Six reasons NOT to send your daughter to college

[EasterJoy]

Actually, it can (e.g.: Kluwer, Esther S., José AM Heesink, and Evert Van de Vliert. “Marital conflict about the division of household labor and paid work.” Journal of Marriage and the Family (1996): 958-969., etc)
ian

Where does that article conclude that a college education* causes* a woman to dislike housework? I do not see where a causal link was demonstrated.

 

[Serap]

Whats a B Comm

Bachelor of Commerce…

 

[Serap]

Is this debate seriously for real??? I think I am in the dark ages…beam me back to 2013 Scottie!

 

[Julianna]

A woman’s independence begins with her own money.

She who waits for her knight, cleans up after his horse.

I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat.

This article is beyond ridiculous.

 

[Rau]

Statistically, the more education women get, the fewer children they have and the less likely they are to get married (see sources in previous posts, and above).

Your statistical observations seem mostly reasonable. Over history (say, the last 200 years), women have had the opportunity to engage more broadly with the “world” (education, politics, employment, etc.), but the hours in the day have not changed. Trade-offs result.

Do these statistical realities encourage you to advocate any change in the attitudes that:

• women should adopt to their education, or
• that parents should adopt in how they bring up their girls, or
• that governments should adopt in any “policy” area, such as the availability of higher education to women?

 

[TeachCatechism]

This thread is getting really stupid and ignorant. So older women have less chance of marriage since they are less attractive? first off, a flat out lie because most men don’t have the chance to date much younger women. Second, that has little to do with this thread except more misogynist thought against women.

 

[PRmerger]

This thread is getting really stupid and ignorant. So older women have less chance of marriage since they are less attractive?

I know I’m a latecomer to the thread, but has someone made the argument that older women have less chance of marriage since they are less attractive and I missed it?

 

[JustPink]

I know I’m a latecomer to the thread, but has someone made the argument that older women have less chance of marriage since they are less attractive and I missed it?

I thought I saw 57thDimension say something like that, but I could be mistaken.

 

[TeachCatechism]

Yes it’s upthread where someone said older women are less attractive, therefore less marriageable because men want younger women. I am so tired of this because while many men want younger not all will be able to do so.

 

[PRmerger]

I thought I saw 57thDimension say something like that, but I could be mistaken.

I think it would be fair to actually offer the quote, with the post number, so this can be verified. Otherwise, it’s an accusation that’s unfounded.

 

[TeachCatechism]

The false dichotomy is entertaining, and it isn’t appropriate in this case. You also seem to ignore the father in all of this (are the mothers raising the children alone?). Was that intentional? I understand that single motherhood is on the rise, but I think we’re discussing Catholic/Christian marriage.

Research findings show that wealthy individuals can, in fact, easily increase fertility and poor individuals do not suffer a reduced long-term fitness because of the greater number of presumably poorer quality offspring, as you seem to suggest (see, e.g.: H. Kaplan, J. B. Lancaster, W. T. Tucker, and K. G. Anderson, “Evolutionary approach to below replacement fertility,” American Journal of Human Biology, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 233–256, 2002). As I noted above, post-secondary education, especially for women, is one of the primary causes of the large fertility decline in the past few decades.
(e.g.: K. O. Mason, “Explaining fertility transitions,” Demography, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 443–454, 1997., etc). It comes down to priorities. The steep decline in the Catholic marriage rate would seem to suggest a shift in priorities.

Outcomes of higher education, like higher earnings (on the part of a wife), increase divorce risk (e.g.: Ressler, Rand W., and Melissa S. Waters. “Female earnings and the divorce rate: a simultaneous equations model.” Applied Economics 32.14 (2000): 1889-1898). It’s not just higher earnings, but correlates with higher earnings, as well - an education gap, with the husband being more educated, has a positive effect on marriage (Groot, Wim, and Henriette Maassen Van Den Brink. “Age and education differences in marriages and their effects on life satisfaction.” Journal of Happiness Studies 3.2 (2002): 153-165.). Women usually select a husband who has a higher level of education and earning-power (i.e. SES - socioeconomic status), and not because men are better educated than women (they aren’t, it’s been the other way around for a while now), but rather the seemingly innate preference for high resource acquisition capabilities (see, e.g.: Schmitt, David P., et al. “A Reexamination of Sex Differences in Sexuality New Studies Reveal Old Truths.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 21.2 (2012): 135-139., Sprecher, Susan, Quintin Sullivan, and Elaine Hatfield. “Mate selection preferences: gender differences examined in a national sample.” Journal of personality and social psychology 66.6 (1994): 1074., etc). Things get more interesting when we notice that women aren’t just selecting high SES, but SES that is higher than their own (see the classic paper: Buss, David M. “Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures.” Behavioral and brain sciences 12.1 (1989): 1-49). If more women get a higher education, and they want to marry men who have higher levels of education than their own (which is tied in with SES), then they are in fact reducing their chances of finding someone to their liking.

**A woman’s chances are reduced also because the man she would like to end up marrying (closer to her own age as she approaches her late 20s and early 30s - see the GSS 2000-2012) is interested in women younger than her. Why? Well, age is linked with attractiveness - the older someone is, the less attractive they are (e.g.: Collins, Sarah A., and Caroline Missing. “Vocal and visual attractiveness are related in women.” Animal Behaviour 65.5 (2003): 997-1004., Symons, Donald. “Beauty is in the adaptations of the beholder: The evolutionary psychology of human female sexual attractiveness.” Sexual nature, sexual culture (1995): 80-118., Furnham, Adrian, Disha Mistry, and Alastair McClelland. “The influence of age of the face and the waist to hip ratio on judgements of female attractiveness and traits.” Personality and individual differences 36.5 (2004): 1171-1185., etc). Finally, the reason the divorce rate is lower for older women is, yes, due in part to maturity, but also due in part to the recognition that their chances of remarriage (and divorce outcomes) get worse the older they are (see, e.g.: Bramlett MD and Mosher WD. “Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States”. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23(22). 2002).
**
The interesting thing about higher maternal age is that it leads to a smaller family, which means fewer Catholics (in this case), which means a lowered chance of future generations being able to meet a spouse, which means (in part) a further delay of marriage - it’s going to start feeding back in unless something is done to stop it (Cf. e.g.: Dessy, Sylvain, and Habiba Djebbari. “High-Powered Careers and Marriage: Can Women Have It All?” The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 10.1 (2010)). Also, by doing this they are effectively selecting out interest in education (i.e. a combination of traits that correlate to higher educational achievement, see: Hatemi, Peter K., and Rose McDermott. “The genetics of politics: discovery, challenges, and progress.” Trends in Genetics (2012)).

Now, it is not necessarily the case that these women have entirely rejected the idea of motherhood, but it is not actively pursued - it is something that is assumed will just happen of itself at some indefinite point of time in the future.

A friend of mine is a doctor who deals a lot with fertility issues in older couples (in his opinion, 35+) - the lengths some of them go through to have children are mind-boggling. In some cases, couples have spent as much as $180,000 trying to have a single child.

 

[EasterJoy]

I know I’m a latecomer to the thread, but has someone made the argument that older women have less chance of marriage since they are less attractive and I missed it?

57th Dension did seem to imply the Childless or Old Maid fear.

 

[JustPink]

I think it would be fair to actually offer the quote, with the post number, so this can be verified. Otherwise, it’s an accusation that’s unfounded.

Ok.

