In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

Try Advanced Search

  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...

Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Joanne Jacobs
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes

Redwood Dragon
The Invisible Hand
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz


Our Last 50 Referrers

« Frank Miller | Main | Poussin »

October 11, 2002

Free Reads -- Marriage

Friedrich --

Remember how common it used to be for people to claim that, while marriage was good for men (calmed 'em down, helped 'em live longer, etc.), it wasn't good for women? This has been conventional wisdom for 30ish years.

It now turns out that this conventional wisdom is wrong. It was based on one book, Jessie Bernard's 1972 "The Future of Marriage." And a careful study of her assertions, using a wide range of Australian women, shows that marriage is as good for women as it is for men, and in exactly the same ways. Anne Manne explains all in The Age, here. Thanks to View from the Right, here, for the link.

Sample passage:

A new study for the Australian Institute of Family Studies, by sociologist David De Vaus, shows that almost none of the propositions about the toxic nature of marriage for women stand up in the light of contemporary data...Being single is the strongest risk factor for mental health problems for both sexes. Singles, whether never married, separated or divorced, have much higher rates of mental distress than married people.

In related news, Steve Sailer (here) points to a new Gallup poll that highlights differences in voting patterns between single and married people. Sailer summarizes the findings this way:

Gallup's new poll on the Congressional elections shows an enormous gap between unmarried women (who favor the Democrats 68%-32%) and married women (who favor the Republicans 58%-42%). Married women are now more Republican than married men (who prefer the GOP 54%-46%). Married people (of either sex) with children go GOP 59%-41%.

Let's see: married women are happier, healthier, and vote GOP. Unmarried women are more prone to mental problems, and vote for Democrats. Hmmm. What to make of this?

Say, do you suppose anyone has brought any of this news to the gals of "Sex in the City"?



posted by Michael at October 11, 2002


Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?