Brunch Granny! Please do an AMA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular opinion:
anti brunch granny is not completely wrong.
Just sayin’.

New research says anti-brunch granny is quite astute: "Research shows that marrying young without ever having lived together with a partner makes for some of the lowest divorce rates." - WSJ

https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1490909518208847875

I'm afraid I missed the anti-brunch rant in there. Could you quote that specific part?

TIA

Granny said brunch is full of 20- and 30-something women both single and those “shacking up” with men i.e. living together without proposal or wedding. Granny said these women and men are old enough to be married and having children and should not be wasting weekends away getting drunk at breakfast. Dozens of comments attacked granny, insisting that waiting until “financially secure” 30s for marriage and kids was more mature and responsible and led to happier marriages. The research in The Journal indicates granny is spot on.

You misunderstand much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular opinion:
anti brunch granny is not completely wrong.
Just sayin’.

New research says anti-brunch granny is quite astute: "Research shows that marrying young without ever having lived together with a partner makes for some of the lowest divorce rates." - WSJ

I would invite you to think for a moment: why might it be that the same people getting married very young are also not divorcing. Give me some explanations, and try to think beyond your personal biases.

It says right in the article that the data comes from *religious* women who are not co-habitating before marriage. It's not complicated. They're religious and don't have a lot of previous partners and don't believe in living together or divorce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular opinion:
anti brunch granny is not completely wrong.
Just sayin’.

New research says anti-brunch granny is quite astute: "Research shows that marrying young without ever having lived together with a partner makes for some of the lowest divorce rates." - WSJ

I would invite you to think for a moment: why might it be that the same people getting married very young are also not divorcing. Give me some explanations, and try to think beyond your personal biases.

It says right in the article that the data comes from *religious* women who are not co-habitating before marriage. It's not complicated. They're religious and don't have a lot of previous partners and don't believe in living together or divorce.

It's disgusting how religions brainwash women into thinking they are just a womb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The notion that waiting to marry and have children makes you more financial secure and leads to more promotions at work is pure fiction. Dual incomes allow you to buy a home, and more home at that, much sooner. A married 28 y/o couple over the last few years has watched their house explode in value. While unwed yuppies flush money down the drain on rent. Most young adults mature very quickly when the first kid arrives; waiting stunts that maturation. And most employers reward married with kids colleagues, as it signals you’re stable and trustworthy, and married with kids (and grandkids) elder bosses connect with you. The unmarried and childless just seem flighty, aimless and frankly weird.

There have been studies and you're basically guaranteed middle class status if you: graduate high school, wait until you're married to have kids.

I absolutely would not have been able to afford a home if I had kids first. Daycare is 2k a month PER KID.

Yes, how exactly did granny afford to buy a home? pay for daycare?

[Anonymous]

I’ve personally been privy to management discussing candidates and the posture was basically hell no to paying a single and childless 30-something that much (over $300k). The offer was given to the married 30-something who had two toddlers candidate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular opinion:
anti brunch granny is not completely wrong.
Just sayin’.

New research says anti-brunch granny is quite astute: "Research shows that marrying young without ever having lived together with a partner makes for some of the lowest divorce rates." - WSJ

I would invite you to think for a moment: why might it be that the same people getting married very young are also not divorcing. Give me some explanations, and try to think beyond your personal biases.

It says right in the article that the data comes from *religious* women who are not co-habitating before marriage. It's not complicated. They're religious and don't have a lot of previous partners and don't believe in living together or divorce.

Yes exactly but those on brunch granny's side don't understand that. They think there is causation between getting married young and having a happy marriage that doesn't end in divorce - not that there are social and religious prohibitions that would prevent someone from seeking a divorce even if they are unhappy. Imagine being in a lifelong miserable marriage that you can't get out of - I'd rather be a brunching spinster, honestly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve personally been privy to management discussing candidates and the posture was basically hell no to paying a single and childless 30-something that much (over $300k). The offer was given to the married 30-something who had two toddlers candidate.

If you're privvy to those discussions, you should be informing management that is illegal. It works the other way, too, where hiring managers are eager to weed out parents with small children, pregnant women, or those who might become pregnant. All illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve personally been privy to management discussing candidates and the posture was basically hell no to paying a single and childless 30-something that much (over $300k). The offer was given to the married 30-something who had two toddlers candidate.

If you're privvy to those discussions, you should be informing management that is illegal. It works the other way, too, where hiring managers are eager to weed out parents with small children, pregnant women, or those who might become pregnant. All illegal.

Oh okay, I’ll get right on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular opinion:
anti brunch granny is not completely wrong.
Just sayin’.

New research says anti-brunch granny is quite astute: "Research shows that marrying young without ever having lived together with a partner makes for some of the lowest divorce rates." - WSJ

I would invite you to think for a moment: why might it be that the same people getting married very young are also not divorcing. Give me some explanations, and try to think beyond your personal biases.

It says right in the article that the data comes from *religious* women who are not co-habitating before marriage. It's not complicated. They're religious and don't have a lot of previous partners and don't believe in living together or divorce.

Yes exactly but those on brunch granny's side don't understand that. They think there is causation between getting married young and having a happy marriage that doesn't end in divorce - not that there are social and religious prohibitions that would prevent someone from seeking a divorce even if they are unhappy. Imagine being in a lifelong miserable marriage that you can't get out of - I'd rather be a brunching spinster, honestly.

