Like that saying goes: “Men are afraid a woman will laugh at him, women are afraid a man will kill her”.
I think that has a lot to do with the risk a woman takes in dating a man she does not know well. Kind of like sharing location with a friend or two before going on a first date, etc. It’s a safety thing.
This is an interesting take. I don’t find it depressing. I find it hopeful in some ways. I want and hope my kids find partners who are compatible and contribute to their mutual long term happiness.
In my opinion the more you know about your potential partner’s values, the better it is for your future partnership.
I got married in the Catholic Church and went through an abbreviated Pre-Cana. I wasn’t raised Catholic but understood how important it was to my DH’s parents. I guess I could’ve gone into the marital discussions with some resentment, but honestly it was a lovely way of initiating discourse on topics that you might not have if you’re young and in love.
Not really. If you were working outside the country, long term, owning no property in the US but still a US citizen and taxpayer, wouldn’t you choose to be a resident of a state that didn’t have an income tax?
What do you expect, that a person who works outside the US should volunteer to pay a high state income tax for a state that they don’t live in? And if so, which one? There are so many to choose from!
Washington state?
Washington state has no income tax, but is not seeking residents to increase their census.
In my experience, I can usually figure out someone’s political beliefs in a very short amount of time. It’s amazing to me what people tell me. And how they think I agree with their views.
When my kid was on the dating apps, she said you could find out someone’s political background pretty fast. Just by talking.
Did I miss the part of the census being a factor in one of your earlier posts?
I would have guessed Florida or Texas. Or South Dakota if they are looking to take advantage of their special trusts.
She’s a red state resident because they’re luring people in with financial benefits? I must be missing some important fact.
Alaska?
But, at this point you were engaged, right? Not going out on a first or second date. I’m not discounting the importance of compatibility in long-term relationships/marriage at all. And, I do understand that a component of that compatibility is political views. Which is clearly very important to many.
I guess all the, “prescreening,” done via dating apps and internet searching promotes efficiency. Reject before even meeting/trying. It just doesn’t seem to allow for an organic development of a relationship. All of that does seem depressing to me.
Some states make it very easy for expats to establish in-state residency, because they are sparsely populated, and want to increase their census. Lots of military stationed overseas know this, and establish residency in these states with no income tax.
Wyoming is very red, but still the Equality State… I guess you can cite that to prospective dates…
I suppose South Dakota has more military bases…but I’d still prefer Wyoming.
It’s not the actual living there - this is for expats working abroad but paid in the US, who want to have a no income tax state as their official residence. The issue is that voter registration records are public, and are on the internet, and they state the party affiliation. A lot of young people don’t want to date across the political divide.
Yes that is true. But if a person is looking for a long term relationship and therefore seeks compatibility, perhaps it makes sense. I may have missed it but I read the article. I don’t remember seeing anything about prescreening or dating apps. For all we know this gender ideological divide is discovered “organically”…meet in a bar, hit it off…but as time passes, the conservative/progressive divide is a dealbreaker.
It would depress me more if my kid suffered heartbreak. We cannot tell Gen Z or anyone what should or should not be a dealbreaker for them. For me, when I was young and single, I would’ve said being a smoker is a dealbreaker. To each his own.
For my DD using weed is a dealbreaker. Smoking is not that popular for this generation but for some reason using weed is.
Here’s a table from Unicef on cost of childcare.
Considering various aspects, the cost is lower in Germany than in France, where, I suspect, the higher fertility rate (a bit below replacement level, still) is significantly due to a growing African Muslim population, likely not very motivated by the availability of free or very low cost childcare, but by religious values.
There’s no debate in Europe wrt the situation in Germany v.France. And let’s not idealize, the situation isn’t perfect in France or Germany.
The chart you present is only one snapshot that doesn’t capture the reality in each country though:
In Germany, the “bad reputation” issue and half days (5-10 yo) isn’t captured at all since the chart only looks at childcare.
Access is better in France (though finding nonprofit daycares is difficult) but remember that costs only matter for age 6 months to 3 years if the mother doesn’t choose to stay at home (with a ridiculously small stipend but still, no child care needed and you’re paid, an option many lower income families choose). At 3 children start free preschool.
Your other idea was studied and if the generation moving does have more children, the 2nd doesn’t: the birth rate in the immigrant population becomes very quickly the same as in the French population. (I think, starting with Algerian immigration in the 60s.) In France, a large family = 3 kids and there’s a bonus to the child credit plus some benefits like lower cost train tickets. Still, 3-kid families aren’t common, showing a limit to the benefits system. There was a debate regarding the child credit - should the top 10% income families receive it, ie., is it a social benefit or a natalist incentive?
The French birthrate has been higher than Germany’s for decades. It is now going down, causing concern and an official presidential speech. One proposal was to cut the 3-year parental leave&stipend to only 6 months, which sounds a bit contradictory. The general population responded by asking for more non profit daycares.
D1’s fiance, very liberal and an advocate for women’s issues, says he was attracted to her dating profile because she was wearing a “She Persisted” tshirt for her main photo.
I remember an election or so ago when then probably 23 year old D2 sat at the kitchen table and looked up neighbor after neighbor and their political party affiliation. It was like a game we were playing “guess what party neighbor Susie belongs to”. Very easy to find info.
I don’t think we should be surprised that single people are using political leanings as a barometer of dating given how wide (and sometimes extreme) the two parties lean. Personally I’m just happy to see younger people looking at more than just pretty (or not) faces.
True, but given the disparity that will result in a great many young adults without a romantic partner. Not a priority for some, but for many, it is.
Can’t blame them. If, back when I was dating (up through the late '90s, when I met my husband), I could have looked up the political registration of potential partners, I absolutely would have. I had plenty of friends with different political views and could get along with anyone, but it was a different story for romantic partners - we had to be on the same page, or it was a deal-breaker.