h1

Failure to Launch

September 19, 2012

 

I dedicate this post to HUS.

Census 2011: Canadian families get smaller, married couples fewer

Canadian families are getting smaller, the number of married couples is lagging

Check. Women not wanting to marry down, women holding off till 30+, rampant divorce fear. Take your pick. It’s not a good look now.

And while married couples are still the predominant family structure in Canada, their numbers only increased by 3.1 per cent since 2006, while the number of common-law couples rose by 13.9 per cent over that same period. Single-parent families rose by 8 per cent.

Check. A few more blue pillers took the plunge. I will pray for you. A huge margin prefer cohabiting or FWBing their way into ‘couple’ category in the census, how nice. Bringing up the rear are a majority of future fucked up children with no male role model. The decline continues.

Families themselves are getting smaller and not just because single-parent families are on the rise. In 1961, the average number of children per family was 2.7. That number is now just 1.9.

Check. Yeah.. that whole fertility thing kinda puts a cap on having more kids late. Oh of course it’s also much more expensive to raise the little tikes too.. but my guess is it’s harder to keep cranking them out when the internal plumbing has lost it’s sheen and been backed up no matter how many attempts of roto rootering are made. And as OKCupid and POF can attest to, those lonely single moms with children just begging to get wifed up just simply aren’t reeling them in for some curious reason.

The census also confirmed the existence of the “failure to launch” phenomenon, registering 42.3 per cent of young adults in their 20s — particularly men — still living with their parents.

Check. When you take sex off the table, giving it to only the lucky few at the top, you create disincentive for the masses from wanting to leave the nest to build their own nest with another bird, especially a used up gangly, featherless bird that can’t really fly anymore and squawks about how fabulous it is. Factor in a man-cession that killed millions of male jobs, a tendency to push females ahead of males in the new workplace, and the general fiscal responsibility men display vs. the consumerism and debt spending women display, and it’s no wonder that men are opting out to stay home with mummmy n daddy.

Such a pretty little graph. Too bad it doesn’t have a separate line for Upper Middle Class…

From the Failure To Launch article:

Statistics Canada said young men are more likely than young women to live at home. One possible reason, the agency suggested, could be because women tend to get into relationships earlier than men, so they move out sooner to start their own households.

Check. Young men left out of the mating game. Women use a guy to quickly move out, draw upon his resources and then drop him to move onto the next one.

As always, i provide the best kind of evidence. Anecdotal! 🙂

My former FWB married early, not out of love but AS A MEANS to move out of her parents. Once securely out of that situation the relationship quickly devolved for the farce it became and she was well on her way towards serial monogamy while living a glorious independent life.

My exwife moved out of her parents when she was a teenager, relying on the collective help of 6 different boyfriends throughout the years before i rehooked up and married her (i just showed my beta for all to see). She was single for maybe 1 year tops in the 15+ years that i knew her. My current running joke is she’s only as independent as the last guy she hooked up with.

At this rate, we’re bound to make Spanish our official second language as the French begin to deal with the decline of their own birthrate to an unsustainable number. Perhaps it’s time for Quebec to start importing people from France to keep the language and culture alive. If that fails, they can always…

The Ottawa Citizen asks if Canada needs a baby boom to survive:

Today, after decades of plummeting fertility rates, the average Canadian woman has just 1.5 babies – half as many as her counterpart had at the height of the postwar baby boom. That puts Canada in line with a growing list of countries beset by sagging fertility: France, 1.9; Britain, 1.8; Australia, 1.8; Germany, 1.3; Italy, 1.3.

The result is a growing gap between the number of children families are having and how many are needed to keep a country going. For a population to replenish itself, 100 women would need to have 210 children, producing a replacement-level fertility rate of 2.1. That level of fertility has not been seen in Canada since 1971.

In fact, few industrialized countries – with the exception of Israel (2.7), the United States (2.1) and New Zealand (2.0) – are producing enough children to sustain their populations. The trend is not just confined to industrialized countries; the developing world is also getting older fast, driven by the twin forces of rising life expectancy and falling birthrates. By the middle of the century, even the populations of sub-Saharan Africa will likely grow older, meaning people older than 60 would outnumber those under 15.

Me? Baby Boom? Yeah, i’ll get right on that.

Right after i finish a few rounds of Forza 4, get a vasectomy and go hit on some fabulous hit-the-wall-without-a-seatbelt bar skanks.

2 comments

  1. “When you take sex off the table, giving it to only the lucky few at the top, you create disincentive for the masses from wanting to leave the nest to build their own nest with another bird, especially a used up gangly, featherless bird that can’t really fly anymore and squawks about how fabulous it is.”

    Absolutely perfect.


  2. I think that many of those in their 20s still living with their parents come from wildly varying cultures where it is normal to stay at home through your 20s and possibly early 30s until you get married (unlike probably most multi-generational Canadians/Americans that get booted or pressured to move out about 18).

    I moved out at about 30 because I figured I would never find someone to marry while living at home out in the sleepy burbs. I moved downtown and put in many sweat-filled years slowly climbing the ladder and building my resources. However even being down in the center of the action did zero good for my social life/relationship prospects (though I am somewhat introverted). Now in my late 30s, marriage/LTR has never made less sense as I would be expected to commit to someone who was on a schedule (1-1.5 years was an ideal timeline hypothetically given to me by someone that wanted to set me up on a blind date) that themselves have probably gone through numerous flings or short-term relationships and at least 2, 3, or 4 very long-term relationships.

    Why is an involuntarily celibate person like myself, that for most of his life hasn’t gotten the time of day from the average woman (unless usually looking for money), so special that I would click with someone that has numerous failed relationships under their belt, and go down on one knee after 1.5 years? I didn’t want to be a Peter Pan, but it has partly been forced on me living in a society where the average male gets gipped of relationship opportunities and partly being the only sensible/logical path at this point.



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

%d bloggers like this: