Smoking gun

Figure 3 in this NCFMR paper on remarriage rates doesn’t include the actual values of the data being charted, so I pulled the chart into GIMP, blew it up, and estimated the point values based on the pixel height of the bars.  The values may be slightly off, but this should be very close*.

women_remarriage_2011

What I’ve wanted to do for some time is compare the shape of the women’s divorce rate curve with the remarriage curve.  With this more granular data on divorce rates by age, I can now compare the divorce rate curve I calculated using the Census and ACS data with the remarriage curve.  I set them with separate scales so the shapes of the curves are easier to compare**:

women_divorce_and_remarriag_separate_scale

 

Edit:  The slope of the remarriage curve is steeper than the slope of the divorce curve in the chart above.  This isn’t obvious because I’m using different Y axis scales.  I should have made this more clear.  Here is a chart using the same scale for both:

women_divorce_and_remarriag_same_scale

 

I’ve focused on the stats for women because it is women who are driving the divorce rates.  As you can see, divorce rates track very closely with women’s opportunity to remarry.  Note also that the old canard that as women age their desire to be married goes away;  if this were true the divorce curve would slope upward, not downward.

 

*I’ve contacted the NCFMR asking for the actual data points, and if they provide them I will update the chart in this post.

**  For the < 25 category this represents 20-24 for remarriage rates and 15-24 for divorce rates.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Data, Divorce, Post Marital Spinsterhood. Bookmark the permalink.

66 Responses to Smoking gun

  1. donalgraeme says:

    Interesting how wide the separation between divorce and re-marriage rates in the 35-55 age ranges. Seems clear that women in those brackets over-estimate their chances of re-marriage. Would that be the EPL dividend, I wonder?

  2. Pingback: Smoking gun | Manosphere.com

  3. Anonymoose says:

    Too many potential confounders to make reliable causal inference (e.g. male and female divorce and remarriage rates are highly dependent, so one could argue that men are driving these associations, although I realize there are other data that suggest the opposite, and as one ages there are increasing opportunity costs to both marriage and divorce).

    However, it’s definitely an interesting question. I wonder how it could be studied more carefully? I wonder if anyone would fund such a study?

  4. blurkel says:

    Not aruging with your data, but women I know who are close to or past menopause tend to be very vocal about not needing or wanting men in their lives. This isn’t necessarily due to hating men. One woman I know still pines for a husband lost to cancer, but there is no chance she will ever take on another man as an intimate partner in any sense of the word.

    Just more reason for men to forget about marriage as a lifestyle choice.

  5. any says:

    Yes, I think 35-44 is peak delusion. Women in this bracket only recently dropped in value. Many probably “settled” when they hit 30 and their only memories of other men are the dudes they banged in their 20s. Then they are shocked when they aren’t interested again after they get the five year divorce.

  6. jf12 says:

    “Note also that the old canard that as women age their desire to be married goes away”

    So, gray divorce isn’t a thing? What happens if you replot after reconvolution, so that these graphs are comparing similarly normalized rates (e.g. per 1000 women in that age range)?

  7. ctznsoldier says:

    Are you arguing that the opportunity to remarry encourages the divorce rate or is just correlated with?

    “Note also that the old canard that as women age their desire to be married goes away; if this were true the divorce curve would slope upward, not downward.”

    Not sure this means the canard isn’t true, but that it is tempered by other factors- Realization of the wall, need for financial support, family stability, religious and family expectations, etc.

  8. Steve H says:

    Dalrock – any data points on men’s divorce rate per 1000 marriages vs. men’s remarriage rate per 1000 divorces? I’d be very interested to see the juxtaposition. -S.

  9. davidvs says:

    May I advise another image with the compliments of these numbers? That would be more helpfully inspiring to young women.

    Compliment of Orange: Looking at marriages, what is the chance the marriage stays together?

    Compliment of Blue: If I divorce my husband, what is the chance I will be unable to remarry?

  10. Dalrock says:

    @jf12

    So, gray divorce isn’t a thing?

    No. It isn’t. Not in the US, not in the UK (the only countries I’ve found data for).

