8 ms·

The inconvenient truth about love and divorce (2016)

62 points by godelmachine 8y ago

marchenko 8y ago
The real inconvenient truth is that marriage still works best as 'an economic institution designed to build wealth and raise children'. It is the best vehicle we have designed for doing those things; other arrangements have proven sub-optimal. It may also accommodate other needs, but those are secondary. Ironically, those who realize this tend to have happier, more loving marriages.
- k__ 8y ago
  What are the other arrangements? Couldn't we simply have tax breaks per children and be done with it?
  - geezerjay 8y ago
    Tax breaks doesn't help share both parenting tasks and paeenting influence.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - Nomentatus 8y ago
    The most common other arrangement in this society is serial monogamy (the original comment by marchenko means "stable marriage is the best", not "a bunch of marriages in a row are the best".) In other cultures, the most common other arrangement is to give the child's mother's brother (uncle) all the rights and responsibilities that we give to the biological father/husband. The uncle rears the child, with the mother. Marriage can exist in those societies but gives no rights over the child, and no or few responsibilities. (Might be time to consider offering this as an option for people in this society, at least.) Children are little consoled by tax breaks, in my experience. Single mothers can't stay home on a tax break, since there's no income to get that break from.
    - WaddyJones 8y ago
      Is being raised by ones uncle really more popular than being raised by ones grandparents, on a global scale? Somehow I doubt it. In many Asian countries being raised by grandparents is the norm but being raised by an uncle would be more of an uncommon arrangement.
      - Nomentatus 8y ago
        By unique societies studied, over time - not by numbers of individuals. This is what I was told in Anthropology class.
        Robotbeat 8y ago
        I find that unlikely. I mean, what if there are no brothers? If, for sake of argument we say there are always exactly two children per family (approximation for stable population size and if some brothers die or move), there's about a 50:50 chance that a woman won't even have a brother to help raise the children. Seems super unlikely to be the "most common" (by number of societies) arrangement when it only can work like 50% of the time in a society that DOES decide to do it. Was your Anthropology professor pulling your leg?
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > If, for sake of argument we say there are always exactly two children per family (approximation for stable population size and if some brothers die or move), Stable population size in any significant society is a very new thing, not historically common. Basing your assessment of historical likelihood on societies being assumed to have a trait that basically no premodern society did probably isn't reasonable.
        mavelikara 8y ago
        I am from a part of the world - Kerala, India - where the matrilineal inheritance [1] was common up until about 50 years ago. This system worked as the GP described. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marumakkathayam https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marumakkathayam
- hyperpallium 8y ago
  Sounds like Dirty Jobs' don't do what you love, love what you do https://youtube.com/watch?v=NT1i26RbrhM&t=8s https://youtube.com/watch?v=NT1i26RbrhM&t=8s I've heard that arranged marriages end up as loving relationships. If choosen as compatible and with no choice but to make it work... plausible. Or it could be that people put up with damaging situations.
  - pm90 8y ago
    Arranged marriages are still marriages and come with the same issues. Couple of factors why they succeed often is: * compatibility is established by design * usually, its a union of families, which creates a wider social circle that helps out the newlywed couple through difficulties Personally, I believe that _any_ two people living together and sharing so much will inevitably end up loving/hating each other. You simply can't be indifferent to people who are in such close social contact with you for so long.
    - graycat 8y ago
      Good that you mentioned the two families. And having 3-4 generations all right there is a big help. Also helping are having kids if only because it creates and orders the TODO list when a baby cries or a child needs food, shoes, etc. Also helping are well established ROLES. Both husband and wife already know in good terms what they are to do. Also helped was the village church and the weekly services emphasizing family formation. Also helped was village social pressure, at times really severe.
      - dbt00 8y ago
        There's also specific pressure creating cultural conformity; if you need to go to your mother in law when your husband is an asshole, you and your mother in law had better agree on what being an asshole is and how he should change. This creates a bias towards cultural stability but also limits unions involving social outsiders or non-traditional marriage partners.
    - btilly 8y ago
- watwut 8y ago
