Krunkz wrote:
Maybe it's a combination of things? Out of that 70% how many were cases where the women was being abused? How many were because her husband cheated on her? How many were because the husband was a dead beat and she was tired of taking care of him? What percent of the divorces are because the man was abused? Because the wife cheated on the man? What % are misc reasons?
Very few. Almost all divorces are no-fault.
Krunkz wrote:
By the way. I read up on the 50% number and............................. it's horseshit. More than 70 percent of all first marriages succeed. Seventy percent of all people who have ever been married are still married to the same person. Interesting. Those who marry, divorce, re-marry, divorce, and re-marry and divorce are dragging the overall average down to 50 percent.
By "read up" you mean you Googled "us divorce rate". Right?
I'm guessing you were reading this or
something that uses it as its main source?
Or did you just go with the first hit?
All three are written by feminists and are ridiculously biased. All are written in that bizarre, pedantic manner that feminists always write ("To be more precise, this is not true. Data reveal that the figure is very close to the actual one.") ("It is frequently reported that the divorce rate in America is 50%. This data is not accurately correct, however, it is reasonably close to actual.")
In fact this writing style is quirky and anomalous enough even by the standards of feminists that it's probable both were writen by the same person.
Both articles always say "women and men" and not the other way around (Orwellian element of all feminist writing).
Both documents default to a female perspective even when discussing issues that are inherently and exclusively applicable to both genders in unison:
Quote:
Among women, 68% of unions formed in 1997–2001 began as a cohabitation rather than as a marriage...
Oh? I wonder what the statistic is for men.
There are no citations on any of the pages, so there's no proof the writer didn't pull these numbers out of her ass. If you click on the "See Here" link on the first Google hit, the figures on the subsequent page has no citations either, but it's again written in that bizarre degenerate English style preferred by feminists (e.g., ending bullet points with periods).
If you look at the sidebars on either article, you'll see that each and every link is applicable only to women and presumes the husband is either 1) to blame or 2) there is a financial incentive to breakup. In fact the first reason for divorce given for visitors to click on is "No Fault", and shortly below is "Do It Yourself".
Now here's the meat and potatoes of it, Krunkz.
If you were even half as shrewd/clever/"with it"/endowed with common sense as you like you think you are, you'd be able to figure all this shit out on your own. Krunkz wrote:
Makes more sense now. Pretty sure the 50% is a nice number for lawyers to throw around to boost business.
Lawyers don't get business unless a divorce happens, smart guy. And they get paid by the court out of the husband's assets whether he approves or not.
Krunkz wrote:
One other thing before I go bid on this side job. Maybe social pressure held marriages together. Maybe people thought getting divorced was a sign of weakness back then. Women/men might have thought themselves failures, or thought their families would see it that way.
ORLY
