[quote=kev374][quote=CA renter]
The problem lies in the fact that a woman’s contribution to a marriage is front-loaded, while a man’s contribution is back-loaded. Women will often give up their most valuable assets (youth, beauty, fertility) to a man because there is an implicit and explicit understanding that her husband will contribute his most valuable assets (wealth/financial stability, power, social status) in the back half of the marriage. [/quote]
Utter feminist garbage and it’s absolutely ridiculous and absurd.
Youth, beauty and fertility – women demand these attributes of men as well. Women will refuse to marry men who they do not find attractive so why do you think a woman is getting a bad deal in terms of attraction? A woman expects a man to give her children so she expects fertility from a man as well. And a woman demands a man be as youthful as her so the expectations are same here.
The bottom line is women want it all AND MORE from a man. Not only do women demand youth, beauty and fertility from a man they ALSO in addition DEMAND financial resources whereas a vast majority of men will not expect a woman to have money IF she has beauty.[/quote]
You have no idea what you’re talking about. It is VERY common for some of the world’s most beautiful women to be married to much older, uglier men…but those men are almost always fairly wealthy or more powerful. It is very rare to see very wealthy men marry ugly, older, infertile women (*newly marry them,* not stay married to the women they were with when the men were not wealthy).
If everything between the sexes were the same, we would not see such disparate remarriage/marriage rates at older ages.
Why is it that older women who marry younger men are criticized (think about Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher and how she was criticized and belittled…while her ex-husband Bruce Willis married a younger woman with an even larger age difference, but we never hear a peep about that).
This is a PDF, so not sure if it will link properly, but for men and women over the age of 45, a woman’s chance of finding a new spouse is half that of a man’s:
In 2003, 7.0 percent of older men and 8.6 percent of older women were divorced and had not remarried. For divorced women, the probability of remarriage after age 45 is less than 5 percent
In 1990, 30 of 1,000 divorced women aged 45 to 64 remarried during the year, a decrease from 45 per 1,000 in 1960. A comparable proportionate decline is seen for remarriage among women aged 65 and older; 4 per 1,000 divorced older women remarried during 1990, compared with 9 per 1,000 in 1960. Divorced men, on the other hand, were more likely to remarry, although they also experienced declines in remarriage rates.
In 1990, 67 per 1,000 divorced men aged 45 to 64 remarried, a decrease from 97 per 1,000 in 1960. In 1990, 19 per 1,000 divorced
men aged 65 and older remarried, compared with 30 per 1,000 in 1960.
And the other posters are right, this is not a feminist stance; this is the stance of a realist. Again, I DO NOT LIKE THIS ARRANGEMENT, but that doesn’t change reality.
Also, while a man’s fertility might decline slowly over time, a woman’s fertile period is relatively short. Additionally, sperm is very cheap and requires very little effort from the man to produce it (for lack of a better way to put it); a woman’s contribution to the creation of new life is far, far, far greater. A single man can father thousands of children without even knowing it, while a woman knows every single child she has unless she was in some kind of a coma. The biological value of a child (and the child-making process) is very different for men and women.