  I dunno. Violence in marriage is less frequent now then it used to be. Part of that is changing status and opportunities of women, but part of that is when people treat marriage as economic arrangement then what they get is mini startup with hard way to leave. That era also have a lot of jokes about marriages that ends up with both partners despising each other and calling each other names.
graycat 8y ago
We get only one life and of course we want it to be good. The main thing we want is not to be alone. So, the best solution is in the traditional "We gather together to join this man and this women together with the bonds of Holy matrimony." This is a somewhat bombastic version of what it sounds like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6rX3wlDsVI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6rX3wlDsVI This is a lot of what it both looks like and sounds like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBBL-t7CKbU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBBL-t7CKbU Then they are no longer two people but one couple. They are co-founders, full partners, of the one life they share. These statements are necessarily true even if a lot of people deny them and ruin the joining, bonding, founding, and partnership; these statements are true because we only get one life and have room for only one really good marriage. Then, "A house divided against itself cannot stand". The central objective of the marriage is family formation, being a strong limb on the tree. Why? So we won't be alone. So, we will have family as the bedrock of the rest of our lives, e.g., for connections with others with and via our children, grandchildren, etc. It's a lot of work to do well with family formation, and the main reason for work is just to support the family. With the marriage, the couple gets activities, accomplishments, memories, and traditions they like a lot, don't want to lose, can't get anywhere else, and that bond them together. Traditions are really important because they bring good promise of some good times in the future, e.g., US Thanksgiving, Christmas, big times at birthdays, etc. E.g., a good start on a Christmas tradition is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnoIZ_RzV9M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnoIZ_RzV9M With a divorce, all those activities, ..., are lost along with much of the life. Doing well at family formation is so difficult and the necessary stages of life are so short that there's nearly no opportunity to do well at family formation a second time. So that one marriage is essentially the only chance you get; get a divorce and have failed at that one chance and have destroyed so much that will likely never catch up. Yes, pop culture is awash in denigration, minimization, etc. of marriage and family formation. Dumb. An enemy of the US, or any country, could hardly do better in destroying the US than to sabotage the US family. I rank The Problem that Has No Name as at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920960/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920960/ as the single most effective Communist attack on the US ever, done more damage than a nuclear bomb. Right, it was written by middle class Long Island wife, mother, and accused Communist Betty Friedan in her The Feminine Mystique. Sabotage. And it's worked, in the US and all the more advanced countries: Too few couples see the importance of building strong families, and the birth rate is so low those people are rapidly going extinct, literally. Or Betty didn't see, or wanted others not to see, that there was anything important to do for a wife and mother at home with young children. Well, some of what there is to do is emotional, verbal, physical, rational, psychological, athletic, social, literary, artistic, mathematical, scientific, technical, political, romantic development (where doing well should keep her very busy and productive) and continuing with strong family formation. Young parents are also missing something crucial -- the ancestors back 1-3 generations close at hand helping out with what they have learned being successful at family formation. E.g., A few days ago there was an earthquake wave that went around the world. The source was identified as the poor island country Mayotte in the Indian Ocean just east of Africa and near Madagascar. So, as at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayotte#2007_census https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayotte#2007_census look at the growth in the population from 1958 to 2017: 23,364 32,607 47,246 67,205 94,410 131,320 160,265 186,452 212,645 256,518 So, poor island Mayotte is doing really well at family formation while the US and the most advanced countries are having so few children they are going extinct. That's an inconvenient truth. Darwin is very actively on the case and definitely will bring a solution.
mgamache 8y ago
Trying not be acerbic but, an article on divorce that doesn't even mention children? Ridiculous and puerile. A divorce without children is a walk in the park. You can sign a few papers, say goodbye, and _never_ have to see that person again. The truth is that it's better for children if parents in a low-conflict marriage to stay together. It's not the right path for everyone, marriage is really complicated and some children are better off with divorced parents. But, that's not a pithy essay targeted at Millennials. Also: "inconvenient" truth, is it really? Seems vary convenient that the article supports the idea of dumping the guilt you might feel in when dumping your spouse. This is giving comfort to the reader not introducing a truth that makes the reader reconsider the impact of their actions. An inconvenient truth might be that most people that stay married are happy they did. http://yourdivorcequestions.org/will-divorce-make-me-happier/ http://yourdivorcequestions.org/will-divorce-make-me-happier...