    What happens if you replot after reconvolution, so that these graphs are comparing similarly normalized rates (e.g. per 1000 women in that age range)?

    I’m not sure what you are asking for. It doesn’t make sense to recalculate per 1,000 women. Only divorced women can remarry, and only married women can divorce. The metrics in the OP take this into account.

  11. TFH says:

    Yes, I think 35-44 is peak delusion. Women in this bracket only recently dropped in value.

    Combined with the fact that men in that age bracket are at peak value. So the men their age who they have known all along, and have been lower value than them all along, are suddenly higher value.

    The intersection of the curves is the ‘death cross’, that occurs around 30, and the widest divergence is at 38 or so, as per Rollo’s chart.

    Also, Rollo’s chart could have saved the lives of Eliot Rodger and the people he killed…

  12. jf12 says:

    @Dalrock,
    Ok, so gray divorce isn’t a thing.

    “It doesn’t make sense to recalculate per 1,000 women.” It does because you’re comparing the shapes of the rate curves, so you should compare curves of similarly normalized rates, because otherwise the underlying distributions of the *different* populations make comparison of the curves potentially misleading.

    For example I imagine we could calculate the rates of wig-wearing in age groups per 1000 women chemo-users, perhaps for some attempt to see how “vanity” changes with age. And we could calculate the rates of make-up usage at gyms per 1000 exercising women in the various age groups. Even if these curves happened to be similar in shape, they have nothing in particular to do with each other.

  13. Dalrock says:

    @Steve H

    any data points on men’s divorce rate per 1000 marriages vs. men’s remarriage rate per 1000 divorces? I’d be very interested to see the juxtaposition.

    The divorce curve looks very similar, since the age of husbands and wives is strongly correlated. See this for a curve showing divorce rates by age for men. For remarriage, the men and women’s curves look more different (as one would expect). See this paper from NCFMR (the same one I used for the remarriage data in the OP).

    I don’t chart the same curves for men because as I mentioned women are the ones driving the divorce rate. See this paper.

  14. Dalrock says:

    @jf12

    Ok, so gray divorce isn’t a thing.

    In case you are interested, I went into more detail here.

    It doesn’t make sense to recalculate per 1,000 women.

    It does because you’re comparing the shapes of the rate curves, so you should compare curves of similarly normalized rates, because otherwise the underlying distributions of the *different* populations make comparison of the curves potentially misleading.

    For example I imagine we could calculate the rates of wig-wearing in age groups per 1000 women chemo-users, perhaps for some attempt to see how “vanity” changes with age. And we could calculate the rates of make-up usage at gyms per 1000 exercising women in the various age groups. Even if these curves happened to be similar in shape, they have nothing in particular to do with each other.

    No. You want to take it from a meaningful comparison to a much less meaningful one. Women who aren’t married can’t divorce. Women who aren’t divorced can’t remarry.

    Otherwise, why not compare it to the global population of men and women in each age category? Why exclude men in the US, and men and women of other countries when considering the rate at which women in the US divorce/remarry?

  15. gdgm+ says:

    Interesting post… perhaps OT, but still something to be considered, might be the dynamics / possible problems of stepfamilies.

    The Dynamics Of Stepfamilies

  16. Opus says:

    I am much confused by the second chart and wonder if Dalrock or anyone who understands these things can explain:

    Why, in the second chart are the number of remarriages (33) shown as greater than the number of divorces (120)?

  17. Opus says:

    Sorry that should of course be the other way round: 120 remarriages to 33 divorces.

  18. gunner451 says:

    So if I’m reading this right then you have (for example in the under 25 age group) 3.3% divorcing in any one year and of those about 0.4% getting remarried. This doesn’t really represent her actual chances for getting remarried though as you’d have to integrate over whatever part of the curve you’re interested in to see that (just a rough approximation for a woman that divorced at 25 she has about a 20% [rounded up here] chance of getting married by the time she’s 55).

    I’m actually surprised that the curve has a consistent downward slope as I would have thought those at the lower end would be less likely to hop back into a marriage versus riding the carousel for a few years. Might mean that those that are remarrying are those already involved in another relationship when they blast apart their current marriage so they are just hopping to a new provider.