A woman’s chances are reduced also because the man she would like to end up marrying (closer to her own age as she approaches her late 20s and early 30s - see the GSS 2000-2012) is interested in women younger than her. Why? Well, age is linked with attractiveness - the older someone is, the less attractive they are (e.g.: Collins, Sarah A., and Caroline Missing. “Vocal and visual attractiveness are related in women.” Animal Behaviour 65.5 (2003): 997-1004., Symons, Donald. “Beauty is in the adaptations of the beholder: The evolutionary psychology of human female sexual attractiveness.” Sexual nature, sexual culture (1995): 80-118., Furnham, Adrian, Disha Mistry, and Alastair McClelland. “The influence of age of the face and the waist to hip ratio on judgements of female attractiveness and traits.” Personality and individual differences 36.5 (2004): 1171-1185., etc). Finally, the reason the divorce rate is lower for older women is, yes, due in part to maturity, but also due in part to the recognition that their chances of remarriage (and divorce outcomes) get worse the older they are (see, e.g.: Bramlett MD and Mosher WD. “Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States”. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23(22). 2002).

 

[57thDimension]

Post #217:

Would you mind not removing the name(s) of the original member when you respond to their posts?

I cannot tell from whom the original text originated.

Alright. The posts were: #165 and #171.
Post #178:

While Catholic theology supports an intact family with the mother of children at home caring for those children, God often has other plans. [etc]

This time last year there were 2 million unemployed with a bachelors degree or higher (it’s at about 1.8 million now - see the BLS). As an aside: do you know how many PhDs are on foodstamps in the US? (Hint: there are ~5,057 janitors with PhDs.)
Post #178:

allowed them to interract with their husbands and their children in a full and graceful manner.

This seems like a rather tenuous connection.
Post #182:

Great. You save money and go to college by logging into a computer in your parents’ basement and occasionally Skyping with a professor. Good luck with getting your research done with all the content filters your dad will have to put on the computer, though. Oh, and when you go out, make sure you always have a male relative with you, just to be on the safe side.

Well, that is a strawman argument (and leans towards ad hominem/appeal to ridicule), and it is also quite ignorant as to how content filters work.

Anyway, I’d like you to respond to my argument rather than resorting to fallacies. I think you are capable of doing so, too. I find it ironic that we are discussing higher education and its merits, yet some are resorting to the most common fallacies around.
Post #201:

How else does someone go about acquiring a higher education by not going to college?

As I and others have mentioned, online education is another way of getting a formal higher education (and some have indicated that that was the kind of education they received). There is a noticeable connection between (and bias towards) what people liked in college (e.g. “I liked being able to interact with my professors”, etc) and what they think others should like. That’s a classic shift from descriptive to normative (and there’s a lot of it in this thread).

Beyond that, the notion (which may or may not have been expressed in this thread) that one can only learn in a college/university/school environment is simply incorrect.
Post #205:

I can’t believe this thread has lasted 14 pages. The fact that this is a debate makes me sick.

Is there really a debate being had here? I think it’s a combination between seeing who can ridicule the viewpoint of the blogger the most and discussion focusing on topics such as the failings of the college system in general.
Post #206:

B Comm?

Bachelor of Commerce
Post #207:

What makes me sick also is that 4 people voted for a rating for this thread, which was really a rating for that article.

And what justifies that conclusion in particular? Did you ask the people who voted on the thread? Is it wishful thinking on your part?
Post #218:

Yes, because the Magesterium is entirely ignorant of biological realities like that.

While you are allowed to be sarcastic, the fact remains that your above comment is another strawman argument.

 

[57thDimension]

Post #218:

Ironically, a Christian woman who leaps into marriage so that she can get started with having lots of babies can be making herself more vulnerable to divorce than the woman who stayed out of the dating pool, got an education, and let courtship wait until she was older.

Not quite (and it’s a bit of a false dichotomy). The use of the false dichotomy fallacy is indicative, though, in the sense that it seems to be a Freudian slip (yes).