- csense 8y ago
  I suspect you've hit the nail on the head of why the social taboo against divorce exists in the first place. Ceteris paribus, it's better for children if their parents stay together. Therefore we've raised the social cost of a divorce until it's only accessible to people who really need to get out. Because of cultural changes, this doesn't work as well as it has in the past at keeping couples together. There's good points (fewer people trapped in bad or abusive marriages) and bad points (more families who have to deal with the many practical problems of single parenthood).
  - hydrox24 8y ago
    > Therefore we've raised the social cost of a divorce until it's only accessible to people who really need to get out I don't know what the time frame for this statement is, but all over the western world, divorce has been made substantially easier both legally and socially, since the end of WWII. > Because of cultural changes, this doesn't work as well as it has in the past at keeping couples together. Obviously culture and law are bound up together, but the advent of no-fault divorce and the decreasing benefits for the married over the unmarried did far more to make divorce easy, common, and therefore more acceptable than easing the stigma ever did directly.
jeffdavis 8y ago
Maybe something as complex as marriage means more than one thing?
swsieber 8y ago
Marriage requires commitment from both parties. You can still have that commitment even if you are marrying for love. If you and your spouse are prepared to sacrifice, you'll have a very rewarding time. The real challenge is now days we don't encourage commitment, and your commitment alone won't make a happy marriage (e.g. it takes two for a happy marriage). I agree that we need to de-stigmatize divorce that gets you out of a bad situation. Edit: To say that since we marry for love so we should divorce for love does a disservice, namely because a marriage with two committed people is far more rewarding than one that only worked because of the initial fire of love. Edit 2: Sorry Im using sappy language, it oddly seems the most concise.
qwerty456127 8y ago
If "love ends" it means it either has never been there (it was limerence, desire, friendship, confusion or whatever) or you were doing it wrong.
charliebrownau 8y ago
I would not trust a single thing to come out from TED anymore Its filled with LEFT REGRESSIVE SOCIALIST narrative now
charliebrownau 8y ago
Feminism since 70s * Replace Democracy with Socialism * women dependent on state for resources * women HATE MEN+Democracy/west * Misinformation * change words * Remove individual accountability for women via - abortion - No fault divorce - Duluth model - pussy pass in courts - Metoo
charliebrownau 8y ago
Gday My view on marriage 5 years MONK here 2 years MGTOW Women in today's Duluth & Unfair system is not worth * Short Term Dating * Long Term Dating * Cohabit * Marriage * Even short term dating and the first date Women DEMAND and EXPECT men to pay out money for resources just because they are women and they have tits and women dont have to give anything back for the transaction * Due Process is getting REMOVED for MEN (#metoo) * We are getting close to a stage that we will need dash cam for ALL MEN in Western society to prove we DIDN'T do something and the other person IS GUILTY just like cars these days What do women really offer in 2010-2020 ? Most dont * cook * clean * take care of kids * sow/repair clothes * garden Most do support * Socialism * Veganism * Minimalism * Apple phones * Apple laptops Most DON'T * watch or interested in - scifi * watch or interested in - anime * watch or interested in - Japanese/South Korean culture Most choose to work in:- * Nursing * Teaching * Child Care * Office/Office Admin Most dont or not interested in:- * Geek CULTURE * Fixing tech/computers * Ardino/Raspi/electronics * PC gaming coop * Linux * DIY repair * scifi In the end of the day what do most geek/nerd men have in same common interest with women ? NOTHING It then falls back to Looks Boobs Pussy Sex If women choose to reject being TRADITIONAL and submitting to the house wife role then most of them offer NOTHING TO MEN Most men will have their own * Car * Home * Job * Money * TV * Lounge * Bed * Entertainment Why do we "need" dating or marriage it then falls back to the only thing we "need" is sex If your above a 6 in looks and OVER 6 foot tall then use tinder otherwise pay for a hooker or go MONK Then the "need" for women disappears completely ONCE Feminism in late 1970s changed the LAWS to SOCIALISM in the lie of EQUALITY with NO FAULT DIVORCE RAPE AND DULUTH MODEL in LAW and COURTS that was two of the main factors that killed TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE Until ALL WOMEN GLOBALLY stop using Hypergamy to choose men by * Over 6 foot * Over 6 in looks * Over 6 inches * Over 6 figure income and finally look at men as an PERSON not a resource device that you can screw over by LAW and the laws ARE FIXED and women are WILLING to go back to PROPER TRADITIONALISM Marriage is OVER
