Where is a good place to find a Catholic Wife?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MP_Kid
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Boler said:
My understanding is a marriage in which the wife had one prior sex partner is twice as likely to end in divorce, and the rate goes up with more partners. What’s wrong with advising caution in consideration of the statistics?
Click to expand...
Please supply evidence of this claim.
 
LittleFlower said:
I know women who earn between 10-35% less than their male counterparts and are more qualified than them.
Click to expand...
I know men who earn between 10-35% less than their female counterparts and are more qualified than them. What’s your point?
LittleFlower said:
More women than men are graduating university, but the earning capacity still takes a great hit.
Click to expand...
Again, women are generally CHOOSING different jobs! You’re just average total wages irrespective of life choices, risk tolerance, experience, etc. Only further proving our point.
 
ChunkMonk said:
He starts to think maybe they are right and he does need to give the 33-year old single-mom stong-womyn with 4 kids from 4 different dads a chance.
Click to expand...
You realize that that’s actually rather uncommon these days?

The median US woman has fewer than 2 kids in her lifetime, let alone by 33.


Also, among women with a bachelor’s degree, 40% have their first child at 30+


There’s a strong class/socioeconomic component here, so women who don’t have children out of wedlock are disproportionately educated women with mainstream middle class values about parenting (namely, that effective parenting requires two engaged parents and a lot of resources).
 
Boler said:
Again, women are generally CHOOSING different jobs! You’re just average total wages irrespective of life choices, risk tolerance, experience, etc. Only further proving our point.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. These are graduates straight from university, graduating from the same course and entering similar jobs in a male dominated field such as computer science and engineering.

Also, from professional experience people still assume that I will get them coffee, and take notes at meetings. I promptly knock that one right on the head. I am not a secretary. Say what you want, women still get treating poorly at many workplaces.

But this thread is about Catholic wives. So the debate is a bit off-topic.
 
Last edited:
I mostly agree with you, but I would not call his buzzwords, or his intent, “right wing.” I consider myself right wing, but I do not agree with his approach at all. His is more of a MGTOW or even misogynistic approach, which people on the right I know do not resonate with. It is a subculture all its own.I also don’t care for Alex Jones. He does not represent the right, he is just a nut-job.
 
Last edited:
LittleFlower said:
I know plenty of average looking folks, who work part time and live out in Whoop-whoop that have found a partner, who they dearly love.
Click to expand...
I know a guy who is somewhere around 5’3" (that’s about my height and he’s no taller than me) and he seems to be very happily married.

Of course, he’s also a) gainfully employed b) musically talented c) has good social and leadership skills and c) is extremely charming. (He seems to be the more social member of the couple, but his wife is also musical.)
 
I totally sympathize with you, I’m about the same age, and there aren’t a whole lot of Catholics where I live to begin with. That being said, I’m not too worried about it. Yes, I want to be married and I want children, and I would preferably have a Catholic, but I’m not in a rush. I might never get married. So what then? That’s not going to change who I am.
 
It’s not a personal attack.

I am saying that whatever you say, won’t change the fact that a large majority of women do get treated unequally and poorly at their workplaces around the world.

The Federalist’s link to the study doesn’t even work but I managed to find it anyway.

Slowly those old studies are being put into context for the newer generations. Here is one that for instance says that the “strong association between premarital cohabitation and marital instability has weakened over time, and there no longer seems to be an association for the more recent birth and marriage cohorts.”.

Also the Federalist is not the news site I would be looking at to find out clear thought through analysis.

Also, again, this is derailing the thread—feel free to PM me or create a new thread where we can discuss women equality at the workplace.
 
Boler said:
My understanding is a marriage in which the wife had one prior sex partner is twice as likely to end in divorce, and the rate goes up with more partners. What’s wrong with advising caution in consideration of the statistics?
Click to expand...
I hear that stat quoted a lot, but the same people who cite it don’t want to talk about age and how young brides are a much worse divorce risk.


“Divorce is 50% less likely for someone who is 25 years old when they wed, as compared to someone who gets married at age 20.”

