From this Bloomberg Article:
A Harvard University study suggests that neither financial strains nor women's increased ability to get out of an unhappy marriage, starting in the 1970s, is typically the main reason for a split.
Oh Really?![[Image: dodgy.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/dodgy.gif)
The big factor, Harvard sociology professor Alexandra Killewald found, is the husband's employment status. For the past four decades, she discovered, husbands who aren’t employed full time have a 3.3 percent chance of getting divorced in any given year, compared with 2.5 percent for husbands employed full time. In other words, their marriages are one-third more likely to break up.
I think the employed guy is most likely to get married in the first place, leading to the eventual divorce if his career flops out. This affects the stats.
Examining 46 years of data on more than 6,300 married couples in the U.S., Killewald found a big shift in the risk of divorce in the mid-1970s. Couples married before 1975 were likelier to split up if women and men divided the housework equally, perhaps because the husband saw a threat to his traditional role in the household. Since 1975, housework hasn’t been much of a factor. The guy's job has.
I don't even understand wtf "housework" is anymore. Keep the place nice and cook some food? It takes effort and care, something women clearly ran out of since 1975.
“Wives have more freedom in how they ‘do’ marriage,” Killewald said, but husbands are still expected to be the breadwinner.
DING DING DING: You can pretty much wrap it up there. The more women gain in careers the more miserable they become domestically. They take it out on the poor sap of a beta that married them, since they did not pull the Alpha Pro Athlete, Millionaire, Rock Star etc. As a man, if you are not the dominant force, then buckle up for the rocky road to marriage ruin.
"The study, published in the American Sociological Review, didn't include same-sex couples." ...Yet.
Oh god that whole cohort of same-sex marriages over the next 20 years will spawn so much shit-sciene sociology research to force a marriage narrative on otherwise normal young heteros in college, and younger.
"Her conclusion: The couples’ income and the wives’ economic independence didn't correlate with a higher risk of divorce."
"That's surprising, said New York University sociology professor Paula England, but she said she finds the study's methodology "very sound" and its conclusions convincing."
"I'm sure that financial strain hurts people's well-being, but it doesn't seem to be causing marriage breakup," England said.
What's surprising is that people don't understand the male/female dynamic. If a guy makes enough, he wouldn't mind having a wife to take care of the home if it meant she did not have a full time job. Hard Working Ladies despise a man who would take on the feminine homemaker's role, despite the empty praise you may hear in the media.
"Meanwhile, a husband’s job seems to matter more now. For couples married before 1975, the husband’s employment status barely affected their chances of divorce. It's the decades since 1975 that saw a dramatic increase in correlation between his job status and their risk of divorce."
"...Other sociological studies have suggested something did happen in the 1970s that changed men's and women’s attitudes toward work and marriage.
“The late 1970s were really a time of change in what women expected for their careers,” Killewald said. What hasn’t changed nearly as much is the role men are supposed to play as husbands."
This study does not take into account the shift in male/female behavior, especially seen in late teens into early 30's. There's plenty of layabout dudes barely working, still banging lots of chicks before passing them along to some beta chump to wife-up.
Ladies, you got your rights, you got your jobs, you got unlimited dick via Tinder. And you still want the Man to hold the traditional role or else you are unhappy?
![[Image: gtfo.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/new/gtfo.gif)
A Harvard University study suggests that neither financial strains nor women's increased ability to get out of an unhappy marriage, starting in the 1970s, is typically the main reason for a split.
Oh Really?
The big factor, Harvard sociology professor Alexandra Killewald found, is the husband's employment status. For the past four decades, she discovered, husbands who aren’t employed full time have a 3.3 percent chance of getting divorced in any given year, compared with 2.5 percent for husbands employed full time. In other words, their marriages are one-third more likely to break up.
I think the employed guy is most likely to get married in the first place, leading to the eventual divorce if his career flops out. This affects the stats.
Examining 46 years of data on more than 6,300 married couples in the U.S., Killewald found a big shift in the risk of divorce in the mid-1970s. Couples married before 1975 were likelier to split up if women and men divided the housework equally, perhaps because the husband saw a threat to his traditional role in the household. Since 1975, housework hasn’t been much of a factor. The guy's job has.
I don't even understand wtf "housework" is anymore. Keep the place nice and cook some food? It takes effort and care, something women clearly ran out of since 1975.
“Wives have more freedom in how they ‘do’ marriage,” Killewald said, but husbands are still expected to be the breadwinner.
DING DING DING: You can pretty much wrap it up there. The more women gain in careers the more miserable they become domestically. They take it out on the poor sap of a beta that married them, since they did not pull the Alpha Pro Athlete, Millionaire, Rock Star etc. As a man, if you are not the dominant force, then buckle up for the rocky road to marriage ruin.
"The study, published in the American Sociological Review, didn't include same-sex couples." ...Yet.
Oh god that whole cohort of same-sex marriages over the next 20 years will spawn so much shit-sciene sociology research to force a marriage narrative on otherwise normal young heteros in college, and younger.
"Her conclusion: The couples’ income and the wives’ economic independence didn't correlate with a higher risk of divorce."
"That's surprising, said New York University sociology professor Paula England, but she said she finds the study's methodology "very sound" and its conclusions convincing."
"I'm sure that financial strain hurts people's well-being, but it doesn't seem to be causing marriage breakup," England said.
What's surprising is that people don't understand the male/female dynamic. If a guy makes enough, he wouldn't mind having a wife to take care of the home if it meant she did not have a full time job. Hard Working Ladies despise a man who would take on the feminine homemaker's role, despite the empty praise you may hear in the media.
"Meanwhile, a husband’s job seems to matter more now. For couples married before 1975, the husband’s employment status barely affected their chances of divorce. It's the decades since 1975 that saw a dramatic increase in correlation between his job status and their risk of divorce."
"...Other sociological studies have suggested something did happen in the 1970s that changed men's and women’s attitudes toward work and marriage.
“The late 1970s were really a time of change in what women expected for their careers,” Killewald said. What hasn’t changed nearly as much is the role men are supposed to play as husbands."
This study does not take into account the shift in male/female behavior, especially seen in late teens into early 30's. There's plenty of layabout dudes barely working, still banging lots of chicks before passing them along to some beta chump to wife-up.
Ladies, you got your rights, you got your jobs, you got unlimited dick via Tinder. And you still want the Man to hold the traditional role or else you are unhappy?
![[Image: potd.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/new/potd.gif)
![[Image: 394Qm3p.gif]](http://i.imgur.com/394Qm3p.gif)