charliebrownau 8y ago
How to fix USA/AU/UK/West for Western Males - * One LAW for everyone with the SAME punishment for ALL. No matter if your female or male , white or black, born in the country or arrived later , everyone is held to the same standard . No more free PUSSY PASS's for women * REMOVE Duluth Model from LAW + Courts + Police * REMOVE PUSSY PASS for law/courts * Centrelink changed to UBI (AUSTRALIA) Everyone on benefits gets AUD$450 flat No more money because your Black Female or kids * Capital Punishment for ALL * False rape and False Sexual Assault to be convicted with the SAME sentence if it was the victim eg if its 10-20 years in jail for rape, then its 10-20 years for FALSE CLAIM * Ban Abortion * Remove ALL government funding for ALL activism & religions * Remove ALL government funding for any media outlet that push's socialism over unbias reporting * NO religious clothing to be worn in Schools, Universities, government buildings , hospital , police or fire * Ban the use of Political Correct and Identity politics in - School - Universities - Government * Remove "Gender" studies and ARTS from Universities If you want to do arts or socialism (gender) studies then you will CHOOSE to do it at a private school with your own money, not government funded education place designed to teach people to actually get a JOB * Remove Child support * Remove Vagmony (Alimony) * Remove forced 50% of other person's assets ( Are we still in the 50's that women dont work or are women accountable for their own life choices and equal , you cant have BOTH) * Build more 1 bedroom affordable units for single people in EU and WEST * Allow TINY homes to be built in the west * False rape/dv/assault claim register database - https://youtu.be/x7qFiVkDgG8?t=28m35s https://youtu.be/x7qFiVkDgG8?t=28m35s
ohthehugemanate 8y ago
Choosing a best friend for the next 50-60 years is hard! Staying best friends for life is hard. Maintaining romantic feelings and enjoying the changing things sexual partnership brings over a lifetime, is hard too. Oh, and let's throw in the enormous perspective and life changes that children bring. It takes two people who are willing to put in the time, energy, occasionally sacrifice, and explore together. For longer than people are really capable of projecting. Certainly longer than they stay the same person. Alternatives exist, and I'm happy people explore them. But IMHO the core problem of a long human relationship isn't made any easier by adding more humans. 1:1 communication/connection seems a lot simpler than groups of any formation. And going through life without a close, long relationship (of any kind) does miss a lot of the value of the journey. So props to those who make it, and figure out how to keep on making it. Props to those who discover they can't make it with that particular person. Props to everyone except the assholes who give you shit for trying.
throwaway09482 8y ago
I strongly dislike this article. The article portrays the view that divorce is something that's "ok, because situations change and it's alright to change your mind". I say this as someone who almost got divorced this past year. The problem with divorce is that most of the time it involves breaking a promise—a vow actually. And that's the real issue that I find so disturbing. In fact, I see no problem with two people saying "I will marry you and stay with you as long as conditions x, y, and z are met". As long as both parties understand the conditions going into the marriage and recognize the possibility that it may end under specific circumstances, then fine with me. Who am I to judge someone's lifestyle choices? But breaking an unconditional promise to be with someone forever is disturbing. I'm increasingly repulsed by this idea that people aren't responsible for their actions. Cause always has an effect, even if it's an effect that is delayed for years. And personally, without having some basis of moral axioms (keeping your word for instance), then it really just feels like our existence borders on nihilism. What's the point of anything? If words are meaningless, then why even bother in the first place? Why make a "promise" if it's just going to be broken later? It means nothing. You live, you die, and all along the way not one thing was held sacred. In a universe without any meaning, we have to create our own, and if someone's word can't even be trusted, then why bother with anything at all? So in summary, I don't have a problem with divorce per se, but breaking your word to someone else is a massive problem, and TED articles like this aren't helping by contributing to the increasing vacuity of promises that have no meaning.
- tomp 8y ago
  Indeed, the unconditionality of the promise is one of my biggest problems with marriage. I’d be much happier with a conditional promise (“... until death so us part, or you hit me, or we cannot have children, or you become substantially different than you’re now, ...”) but eventhem it’s hard to list all the exceptions.
  - strikelaserclaw 8y ago
    don't forget to get that document notarized :P
- 8y ago