There’s apparently a low divorce risk sweet spot for marriage in the late 20s/early 30s:

“Sociological researcher Nicholas Wolfinger has discovered a startling new reality: His recent analysis of data from 2006 to 2010 in the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) reveals that getting married after your mid-30s is actually riskier than getting married in your late 20s—and that the best age at which to get married appears to be between 28 and 32. Before that age range, divorce rates are still decreasing; after that window, they begin to climb again.”

When people go on an on about wanting a young bride and virgin brides being less of a divorce risk but don’t want to talk about age as a divorce risk factor–it really makes me wonder if people like that really are primarily interested in minimizing the risk of divorce.

Empirically speaking, there’s no social science support for insisting on a wife 25 or younger.

Edited to add: The current US median for first marriage (27 for women/29 for men) is basically in that low divorce sweet spot. So maybe people aren’t being stupid?
 
Last edited:
I meant far right / extremist, not merely right-of-center.

Personally, I’m right-of-center on most social issues and left-of-center on most fiscal issues, but I’m certainly no political extremist.

I think both the ideologies of the far left like Communism and Anarchism should be fought tooth and nail every bit as hard as those of the far right like Nazism and Fascism.

I see pure socialism as every bit as evil as unbridled capitalism.

And I don’t have these views just for any old reason - these views are the mind of the Church. I see things this way because this is how the Church sees things, and I conform myself to the Church as much as possible on every possible issue.
 
Last edited:
OK,

I’m reading The Federalist piece.


"The study, of women who married in the 2000s, purports to find a “counterintuitive” result: That both women with zero to one and with three to nine sex partners are less likely to divorce than ladies with two or more than ten partners. Therefore, it says, “the relationship between divorce and the number of sexual partners women have prior to marriage is not linear.”

–I suspect the confounding issue for why 3-9 is less divorce-y than 2 is that the women in the 3-9 category are older, which brings down divorce risk.
–Ladies in the 10+ partner category are probably outliers in a lot of different ways.
–I suspect that the fact that it’s only a 5-year window is also important and that the numbers will be less dramatically different for, say 10 or 20 years.
–Note that the 2000s 10+ cohort is much more divorce-y than the 1980s or 1990s cohorts. That probably has something to do with the fact that young Americans today have far fewer sexual partners than Boomers, so a 10+ woman today is much more unusual than her Boomer counterpart.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...han-their-parents-did/?utm_term=.0175fb5d382a

“Baby Boomers have picked up the pace, averaging about 11 partners. Generation X has nearly kept up with 10.”

“And Millennials, generation of Tinder and “I’m just not looking for anything serious right now,” can expect an average of just eight.”

So, the Millennial with 10+ sexual partners is an outlier in a way that a Boomer with 10+ sexual partners was not.

–Back to The Federalist. “That women who married in the 2000s were least likely to divorce if they had no sex partners before marriage, at a rate of approximately 6 percent. That’s almost divorce-proof. Even just one sex partner before marriage moved up a woman’s chances of divorce within five years of marriage to one in five chances, at a 20 percent rate.” Again, over just five years. Not impressed.
–This was very naughty. “Tragically for women’s chances at lifelong love, however, “the share of women who were virgins at marriage fell from 21% in the 1970s to 5% in the 2010s.” In other words, we can thank the death of chastity for contributing to our high divorce rates.” And yet, divorce rates are down. We recently had a 40-year low.

 
Wow, this thread has turned into a mess. I highly suggest disregarding most of the posts here, as they all seem to come from a place of “well if you wanted to date me, you would need to…” or "if you wanted to date the women I like, you would need to… " Just be yourself and strive for virtue, and like I said earlier, seek to make friends rather than spouses, and you will find that God will bring about romance in one of those frienships if He has it in His plan for you.
 
Last edited:
You have what - thought about it or did you actually go there?
 
Going there. If nothing else, it would be an interesting experience.
 
I found you a cheap flight from Los Angeles to Manila, but you gotta book it today! 😃

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top