  19. Dalrock says:

    Good question Opus. The slope of the remarriage curve is steeper than the slope of the divorce curve, especially in the younger ages. I set them with separate Y scales to show the similar shapes. I should have made the different slopes clear. I’ll edit with a note and add a new chart showing them with the same scale. I really should have included that all along. My apologies.

  20. jf12 says:

    Rates are *already* comparisons.

  21. jf12 says:

    @Dalrock ” You want to take it from a meaningful comparison to a much less meaningful one.”

    It’s more of an x-axis problem as graphed. You are comparing the two curves as if they have the same x-axis, for example whereas in one the data point for the 35-44 “women” age range is actually for 35-44 *married* women and for the other it is for 35-44 *divorced* women. This x-axis problem goes away, allowing the curves to be meaningfully compared, if the rates are from *different* populations.

  22. gunner451 says:

    Sorry should have explained the 0.4 percent a bit better as its the percentage of the original population not the percentage of the divorced population getting married which would be 12% of those that divorced. Also screwed up the integration (that’s what I get for doing this without a calculator) but don’t have time to do it right (did not account for the constantly increasing population of divorced women correctly)

  23. BradA says:

    I was a bit confused about the different scales mentioned in the post. I couldn’t really see them. Probably my issue, though others may have that too.

    [D: My apologies. I really should have included the additional chart from the beginning.]

  24. deti says:

    @ Dalrock:

    “As you can see, divorce rates track very closely with women’s opportunity to remarry”

    Is this pretty much what you expected to find? We have a situation where women divorce younger, and expect to remarry (my suspicion is that they probably do if they want to). I believe women know that as they age they can’t attract another man, so they remain married and are somehow able to suppress or redirect their unhaaaappiness. So, when a woman gets to around age 50, divorce rates fall off.

    Another interesting thing that donal pointed out is that the gap between divorces and remarriages widens a little at 35-55, then narrows again past 55. That seems to me to mean that women are not as able to remarry as well as they think, even in the 35-54 age group.

    Look at the nose dive that remarriage rates take when you get to female age 35. I had expected a gentler drop in the 35-45 age group. This data tells us that remarriage odds really drop off once a divorced woman gets to 35.

  25. Opus says:

    I can only concur with TFH: women get into their thirties and discover that not only do men of their own age prefer younger women and can get them but the woman’s pulling power in her thirties is (doubtless to her great surprise) not what it once was – hence the bulge in the two curves. When I was in my thirties I would not – had I stopped to think about it – have dreamt of dating a woman my own age, as there were more than enough women aged between twenty-one and twenty-eight who were interested; any older woman was obviously throwing herself at me and I acted accordingly – frankly they disgusted me both by reason of their having aged but also by reason of their promiscuity. Modesty (which they did not have) is a most attractive attribute of a young woman. As Pliny, the elder, wrote, ‘Marriage [and he might have added Divorce] is for the young.

  26. BradA says:

    Dalrock, having the charts separate and then combined may help.

  27. BradA says:

    Some additional factors that would be interesting to know:

    – Similar charts for men.
    – Who filed for the divorce. This chart seems to lump women who caused the divorce with those who had it happen to them. Proving who was really “at fault” would be far trickier. (And factoring in something like the denial of sexual relations as a driving factor in an affair would be harder still.)
    – How many of the remarriages are by a women who filed for divorce. How many or women who were divorced? I doubt this detail is kept in the records though.

    Women may initiate most divorces, but it still isn’t all of them. Though comparing the divorce and remarriage rate may still have significant value.

  28. donalgraeme says:

    Allow me to hazard a guess as to why re-marriage rates for women drop off after 35. It is a combination of three factors:
    1) Women are less attractive as they age, and past 35 most women have hit the wall and their looks just aren’t enough to convince men to marry a divorcee.
    2) Men at that age group are able to, by virtue of changes in SMV/MMV, marry younger women than their peers. And given the choice, that is exactly what men will do. [This is Opus' point.]
    3) Women past 35 have very limited fertility. A man who marries a 30 year-old divorcee knows that she can probably still give him a few children. The same cannot be said for him marrying a woman who is 38 or 40. For a lot of men, marriage is still about having children. Perhaps they never had a chance to marry before, and this is their only shot at having kids. Or perhaps they lost their kids from the first marriage when the wife frivorced them. Either way, these men are looking for children and marrying an older women is not the way to get them. So they pass on women past 35.

