A record portion of young U.S. women are living with parents or other relatives, largely because of higher college attendance and delayed marriage, a research report said on Wednesday.It's interesting to see that in the interest of smashing the Patriarchy, more women are living under Daddy's roof. And as the economy continues to worsen, these numbers are only going to rise.
The Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data showed that 36.4 percent of women ages 18 to 34 lived with family in 2014, mostly in the home of mother, father or both....
Young women are more likely now to be enrolled in college than in previous decades, with 27 percent of them college students last year, the report said. That compares with 5 percent in 1960.
Last year, 45 percent of young females in college, including those enrolled part time and at community college, lived with family. Among those not in college, a third lived with family.
Many young women are putting off marriage compared with those in previous decades, making staying at home more likely, the report said. In 2013, 30 percent of young women were married, compared with 62 percent in 1940.
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Sex in the City lied
It's not all glamorous apartments in the city. It's living at home with Mommy and Daddy:
18 comments:
Yea! No more men living in the basement playing video games jokes coming from women! Oh wait.
Don't assume it is daddy's roof.
Plenty of generational, welfare families in my neck of the woods. Mother, young woman, and kids in one household. Not a man in sight except for an occasional banger showing up to smoke a cigarette with the young woman.
- ws1835
Don't assume it is daddy's roof.
Plenty of generational, welfare families in my neck of the woods. Mother, young woman, and kids in one household. Not a man in sight except for an occasional banger showing up to smoke a cigarette with the young woman.
- ws1835
Interesting. In the recent past I recall feminists trumpeting that more young men were living at home than women, saying this was a signal that young women were 'more mature', that more ambitious and more capable than their 'failure to launch' male peers.
Completely ignoring that young women had more opportunities to launch than young men because they had something to sell; their sexuality. The majority of young women were able to leave home because at some level they had a man subsidizing their choices. What was not documented (except in a solitary article I saw) was the situation at the other end of the spectrum - that massively more women then men, were moving BACK in with their aged parents in their forties; i.e. without their sexuality to sell they were in same place as young men.
It would appear that now, even young women are finding fewer buyers (or at least fewer buyers that they consider worthy) of their sexuality.
Daddy's roof?
Or an older, mature, sophisticated man's roof?
We'll see.
Daughters better hope, pray and promote a good household while expecting to care for mom and dad or risk all assets to nursing homes!
I think ws1385 is right. Once a woman starts down the road of having children out of wedlock, it becomes an inter-generational problem.
'Young women are more likely now to be enrolled in college than in previous decades, with 27 percent of them college students last year, the report said. That compares with 5 percent in 1960.'
In 1960, Amerika was still America. Families had fathers, little boys had daddies, communities were run locally (not federally), men were educated (or not) and were allowed to have jobs if they wanted them, and most wanted them. It was a blessed, thriving, healthy, reasonably happy nation of good times, with more good times ahead. Oh wait I mean it was an Oppressor Utopia, a horrible hotbed of sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, lookism, and . . . did I mention sexism?
Then in the early Sixties the globalist gynarchy took over, and America's daughters were awarded preference and power over America's sons in every aspect of life, but especially in access to college and employment. Nothing was too good for my Perfect Princess, and nothing was too crappy for Somebody Else's Son.
This liberated America's females to spend spend spend on themselves themselves themselves, and while that's great in the (very) short run for multinational corporations, the parents of daughters, and the top ten percent of U.S. wealth-holders, it was a disaster for the nation generally, and for any chance of a national future. It was a sell-out of selfishness, greed, hypocrisy, lies, and cowardice the like of which the world has never seen. And won't ever see again, thank God.
Now your daughters rule the schools and colleges, and have assured 'careers' with plenty of spending money to buy useless crap. Meanwhile, your nation is coming apart at the seams from the inevitable consequences of such foolishness and malevolence.
Yeah. We the People. Right.
Don't forget all the older childless women returning home after a divorce or a breakup from a long term relationship. They have no where to go and are unable to afford an apartment after spend their paycheck for clothing, makeup, and hairdos.
I've always thought it was stupid to live by one's self anyway. Division of labour alone says it's smarter to live with your parents, especially if you are contributing to their welfare in a significant way. The whole "live on your own" thing is a relatively new development in the West, isn't it?
They are living under daddy's roof but I have no doubt at all that daddy doesn't get to veto them slutting it up or pick out a husband for them. From daddy's perspective, he gets all the drawbacks of patriarchy and none of the benefits.
That could be a very good thing. In many cases I doubt dad is there, or if he is there has authority. But for the rest, its a good thing. Girls shouldn't be along
Michael Maier, you raise a point. It IS a recent development, made possible by the Domestic Industrial Revolution and the reshaped household economy. Prior to the 1920s, it was rare for people to live alone...you had a servant, family, lived in a boarding house, etc. Men worked to bring raw materials home for women to fabricate into meals, clothes, etc.
This changed with electrification and modern cleaning agents. In 1915, laundry was something that the women of the household did on Monday...all day long. Today? Pop a load into the washer, turn on, do something else. Come back in 30 minutes, transfer the clothes to the dryer. Return to doing something else. Come back in 45 minutes, put clothes on hangers. Laundry done. Total of YOUR time needed: 15 minutes or so.
Dealing with the consequences of this has been a massive social problem.
@ ws1835: It's probably not a cigarette.
Families should stick together and unmarried women really need constraints of living with parents, although too many parents - esp. single parents - do not exert reasonable authority; still, it might hinder hypergamy some.
Timmy, it gets even better; gov't or low income housing where good rational anti feminist women MUST FINGERPRINT to be approved for housing with sicko who dont care, the drug up-check out gang and more post american losers. SITC along with the Dunhum HBO show Girls are utterly sinful with the worst yet sexy, so vogue predictive programming to hell.
There is no blame just a veil of sadness in that if some women or most women were not born into such a terrible modern era their lives would be better lived prior to 1950, prior to 1918...
@ws1835
Insightful.
@ray
You forgot ageism and ableism, and noticing any differences, generally.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.