62 points by godelmachine 8y ago

The real inconvenient truth is that marriage still works best as 'an economic institution designed to build wealth and raise children'. It is the best vehicle we have designed for doing those things; other arrangements have proven sub-optimal. It may also accommodate other needs, but those are secondary. Ironically, those who realize this tend to have happier, more loving marriages.

k__ 8y ago
What are the other arrangements? Couldn't we simply have tax breaks per children and be done with it?
- geezerjay 8y ago
  Tax breaks doesn't help share both parenting tasks and paeenting influence.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Nomentatus 8y ago
  The most common other arrangement in this society is serial monogamy (the original comment by marchenko means "stable marriage is the best", not "a bunch of marriages in a row are the best".) In other cultures, the most common other arrangement is to give the child's mother's brother (uncle) all the rights and responsibilities that we give to the biological father/husband. The uncle rears the child, with the mother. Marriage can exist in those societies but gives no rights over the child, and no or few responsibilities. (Might be time to consider offering this as an option for people in this society, at least.) Children are little consoled by tax breaks, in my experience. Single mothers can't stay home on a tax break, since there's no income to get that break from.
  - WaddyJones 8y ago
    Is being raised by ones uncle really more popular than being raised by ones grandparents, on a global scale? Somehow I doubt it. In many Asian countries being raised by grandparents is the norm but being raised by an uncle would be more of an uncommon arrangement.
    - Nomentatus 8y ago
      By unique societies studied, over time - not by numbers of individuals. This is what I was told in Anthropology class.
      - Robotbeat 8y ago
        I find that unlikely. I mean, what if there are no brothers? If, for sake of argument we say there are always exactly two children per family (approximation for stable population size and if some brothers die or move), there's about a 50:50 chance that a woman won't even have a brother to help raise the children. Seems super unlikely to be the "most common" (by number of societies) arrangement when it only can work like 50% of the time in a society that DOES decide to do it. Was your Anthropology professor pulling your leg?
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > If, for sake of argument we say there are always exactly two children per family (approximation for stable population size and if some brothers die or move), Stable population size in any significant society is a very new thing, not historically common. Basing your assessment of historical likelihood on societies being assumed to have a trait that basically no premodern society did probably isn't reasonable.
        mavelikara 8y ago
        I am from a part of the world - Kerala, India - where the matrilineal inheritance [1] was common up until about 50 years ago. This system worked as the GP described. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marumakkathayam https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marumakkathayam
hyperpallium 8y ago
Sounds like Dirty Jobs' don't do what you love, love what you do https://youtube.com/watch?v=NT1i26RbrhM&t=8s https://youtube.com/watch?v=NT1i26RbrhM&t=8s I've heard that arranged marriages end up as loving relationships. If choosen as compatible and with no choice but to make it work... plausible. Or it could be that people put up with damaging situations.
- pm90 8y ago
  Arranged marriages are still marriages and come with the same issues. Couple of factors why they succeed often is: * compatibility is established by design * usually, its a union of families, which creates a wider social circle that helps out the newlywed couple through difficulties Personally, I believe that _any_ two people living together and sharing so much will inevitably end up loving/hating each other. You simply can't be indifferent to people who are in such close social contact with you for so long.
  - graycat 8y ago
    Good that you mentioned the two families. And having 3-4 generations all right there is a big help. Also helping are having kids if only because it creates and orders the TODO list when a baby cries or a child needs food, shoes, etc. Also helping are well established ROLES. Both husband and wife already know in good terms what they are to do. Also helped was the village church and the weekly services emphasizing family formation. Also helped was village social pressure, at times really severe.
    - dbt00 8y ago
      There's also specific pressure creating cultural conformity; if you need to go to your mother in law when your husband is an asshole, you and your mother in law had better agree on what being an asshole is and how he should change. This creates a bias towards cultural stability but also limits unions involving social outsiders or non-traditional marriage partners.
  - btilly 8y ago
watwut 8y ago
I dunno. Violence in marriage is less frequent now then it used to be. Part of that is changing status and opportunities of women, but part of that is when people treat marriage as economic arrangement then what they get is mini startup with hard way to leave. That era also have a lot of jokes about marriages that ends up with both partners despising each other and calling each other names.