Anyhow, what you note is more the effect of selectivity. It would easily take a few pages to even begin to unpack your above statement (and I suspect that you already know that to be the case). That said, here is a brief overview of a few important points:

The difference in the probability of disruption between women ages 20–24 years and women at least 25 years of age at marriage is not statistically significant, but the difference between those over age 20 years and those under age 20 years at marriage is significant (Bramlett, Matthew D., and William D. Mosher. “First marriage dissolution, divorce, and remarriage.” National Center for Health Statistics. 2001, also: Bramlett, Matthew D., and William D. Mosher. “Cohabitation, marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the United States.” National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23.22 (2002): 1-32.). (One exception: according to the 1995 NCHS, Hispanic women who marry at 25 or older have a higher divorce rate than Hispanic women marrying under 18 or aged 20-24.) Breaking that down differently: persons aged 15-24 had a divorce rate of 32 per 1,000 in 2010, and 25-34 was 29 per 1000 (Brown, S. L., Lin, I.-F., & Payne, K. K. “Age Variation in the Divorce Rate, 1990-2010” (FP-12-05). National Center for Family & Marriage Research. 2012). For adults over age 35, the divorce rate has increased (and each older age group has a larger increase).

As I mentioned earlier, divorce risk is effected by likelihood of remarriage (which goes down with age, in women). Most women who marry as teenagers or in their early 20s, divorce within six years, which is below the average age of marriage (see Bramlett, above) and thus doesn’t really endanger chances of remarrying (unlike those who marry over 25 and then divorce - again, see Bramlett).

For some number of young Christians, early marriage is more attractive than either sinful disobedience (e.g. fornication) or prolonged celibacy. Unsurprisingly, people who are more religious marry earlier (again, Bramlett).

Now, there are slight differences in the groups you mentioned, and there are a few reasons for that. One of the most convincing ones is the connection between the DRD4 gene and a low level of academic achievement in late adolescence and young adulthood (e.g.: Keltikangas-Järvinen, Liisa, et al. “Novelty seeking as a mediator in relationships between type 4 dopamine receptor gene polymorphism and predisposition to higher education.” Learning and Individual Differences 14.1 (2002): 23-30). Impulsiveness has previously been associated with academic underachievement, and the connection between DRD4 and impulsiveness is well-known. People with the 2- or 5-repeat alleles of the DRD4 gene are also higher in novelty seeking, especially women - they are much more likely to be disinclined from higher education.

Now, genes like DRD4 (and thus impulsivity, etc) are associated with higher divorce rates (e.g.: Reiner, Iris, and Gottfried Spangler. “Dopamine D4 receptor exon III polymorphism, adverse life events and personality traits in a nonclinical German adult sample.” Neuropsychobiology 63.1 (2010): 52-58., etc) and other things, like alcoholism (e.g.: Park, Aesoon. Gene-environment interaction in alcohol problems in emerging and young adulthood: the DRD4 VNTR, DAT1 VNTR, and 5-HTTLPR polymorphisms. Diss. University of Missouri–Columbia, 2009., etc)… which also leads to higher divorce risk (e.g.: Bryden, Anna, et al. “A systematic review of the influence of community level social factors on alcohol use.” Health & place (2013), etc).

Beyond all that, no-fault divorce (making marriage an “illusory promise”) has had an effect.

Also mentioned earlier was the differentiation between age, education, and IQ.
Post #218:

I do not find it at all surprising that “a person’s ideal number of children is higher on average than the number of children they end up having”.

The interesting part was that the difference between ideal and actual number of children increases as level of education increases.

Re: nuns having advanced degrees: they aren’t having children, and spending many years in education will have no impact on marriage prospects, obviously.

And speaking of the ‘male relative’ reference: what are the nations with the highest female participation in science/STEM fields? (Hint: one of the top three is Iran.)