  29. Patrick says:

    Off-topic but I came across a good movie. It’s called The Lightkeepers and deals with the same theme as Fireproof but kicks Fireproof’s ass in the resolution. It’s from 2009 and stars Richard Dreyfus. Some people here might be interested.

  30. Patrick says:

    Although I’ve never seen Fireproof, but based on what I’ve read, it has similar themes.

  31. Mark says:

    @Dalrock

    Nice Post!………..I see that on graph #1 that you have the number for the age range of 45 to 54 pegged at 32 per 1000……Yikes!….this is not good news for my oldest sister who is 46 and wants to remarry. I am going to love telling her this.Thanks.

  32. Ras Al ghul says:

    “Yes, I think 35-44 is peak delusion. Women in this bracket only recently dropped in value. Many probably “settled” when they hit 30 and their only memories of other men are the dudes they banged in their 20s. Then they are shocked when they aren’t interested again after they get the five year divorce.”

    It is amazing how many women get married and start talking marriage at 29, instinctively they know on some level their window is closing.

    And they settle, and resent it and blow it up at some point per dalrock’s “plan”

    And they are bombarded of images and messages that they are sexier in their 30s, which they so desperately wish to be true, and blame the lack of fun and attention in their life to being married to a scleb

  33. Dalrock says:

    @BradA

    having the charts separate and then combined may help.

    The chart with just the remarriage curve is at the beginning of the OP, and you can see just the divorce rate curve here:

    Some additional factors that would be interesting to know:

    – Similar charts for men.

    As I explained I didn’t include the stats for men because their divorce rates will be highly correlated to that of women and there is no plausible theory suggesting that men’s age is driving this. If we are going on the theory that men’s age is driving divorce, then divorce rates should go up as men get older (trading their old wives for new). But of course they don’t go up, they go down. However, if you have a theory you want to put forward here, please give it a shot.

    - Who filed for the divorce. This chart seems to lump women who caused the divorce with those who had it happen to them. Proving who was really “at fault” would be far trickier. (And factoring in something like the denial of sexual relations as a driving factor in an affair would be harder still.)
    – How many of the remarriages are by a women who filed for divorce. How many or women who were divorced? I doubt this detail is kept in the records though.

    Women may initiate most divorces, but it still isn’t all of them. Though comparing the divorce and remarriage rate may still have significant value.

    It would always be nice to have more detailed data, but I’m not aware of data that breaks this down as you are asking for. Also, even if we had data based on who files it wouldn’t tell us who was at fault, because we have made it a point not to determine fault when divorce is requested. But if you are still struggling with all of this after the paper I linked above on why most divorce filers are women and the paper from the UK I linked to last week, go to your local super market and look at the magazines targeted to women. Women are obsessed with divorce and remarriage. Now go to your local bookstore and check out the women’s fiction section, check out cable channels, movies, and websites targeted to women, etc. Women are shamelessly awash in divorce fantasy, even Christian women. It is a worldwide obsession. Now try to find the same thing for men and report back all of the examples you can find.

  34. imnobody00 says:

    Women are obsessed with divorce and remarriage.

    This is because women are serial monogamists to the bone. It is in their basic nature.

  35. Dalrock,

    Only divorced women can remarry…

    Widows?

  36. Remo says:

    It would be interesting to see this broken down by one major factor: presence of children. A frivorcing 32 year old childless female who wants another spin on the carousel certainly has a better time of it than one with 2-3 young children. If both females married in their early 20’s they both likely have a free house and considerable monthly prizes which may attract other men to the pre-built nest but not many rush to raise another man’s sprog despite the combined forces of churchianity, feminism, and routine male shaming.

  37. Dalrock says:

    @ibb

    Widows?

    Good point. The remarriage rate data is per 1000 divorcees and widows. I’ll update the charts to reflect that.