graycat 8y ago

We get only one life and of course we want it to be good. The main thing we want is not to be alone. So, the best solution is in the traditional "We gather together to join this man and this women together with the bonds of Holy matrimony." This is a somewhat bombastic version of what it sounds like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6rX3wlDsVI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6rX3wlDsVI This is a lot of what it both looks like and sounds like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBBL-t7CKbU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBBL-t7CKbU Then they are no longer two people but one couple. They are co-founders, full partners, of the one life they share. These statements are necessarily true even if a lot of people deny them and ruin the joining, bonding, founding, and partnership; these statements are true because we only get one life and have room for only one really good marriage. Then, "A house divided against itself cannot stand". The central objective of the marriage is family formation, being a strong limb on the tree. Why? So we won't be alone. So, we will have family as the bedrock of the rest of our lives, e.g., for connections with others with and via our children, grandchildren, etc. It's a lot of work to do well with family formation, and the main reason for work is just to support the family. With the marriage, the couple gets activities, accomplishments, memories, and traditions they like a lot, don't want to lose, can't get anywhere else, and that bond them together. Traditions are really important because they bring good promise of some good times in the future, e.g., US Thanksgiving, Christmas, big times at birthdays, etc. E.g., a good start on a Christmas tradition is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnoIZ_RzV9M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnoIZ_RzV9M With a divorce, all those activities, ..., are lost along with much of the life. Doing well at family formation is so difficult and the necessary stages of life are so short that there's nearly no opportunity to do well at family formation a second time. So that one marriage is essentially the only chance you get; get a divorce and have failed at that one chance and have destroyed so much that will likely never catch up. Yes, pop culture is awash in denigration, minimization, etc. of marriage and family formation. Dumb. An enemy of the US, or any country, could hardly do better in destroying the US than to sabotage the US family. I rank The Problem that Has No Name as at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920960/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920960/ as the single most effective Communist attack on the US ever, done more damage than a nuclear bomb. Right, it was written by middle class Long Island wife, mother, and accused Communist Betty Friedan in her The Feminine Mystique. Sabotage. And it's worked, in the US and all the more advanced countries: Too few couples see the importance of building strong families, and the birth rate is so low those people are rapidly going extinct, literally. Or Betty didn't see, or wanted others not to see, that there was anything important to do for a wife and mother at home with young children. Well, some of what there is to do is emotional, verbal, physical, rational, psychological, athletic, social, literary, artistic, mathematical, scientific, technical, political, romantic development (where doing well should keep her very busy and productive) and continuing with strong family formation. Young parents are also missing something crucial -- the ancestors back 1-3 generations close at hand helping out with what they have learned being successful at family formation. E.g., A few days ago there was an earthquake wave that went around the world. The source was identified as the poor island country Mayotte in the Indian Ocean just east of Africa and near Madagascar. So, as at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayotte#2007_census https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayotte#2007_census look at the growth in the population from 1958 to 2017: 23,364 32,607 47,246 67,205 94,410 131,320 160,265 186,452 212,645 256,518 So, poor island Mayotte is doing really well at family formation while the US and the most advanced countries are having so few children they are going extinct. That's an inconvenient truth. Darwin is very actively on the case and definitely will bring a solution.