+Sebastian

 

[fpt]

Like other Church documents, this one seems to ignore biological realities like differential fecundity. Yes, a woman can pursue whatever education she wishes, but she must also live with the fact that there are consequences (in the correct sense of the word) for that (e.g. delay). According to the 2000-2012 GSS, fertility is highly dysgenic by more education for** conservative women** (that is, it effectively inhibits reproduction). Now, it may be the case that those people never wanted to have more children than they had, but as it turns out, a person’s ideal number of children is higher on average than the number of children they end up having (e.g. blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/12/dont-wait-to-have-older-children/#.UjsDZcakq1Z). That effect increases with the amount of education that they attain. Discrepancy between expectations and outcomes will only increase for younger cohorts of women, especially those who feel it is important to have their children within wedlock. Each new cohort of women continues to delay marriage further, and there are limits on how far out childbirth can be delayed (e.g.: OECD Family Database. SF2.3: mean age of mothers at first childbirth. OECD – social policy division – directorate of employment, labour and social affairs. oecd.org/els/social/family/database; 2012). Women declare that they are pursuing lengthy educations, assuming that can just begin to have families later in life (late 20s and 30s) but fail to realize how much their fertility falls with time (90% of a woman’s egg cells are typically already gone by age 30 - see: Wallace, W. Hamish B., and Thomas W. Kelsey. “Human ovarian reserve from conception to the menopause.” PloS one 5.1 (2010): e8772., etc). Conservative women more often eschew education and opt for marriage and family (GSS), but not necessarily because they aren’t as smart (education is linked to reduced fertility, IQ isn’t [neutral actually, and it would be a mediator…], e.g.: Meisenberg, Gerhard. “Wealth, intelligence, politics and global fertility differentials.” Journal of biosocial science 41.4 (2009): 519).

Even beyond that, greater levels of education are associated with switching to mainline Protestant denominations, especially for Catholics (Schwadel, Philip. “The effects of education on Americans’ religious practices, beliefs, and affiliations.” Review of religious research 53.2 (2011): 161-182). Catholic students in particular show an increase in liberalization and rejection of Church doctrine in post-secondary education - the effect only becomes more apparent with higher levels of education (e.g.: Guest, Mathew, et al. Christianity and the University Experience: Understanding Student Faith. A&C Black, 2013., etc).

Sorry, the word catholic means the respect of the natural moral law, of the natural right, of the revealed anthropology, of the Canon Law, of teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, not more, not less. The term conservative is not quite theological. A conservative woman, what is it??? We are catholic, we are not conservative, theologically speaking??? Nevertheless, I understand your thought, what you want to say.

I repeat it:

Per se, the fact of being a housewife **is not a moral obligation for the catholic wife / mother: morally speaking, the catholic wife / mother can work outside the house, if she wants and if she needs; **

Per se, the fact of having a large family is not a moral obligation for the catholic couple; the fact of having a large family is not a dogma or a moral obligation (a end of marriage that has to be attempted), per se; the fact of having a large family is not, per se, a sign of the holiness of couple; the fact of having a large family is not, per se, a sign of the unholiness of couple; the fact of wanting a baby and of trying to have a new baby can be irrresponsable in special cases, and that is not morally okay; the fact of having a small family is not, per se, a sign of the unholiness of couple; the fact of having a small family is not, per se, a sign of the holiness of couple; the irresponsible paternity is morally wrong, the irresponsible maternity is morally wrong, the irresponsible procreation is morally wrong; The fact of not wanting a new baby can be selfish under conditions, and that is not morally okay;* the absolute natalism and the absolute procreationism are so morally wrong;*

Per se, the fact of choosing the home-schooling is not a moral obligation for the catholic couple; Per se, the fact of not choosing the home-schooling is not immoral.
**
Per se, the discrimination about the education, in function of gender of children done by catholic parents, is morally wrong.**

Per se, the marriage is morally okay for adults (youngs or old). The catholic church does not require young marriage. A marriage for woman at 30 year or 25 or 18 or 60 is not sinful, is notmorally wrong.

** Liberty to choose the age of marriage for woman is the rule.**

 

[PRmerger]

Ok.

Thanks.

 

[PRmerger]

Would you mind not removing the name(s) of the original member when you respond to their posts?

