this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2023
388 points (96.2% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7228 readers
167 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In an editorial published last week titled, “If Attitudes Don’t Shift, A Political Dating Mismatch Will Threaten Marriage,” The Washington Post’s editorial board points out that political polarization in this country has reached the point where it is now a prominent, often decisive factor in determining who Americans settle on as their potential mates. They emphasize this trend is now so acute it may actually threaten the institution of marriage as a whole. In particular, it seems that Democratic women are rejecting potential Republican suitors not only for marriage but as relationship material, all across the board. The message the editorial conveys—perhaps hyperbolically, perhaps not—is that as a consequence of this shift in attitudes, marriage itself in this country is in jeopardy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world 59 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If only we could breed out that stupidity, like an inverse Idiocracy. Still, props to those American women with standards.

[–] EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Don’t worry they’ll have 10 kids in each household so they won’t die out.

[–] WeeSheep@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not just per household. I know one who shit talks previous women he kept sleeping with, knowing they wanted kids when he didn't, because the women kept the kids. I learned he was a Trump supporter because we talked about abortion when federal rights were removed. He had many opinions that don't make sense individually, but upon my promoting he admitted he wanted control and men should have the full right to decide what happens to a women's body, either the dad or the man who she is currently sleeping with, those two can determine what happens to her, but women should have no autonomy. He isn't the smartest and I'm sure was repeating what others have told him, but the entitlement is intense.

[–] IzzyJ@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

That shit should get him on a watchlist at minimum

[–] Jaysyn@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Huh, I wonder if that subtly influenced the whole "first born son inherits the land, younger brothers get shipped off to the clergy" thing back in feudalism.

[–] Fosheze@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

That was mainly just to keep inheritance simple.