mgamache 8y ago

Trying not be acerbic but, an article on divorce that doesn't even mention children? Ridiculous and puerile. A divorce without children is a walk in the park. You can sign a few papers, say goodbye, and _never_ have to see that person again. The truth is that it's better for children if parents in a low-conflict marriage to stay together. It's not the right path for everyone, marriage is really complicated and some children are better off with divorced parents. But, that's not a pithy essay targeted at Millennials. Also: "inconvenient" truth, is it really? Seems vary convenient that the article supports the idea of dumping the guilt you might feel in when dumping your spouse. This is giving comfort to the reader not introducing a truth that makes the reader reconsider the impact of their actions. An inconvenient truth might be that most people that stay married are happy they did. http://yourdivorcequestions.org/will-divorce-make-me-happier/ http://yourdivorcequestions.org/will-divorce-make-me-happier...

csense 8y ago
I suspect you've hit the nail on the head of why the social taboo against divorce exists in the first place. Ceteris paribus, it's better for children if their parents stay together. Therefore we've raised the social cost of a divorce until it's only accessible to people who really need to get out. Because of cultural changes, this doesn't work as well as it has in the past at keeping couples together. There's good points (fewer people trapped in bad or abusive marriages) and bad points (more families who have to deal with the many practical problems of single parenthood).
- hydrox24 8y ago
  > Therefore we've raised the social cost of a divorce until it's only accessible to people who really need to get out I don't know what the time frame for this statement is, but all over the western world, divorce has been made substantially easier both legally and socially, since the end of WWII. > Because of cultural changes, this doesn't work as well as it has in the past at keeping couples together. Obviously culture and law are bound up together, but the advent of no-fault divorce and the decreasing benefits for the married over the unmarried did far more to make divorce easy, common, and therefore more acceptable than easing the stigma ever did directly.

jeffdavis 8y ago

Maybe something as complex as marriage means more than one thing?

swsieber 8y ago

Marriage requires commitment from both parties. You can still have that commitment even if you are marrying for love. If you and your spouse are prepared to sacrifice, you'll have a very rewarding time. The real challenge is now days we don't encourage commitment, and your commitment alone won't make a happy marriage (e.g. it takes two for a happy marriage). I agree that we need to de-stigmatize divorce that gets you out of a bad situation. Edit: To say that since we marry for love so we should divorce for love does a disservice, namely because a marriage with two committed people is far more rewarding than one that only worked because of the initial fire of love. Edit 2: Sorry Im using sappy language, it oddly seems the most concise.

qwerty456127 8y ago

If "love ends" it means it either has never been there (it was limerence, desire, friendship, confusion or whatever) or you were doing it wrong.