Alright. The posts were: #165 and #171.

Would you mind not removing the name(s) of the original posters?

It makes it much easier to follow the conversation.

Plus, it will be much, much simpler for you.

Thanks.

 

[Cat]

Would you mind not removing the name(s) of the original posters?

It makes it much easier to follow the conversation.

Plus, it will be much, much simpler for you.

Thanks.

I absolutely agree with this.

Posting only the post #s means extra seconds of work for us, as we have to scroll back through the thread to find out who said what. I don’t have extra seconds. Most of us don’t.

Please keep in mind that many of us have been involved with CAF for years, and we know (in an online sense) the other posters and have a general idea of their worldviews. E.g., I happen to be a “fan” of EasterJoy and respect almost everything she says in these forums. If you are commenting on her opinions, I would be inclined to question your posts rather than hers.

I’m not sure I understand your motives in presenting studies about female fertility and higher education. May I request that you plainly state your motives?

There is nothing in Catholic doctrine stating that a couple must have as many babies as a woman’s fertility will allow (which would require young marriage). Catholic teaching is that couples must be open to life, and they are encouraged to use NFP to space pregnancies if there are serious reasons to postpone the birth of additional children. It is left up to the couple to determine what “serious reasons” are, and although some Catholics seem to think that only death or serious illness is a “serious” reason, this is not Church teaching. A “serious reason” could be lack of sleep compromising a couple’s marriage quality, or household finances or…finishing a college degree. It’s up to the couple.

And although I posted this earlier, I will repeat it. According to statistics, half of marriages in the United States of America end in divorce. According to statistics, the poorest people in the U.S. are “single mothers” (including those who are single due to divorce). In this day and age in the U.S., women simply must have a means to support themselves and their children if they become one of the unfortunate “statistics” who ends up divorced.

And although I posted this earlier, too, I’ll repeat it. According to statistics, divorce rates among married couples who use NFP are 1 out of 20. That’s means that 19 women out of twenty will remain married to a man who, presumably, is able to provide for his family. However, 1 out of 20 NFP-using couples will end up divorced, and that woman will be in peril if she has no means of supporting herself.

Yes, I realize that a college degree is not necessarily required for a woman to earn a living. But realistically, if a woman does not have some kind of on-paper certification indicating post-high school training, she really doesn’t have many options for employment. Even factories require certificates (trade school, apprenticeships, associate degrees, etc.) nowadays. And the jobs that don’t require certification (e.g., waitresses, housekeeping, etc.) don’t pay a living wage, and are unlikely to pay a living wage, in spite of the “McDonald’s Protest.”

Of course, some women are able to turn a hobby into a successful, high-earning career. I know a woman who buys and sells the latest “fad” items, and makes a fortune doing it. Years ago, I watched her make several thousand dollars in less than five minutes selling Beanie Babies (back when they were wildly popular). But she has God-given skills and talents that many of us do not have, mainly a sense of timing and an ability to evaluate and take tremendous financial risks in order to achieve tremendous financial gains. I would say that most women (and men) are not capable of becoming entrepreneurs and earning a good salary from careers like sales that don’t require degrees or certification.

 

[Cat]

I know I’m a latecomer to the thread, but has someone made the argument that older women have less chance of marriage since they are less attractive and I missed it?

From experience with my brother, I would say that older women who have post-high school training/certification that has allowed them to hold down a high-salary job are VERY attractive to many men!

Oh, we’re talking about a woman’s physical attractiveness…!

Many men have found out the hard way that a woman with firm skin, a slim figure, and a pretty face is not necessarily a good marriage partner.

And that’s OK…there’s nothing wrong with a man wanting to settle down with a woman who has a career, some money, and is in good shape for retirement. We can frown upon such a mercenary mindset, but retirement looms, and most of us will not have the money or health to drive a Winnebago around the country. Why shouldn’t a man court and marry someone who is in good shape financially?