  38. gunner451 says:

    So I got around to looking at these number with a spread sheet and set down a few simple rules to just see how this might play out. If you follow a cohort of 1000 married women through the years starting at age 25 and assume that they only divorce once and that once remarried they stay married then the following occurs:
    1. At age 65 only 416 are still married to their original partner or only ~40% of marriages survive the 40 years
    2. 750 (or 75%) of the cohort is married at age 65 so 57% of these women manage to find a new husband and continue on
    3. That leaves 250 living as cat ladies for about 20 more years until they die

    Don’t know how that lines up with real life but given my assumptions that looks pretty bleak.

  39. gunner451 says:

    OK the numbers for a cohort of 1000 that marries at 35 and another that marries at 45
    1. at age 65 the age 35 cohort has 571 still married and the 45 cohort have 743 still married to their original partner
    2. for the age 35 cohort 732 are married at age 65 and for the 45 age cohort 792 are married at age 65
    3. it seems pretty consistent that around 200-300 per 1000 women should be single at age 65 (more or less depending on which cohort they belong to when married)

    Looks like you’re trading off youth and sex appeal for stability the older you go for your marriage partner (and much more baggage) which tracks with what I’ve seen in real life.

  40. Dalrock says:

    Gunner451,

    The data is a snapshot in time and doesn’t represent a single cohort through time. I included cohort data here that you may find interesting: http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/are-young-marriages-doomed-to-divorce/

    However that data includes marriages ending due to death in addition to divorce I think.

  41. Anonymous age 72 says:

    I just today got an e-mail from my youngest sister, age 62. She married very young, and at age 21 ran off with a 42 year old man. When she was 42, she banged a 21 year old man, and divorced her husband. Of course, the 21 year old had no desire to raise kids almost his age, so he split.

    She then lived several years with an excon. During that time, I left the state. Next thing I knew she had moved to a small rural city of 25,000, living with another man, and said she was very happy.

    Today, I found out she tired of his constant drinking so left him and now lives in a small town pop. 1000.

    I am curious if she is still able to get another man. She might, because her personality is somewhat positive. But, I think she has got a bit heavy. I don’t think I have seen her for quite a few years, but I did see a photo from a family reunion last year.

    Of course, if she does’t get another man, she will amost certainly say she is no longer interested. And, perhaps she really isn’t.

    But. to be honest, I don’t know she doesn’t already have another man, which is a question my wife asked me. I think not, because she did say she had a small, one bedroom apartment where she can walk all over town.

    I will go back to that state in October, to visit one brother, and a “foster daughter”, a Mexican woman who lived with us nearly 20 years ago for two years. I miss her. But, I am making it clear to everyone I do not expect to ever go back again. At age 72, while I can do it,life is too good here in Mexico, and I am bored with driving after driving over 300,000 miles since retiriing in 1997.

    I had an aunt who buried two husbands. She married the last time when she was 78. But, she had the most happy, bubbly personality you can imagine. Also, Aunt kate even at 78 was shaped somewhat like a woman, not a large jungle animal. She was petite and still danced well.

    I noted at her wedding dance she was walking around, hugging people. When she got to my rather screwed up family, she stopped hugging and started shaking hands. I told her, “Aunt, I am very Mexican now and we hug. I want a hug.”She gave me a big smile, and the hug that I wanted! But, none of my siblings wanted a hug.

  42. Kane says:

    It would be helpful to know the average time between divorce and remarriage by age group. Is the “waiting for Alpha” delta widening or narrowing?

    You have pointed out before that the age of first marriage is rising. I wonder if there’s an average age of first marriage at which there will be a discontinuity and marriages will fall off a cliff. If so, such an event may occur when a ridge of women approaching their first marriage and a ridge of remarriage hopefuls meet a trough of men willing and able to step into the breach.

    When rapidly rising numbers of MGTOWs/Red Pill men meet rising numbers of “Lean in” adherents there will be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. Interesting times.

  43. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Kane, there are many different theories on the questions you asked. For example, Dalrock has said he does not think there is a marriage strike, and my view is different.

    Here are some statistics I found over the years. If anyone sees data for years after 2011, I would appreciate a link.