It's why arranged marriages usually last - the prohibition against divorce is extremely powerful. Many people in arranged marriages do report being happily married; I guess if you are both reasonably nice people who are committed to making it work no matter what, it can work out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The notion that waiting to marry and have children makes you more financial secure and leads to more promotions at work is pure fiction. Dual incomes allow you to buy a home, and more home at that, much sooner. A married 28 y/o couple over the last few years has watched their house explode in value. While unwed yuppies flush money down the drain on rent. Most young adults mature very quickly when the first kid arrives; waiting stunts that maturation. And most employers reward married with kids colleagues, as it signals you’re stable and trustworthy, and married with kids (and grandkids) elder bosses connect with you. The unmarried and childless just seem flighty, aimless and frankly weird.

There have been studies and you're basically guaranteed middle class status if you: graduate high school, wait until you're married to have kids.

I absolutely would not have been able to afford a home if I had kids first. Daycare is 2k a month PER KID.

Yes, how exactly did granny afford to buy a home? pay for daycare?

40 year old granny married young and stayed home with her kids. The key to making this work is marrying a guy who’s 10 years older so you can actually afford a house and kids. This system breaks down completely if you marry someone your own age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve personally been privy to management discussing candidates and the posture was basically hell no to paying a single and childless 30-something that much (over $300k). The offer was given to the married 30-something who had two toddlers candidate.

Maybe if you hadn't had kids so young you'd be in a position to be a hiring manager instead of just overhearing them and misunderstanding their decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The notion that waiting to marry and have children makes you more financial secure and leads to more promotions at work is pure fiction. Dual incomes allow you to buy a home, and more home at that, much sooner. A married 28 y/o couple over the last few years has watched their house explode in value. While unwed yuppies flush money down the drain on rent. Most young adults mature very quickly when the first kid arrives; waiting stunts that maturation. And most employers reward married with kids colleagues, as it signals you’re stable and trustworthy, and married with kids (and grandkids) elder bosses connect with you. The unmarried and childless just seem flighty, aimless and frankly weird.

There have been studies and you're basically guaranteed middle class status if you: graduate high school, wait until you're married to have kids.

I absolutely would not have been able to afford a home if I had kids first. Daycare is 2k a month PER KID.

Yes, how exactly did granny afford to buy a home? pay for daycare?

40 year old granny married young and stayed home with her kids. The key to making this work is marrying a guy who’s 10 years older so you can actually afford a house and kids. This system breaks down completely if you marry someone your own age.

Did she? Then how does she have a career and a grad school degree. Something doesn't add up...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular opinion:
anti brunch granny is not completely wrong.
Just sayin’.

New research says anti-brunch granny is quite astute: "Research shows that marrying young without ever having lived together with a partner makes for some of the lowest divorce rates." - WSJ

https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1490909518208847875

I'm afraid I missed the anti-brunch rant in there. Could you quote that specific part?

TIA

Granny said brunch is full of 20- and 30-something women both single and those “shacking up” with men i.e. living together without proposal or wedding. Granny said these women and men are old enough to be married and having children and should not be wasting weekends away getting drunk at breakfast. Dozens of comments attacked granny, insisting that waiting until “financially secure” 30s for marriage and kids was more mature and responsible and led to happier marriages. The research in The Journal indicates granny is spot on.

I'm sorry, so what was the relevance of brunch again? This couldn't be discussed in non-crazy terms, just focusing on scientific evidence?

I think it was the whackadoo coating the message like bird poop on a statue that makes her wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does having an abortion have to do with it?

Abortions weaken the uterus. It is similar to the effect of a miscarriage.

This is a joke, right? Pls tell me it's a joke???!!!

DP. No, I am absolutely convinced there is someone posting who thinks an abortion or miscarriage is harder on the uterus than carrying to term and going through labor.

People aren't rational when driven by just ideology.

I give it some benefit of doubt. I think it's not 100% ideology but a holdover from the times when abortions were really more dangerous and/or fertility was less understood. I did not grow up in US, so different laws, but in my mom's generation pretty much everyone knew a woman who couldn't have children supposedly because of an abortion.

Seems like there might be some inherent selection bias there, as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The notion that waiting to marry and have children makes you more financial secure and leads to more promotions at work is pure fiction. Dual incomes allow you to buy a home, and more home at that, much sooner. A married 28 y/o couple over the last few years has watched their house explode in value. While unwed yuppies flush money down the drain on rent. Most young adults mature very quickly when the first kid arrives; waiting stunts that maturation. And most employers reward married with kids colleagues, as it signals you’re stable and trustworthy, and married with kids (and grandkids) elder bosses connect with you. The unmarried and childless just seem flighty, aimless and frankly weird.

There have been studies and you're basically guaranteed middle class status if you: graduate high school, wait until you're married to have kids.

I absolutely would not have been able to afford a home if I had kids first. Daycare is 2k a month PER KID.

Yes, how exactly did granny afford to buy a home? pay for daycare?

40 year old granny married young and stayed home with her kids. The key to making this work is marrying a guy who’s 10 years older so you can actually afford a house and kids. This system breaks down completely if you marry someone your own age.

Did she? Then how does she have a career and a grad school degree. Something doesn't add up...

Dp- she also said that all the good men are snapped up at 25.
That’s why the brunching gals won’t ever find a good man. They waited too late.