives me butterflies just thinking about it. So, for the record, you are saying that marriages are for convenience and if homosexuals were alloted the same type of tax benefits, among other financial indemnities, they'd all be copacetic with a version of marriage, but not marriage itself.
People have "married" off infants to middle aged men or to each other in order to cement or create bonds for politics.
Yes, I'm aware of that. The Hindu culture still does this by and large.
Actually, none of us or even the NYTimes have said or implied that the analysis of US Census data said "No, its just conducting a survey about how women just so happen to not live in the domicile as their spouse."
Then you tell me the purpose of the study.
My grandmother tells me that she cried every night because her family was not the way it was "supposed to be."
I'm sorry to hear that about your grandmother. Would you say that sitcoms model after real life, or does real life model after sitcoms?
It is still the same. People living out the lives we wish we lived.
I would agree that certain sitcoms and movies are trying to sell a lifestyle. But does society reflect the sitcom or does the sitcom reflect the society?
This stems from that fact that most women have not lived independently throughout history.
Why do you think that is?
Why are women living their own lives??
What constitutes, "living their own lives?" What is the opposite of that? Marriage? I think you've just solidified my argument in this one sentence. What you just said is exactly the reason why the article and the inflated statistics is geared towards. But I'm curious to know what independence from marriage means for a woman? What does it mean for a man? What are some of the answers.
PS - NJ...The focus on "women in general" was because they took the stats from the Census.
Why women and not men, when you can't have one without the other? Don't you find that exclusion rather odd?
I will not argue with the fact that the women interviewed portrayed themselves as happy and unconstrained, but if the NYTimes quoted some women as "miserable" or "my life is not complete without a man" or "I wish mariage was more secure" or "I wish those damn homosexuals weren't trying to define their marriage the same as I am or else I would marry that guy who proposed to me," would you be more satisfied (I even gave you 4 options!!!)?
The NYTimes chose the quotes that would best illustrate the purpose of their study. I doubt it was by accident that they chose those quotes. It would not surprise me if it was done by design.
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis
™ Version 4.2