    Number of Marriages per 1,000
    Unmarried Women Age 15 and
    Older, by Year, United States:

    1922 99 (found on Web)
    1960 73.5
    1961 72.2
    1962 71.2
    1963 73.4
    1964 74.6
    1965 75.0
    1966 75.6
    1967 76.4
    1968 79.1
    1969 80.0
    1970 76.5
    1972 77.9
    1975 66.9
    1977 63.6
    1980 61.4
    1983 59.9
    1985 56.2
    1987 55.7
    1990 54.5
    1991 54.2
    1992 53.3
    1993 52.3
    1995 50.8
    2000 46.5
    2004 39.9
    2007 39.2 (Rutgers 2009)
    2008 37.4 (Rutgers 2009)
    2009 36 (UVA 2010; project moved from Rutgers)
    2010 32.9 State of our unions data
    2011 31.1 (http://ncfmr.bgsu.edu/pdf/family_profiles/file131529.pdf)

    I think marriage has already fallen off a cliff.

  44. donalgraeme says:

    @ Anon 72

    The thing about the current stats is that they don’t provide specific enough data to assure us that a male-led marriage strike is underway. That could be the case. Or it could be women driving the marriage strike. Or there could be no “strike”, but rather because women are delaying marriage the rates are lowered until their is equilibrium (which won’t happen until women cannot delay the average/median age of marriage any longer).

  45. KMan says:

    I think it’s even more interesting to take the remarriage stats as a indicator of expected imminent remarriage:

    (made this using your numbers)

    You can see how bleak the real prospect of imminent remarriage (or indeed, any remarriage) is here.

  46. Brad

    You have been reading long enough to have realized that disputing the female -filed divorce as primary source of divorce-POV is a position based on the comfy chair of conventional wisdom. There is no better place than here to get the statistics and draw the right conclusions. You will never see some direct study that sets it’s premise as female primacy in divorce filing. If you did it would be tandem with male primacy in mucking up marriages.

  47. Opus says:

    AA72: You amaze me. If there is one characteristic action of Americans (which I as a repressed Englishman find hard to take) it is the seeming non-stop hugging that your former country-men – and women – go in for. I am not sure which is worse: that or the triple (right-left-right) air-kissing that your friends the Cheese-eating surrender-monkeys aka The French, go in for – I don’t even like shaking hands – at least with women. It is considered bad form for one member of the Bar to shake the hand of another, which at least avoids the problem in the previous sentence.

  48. mustardnine says:

    Opus: True Brit!

  49. Inge says:

    engauge digitizer is better when you want to extract the original numbers from figures like these.
    Open source software

    http://digitizer.sourceforge.net/

    [D: thanks I'll check it out.]

  50. Boxer says:

    Inge: Thanks from me for the digitizer tip as well!

    Off Topic: Here’s one for Marcus D.:
    hxxp://www.christianforums.com/t7825198/

  51. They must have pulled down the thread

  52. Opus, start fist bumping opposing lawyer. Dalrymple will opine about yet another degradation of the culture

  53. Boxer says:

    They must have pulled down the thread

    “herbiemarcuse” appears to have entirely been flushed down the christianforums.com memory hole. lol – thanks for the link to that place. it was fun.

    and for my brothers still behind the lines: the chair is against the door, john has a long moustache… sqeeeeeeee

  54. greyghost says:

    Boxer
    What a strange place to be fully invested in ignorance is bliss.

  55. Boxer says:

    Dear Grey Ghost:

    What a strange place to be fully invested in ignorance is bliss.

    It is quite odd to think that single dudes would be this way. I can see it in the case of married bros. They have their egos to protect, and admitting that they wifed up a slut and are now a kitchenbitch is probably too much for most of them to admit.

    There *are* a couple of redpill men over there. It was a little surprising to find them.

    Best, Boxer

  56. jf12 says:

    re: “divorce rates track very closely with women’s opportunity to remarry”

    Like I said, you want to think as if the x-axes were the same i.e. representing the same women, but they’re different women. It’s almost an apples to oranges thing here. Imagine for one graph you want to portray the worm infestation rate of apples versus storage age. i.e. one data point is the number of worm infested apples per 100 apples at 25-34 weeks storage. Now further imagine that worm infestation changes the apple into an orange, and for the second graph you want to portray the rate at which previously-infested apples get reinfested, vs storage time. Now, you want to think as if the x-axes were the same, but it is apples to oranges.

    Others have suggested examining cohorts, and the time delay of remarriage. These are also x-axis issues.

  57. Dalrock says:

    @jf12

    Like I said, you want to think as if the x-axes were the same i.e. representing the same women, but they’re different women. It’s almost an apples to oranges thing here.

    This doesn’t make sense, unless you outright reject the premise that women considering divorce will take their remarriage prospects into consideration. If that is your argument, please state it.

    Women who divorce move from the married demo to the divorced demo. The weakness in the remarriage metric is that it also includes widows. But the solution here would not be to add in even more unrelated women. The solution would be to restrict the remarriage chart to only divorced women. If I had such data, I would do so.

  58. blurkel says:

    The often-deservedly derided Huffington Post is covering a bit of this topic in an execrable article on reasons to marry that don’t include love. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/31/marriage-after-50-_n_5399084.html The quote which caught my eye (and which touches on the topic of this post):

    “The trend in marriage after 50 is to avoid it. One in three Baby Boomers is unmarried, and of that number 58% are divorced and 32% were never married, according to analysis of 2009 data by the Department of Sociology at Bowling Green State University. ”

    http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/322105-baby-boomers-confront-old-age.html

    FWIW

  59. MarcusD says:

    @Boxer

    It looks like CF and CAF are quite alike.

    It’s interesting to witness how the views of the moderators are self-reinforcing (by way of creating a single-view climate which keeps the “good” group happy and disorients those who may disagree, e.g. “spiral of silence”).

  60. the chair is against the door, john has a long moustache… sqeeeeeeee

    Good words Powers Booth, I had it at “the chair”

  61. There are men at CF who where there when I had a raging post count. I was addicted to the debating there, and they were once far less hard core about enforcing things.

    Then they started with having women moderators handle the men’s only area. But not men moderating the women’s only area. Why? I asked of course. Well, because things they might get titilatin’ in the women’s area, you know, when they discuss sanitary products and stuff. That crap had men eschewing porn and headin to CF to read about “Dallas Apples” maxi pads and stuff.

    Hold, got light headed thinking about it.

  62. Anonymous age 72 says:

    donalgraeme says:
    May 30, 2014 at 11:14 pm

    @ Anon 72

    The thing about the current stats is that they don’t provide specific enough data to assure us that a male-led marriage strike is underway. That could be the case. Or it could be women driving the marriage strike. Or there could be no “strike”, but rather because women are delaying marriage the rates are lowered until their is equilibrium (which won’t happen until women cannot delay the average/median age of marriage any longer).

    Basically, your view is pretty much the same as Dalrocks. It may be men avoiding marriage. Or, it may be women avoiding marriage, Or, it may be woman and men both avoiding marriage. Or, it just might be women delaying marriage. And, there is really no way to be sure. I must admit I have no idea what equilibrium is, in your paragraph.

    Let me add one you didn’t list. “Maybe cohabitation is really the same as marriage.” It’s not, but it should be on a complete list. The reason cohab is not the same as marriage is a legal concept with different treatment in most states for ‘cohabbers’ (I just made that word up, heh, heh.) This posting would become infinite if I get into those legal concepts. Also, large numbers of men and women simply view cohab as different. Most female cohabbers keep whining, “What can I do to get him to marry me?”

    IF I am reframing it, I apologize, because I have no intention to reframe it. Reframers are a bloody nuisance. What I tried to do here is re-state your paragraph in my own words. If you can’t re-state another person’s words correctly in your own words, you are probably not understanding it.

    When I was studying Statistics in college many years ago now, preparing for the CPA exam, I noted that most other Stat students didn’t really understand what they were doing, And, they often admitted it. Stats for them were a case of finding the formula and working through it. And, hoping you didn’t make a mistake at some point in the formula. They could not look at a long list of numbers and make any sense out of them.

    I graduated from high school in 1960. I was the top math student out of my high school, though it was a small school, maybe only several hundred students. There was no money for college, (I went to night school in my 30’s) though my oldest son is a math research professor.

    The next two or three years, when there were no chores on the farm, I spent my spare time ‘playing’ with mathematics. Just playing with numbers, trying to make sense out of them. Numbers are fun. My son loves his research; he gets to play with numbers, too, and really enjoys it. That, not arrogance, is why my view of numbers is what it is.

    My belief that it is more men than men avoiding marriage is based on decades of reading anything on these topics. Magazines; newspapers; TV shows; listening to women at work; men’s newsletters; women’s blogs and boards; the entire bulk of society as far as a person can encounter it. Even Oprah did a show on it over 20 years ago, with women whining, “Why won’t men make a commitment?”

    Wait, there is more reason than my own observations. Who else says it is men who are avoiding marriage, and why?

    Stop and turn on the superior man thinking machine, not the emoting machine, nor the quarreling machine. But, especially not the quarreling machine.

    Remember all you have seen and heard in recent years.

    Dr. Phil. Mark Driscoll. Focus on the Family retards. Virtually every Churchian pastor; deacon; and self-labeled Christian heretic. Bill Cosby. Every liberal femtard. Every feminist with a pulpit. Almost all women you personally know. Most politicians and government officials. In many cases, your own family is pissed at you for avoiding marriage and wants to fix you up with this wonderful woman (gasp, choke) they know.

    You are inundated with insults directed at men who need to “man-up and stop avoiding their responsibilities, Dammit!”

    So, thinking machine still turned on and operating? So, how do all these people know it is men who are avoiding marriage? WOMEN TELL THEM THAT EVERY DAY IN EVERY WAY. And, if they would listen to men, men would tell them the same thing.

    Except for militant misandrists, very few are saying it is women who are avoiding marriage. And, the misandrists do it as a carefully calculated propaganda tactic. “You think getting married is a bad idea? You think men are avoiding marriage? No, all men want to get married. It is women who are tired of your worthless selves who simply don’t want to marry. You are very unusual, some sort of misogynist freak! Might as well man-up and start hustling or you will die alone!”

    So, how much more data do you need? Yet, you are waiting for some liberal academic researcher with a femtard agenda to provide a study you can trust? Hee, hee.

    #####
    The delay theory, also false, is also easy to eliminate.

    Same deal. Look at the marriage rate chart I posted. Then, go back and review Dalrock’s excellent graphs.

    Is there anywhere that the curve picks up after a delay?

    Which delay? By age? Well, the age of first marriage is well over 26, I think. That is because, yes, women are delaying until they have done their schooling and banging, but that is merely why the average age of marriage has moved up to 26. But, the marriage rate is down everywhere. Including way down all through the Thirties, where delay would have to extend if it were a cause. No, no delay until a greater age.

    Could it be some sort of magical delay where all women are delaying until a certain time or certain event? Such as until January 22, 2022, when all at once millions of women are ready to marry and marriage rates will explode? Until they are 35? Look at Dalrock’s graphs. There is no indication of any pick up in rate as women get older than 26, etc.

    The delay issue is so easily eliminated that the only reason I included it is because some would assume I forgot it. I didn’t. Other than that it is so easily eliminated that it shouldn’t be on the list.

  63. Ciaran says:

    These charts would make a lot more sense if they were rescaled to a common y-axis; per 1000 women. One is per 1000 married women, the other is per 1000 formerly married women. To make sense of this, we need to know how many women per 1000 are married, and how many per 1000 are formerly married. This would show us the gap between how many women divorce (or are widowed) compared to how many remarry.

  64. John Galt says:

    Apologies in advance if this is a stupid question..>Having trouble understanding the “Rate”.

    Does this mean per year? In other words…if there are 100 remarriages per year in the 25-34 cohort, does that mean that essentially everyone in this cohort remarries (10% * 10 years = 100%)?

    I’m trying to figure out if I date a 28 year old divorcee,w hat her probability of remarriag is and thus how much negotiating power we each have.

  65. Dalrock says:

    It is per 1,000 “at risk” of divorce/remarriage (married for the former, divorced or widow for the latter) per year.

  66. Pingback: Trophies |

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s