charliebrownau 8y ago

I would not trust a single thing to come out from TED anymore Its filled with LEFT REGRESSIVE SOCIALIST narrative now

charliebrownau 8y ago

Feminism since 70s * Replace Democracy with Socialism * women dependent on state for resources * women HATE MEN+Democracy/west * Misinformation * change words * Remove individual accountability for women via - abortion - No fault divorce - Duluth model - pussy pass in courts - Metoo

charliebrownau 8y ago

Gday My view on marriage 5 years MONK here 2 years MGTOW Women in today's Duluth & Unfair system is not worth * Short Term Dating * Long Term Dating * Cohabit * Marriage * Even short term dating and the first date Women DEMAND and EXPECT men to pay out money for resources just because they are women and they have tits and women dont have to give anything back for the transaction * Due Process is getting REMOVED for MEN (#metoo) * We are getting close to a stage that we will need dash cam for ALL MEN in Western society to prove we DIDN'T do something and the other person IS GUILTY just like cars these days What do women really offer in 2010-2020 ? Most dont * cook * clean * take care of kids * sow/repair clothes * garden Most do support * Socialism * Veganism * Minimalism * Apple phones * Apple laptops Most DON'T * watch or interested in - scifi * watch or interested in - anime * watch or interested in - Japanese/South Korean culture Most choose to work in:- * Nursing * Teaching * Child Care * Office/Office Admin Most dont or not interested in:- * Geek CULTURE * Fixing tech/computers * Ardino/Raspi/electronics * PC gaming coop * Linux * DIY repair * scifi In the end of the day what do most geek/nerd men have in same common interest with women ? NOTHING It then falls back to Looks Boobs Pussy Sex If women choose to reject being TRADITIONAL and submitting to the house wife role then most of them offer NOTHING TO MEN Most men will have their own * Car * Home * Job * Money * TV * Lounge * Bed * Entertainment Why do we "need" dating or marriage it then falls back to the only thing we "need" is sex If your above a 6 in looks and OVER 6 foot tall then use tinder otherwise pay for a hooker or go MONK Then the "need" for women disappears completely ONCE Feminism in late 1970s changed the LAWS to SOCIALISM in the lie of EQUALITY with NO FAULT DIVORCE RAPE AND DULUTH MODEL in LAW and COURTS that was two of the main factors that killed TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE Until ALL WOMEN GLOBALLY stop using Hypergamy to choose men by * Over 6 foot * Over 6 in looks * Over 6 inches * Over 6 figure income and finally look at men as an PERSON not a resource device that you can screw over by LAW and the laws ARE FIXED and women are WILLING to go back to PROPER TRADITIONALISM Marriage is OVER

charliebrownau 8y ago

How to fix USA/AU/UK/West for Western Males - * One LAW for everyone with the SAME punishment for ALL. No matter if your female or male , white or black, born in the country or arrived later , everyone is held to the same standard . No more free PUSSY PASS's for women * REMOVE Duluth Model from LAW + Courts + Police * REMOVE PUSSY PASS for law/courts * Centrelink changed to UBI (AUSTRALIA) Everyone on benefits gets AUD$450 flat No more money because your Black Female or kids * Capital Punishment for ALL * False rape and False Sexual Assault to be convicted with the SAME sentence if it was the victim eg if its 10-20 years in jail for rape, then its 10-20 years for FALSE CLAIM * Ban Abortion * Remove ALL government funding for ALL activism & religions * Remove ALL government funding for any media outlet that push's socialism over unbias reporting * NO religious clothing to be worn in Schools, Universities, government buildings , hospital , police or fire * Ban the use of Political Correct and Identity politics in - School - Universities - Government * Remove "Gender" studies and ARTS from Universities If you want to do arts or socialism (gender) studies then you will CHOOSE to do it at a private school with your own money, not government funded education place designed to teach people to actually get a JOB * Remove Child support * Remove Vagmony (Alimony) * Remove forced 50% of other person's assets ( Are we still in the 50's that women dont work or are women accountable for their own life choices and equal , you cant have BOTH) * Build more 1 bedroom affordable units for single people in EU and WEST * Allow TINY homes to be built in the west * False rape/dv/assault claim register database - https://youtu.be/x7qFiVkDgG8?t=28m35s https://youtu.be/x7qFiVkDgG8?t=28m35s

ohthehugemanate 8y ago

Choosing a best friend for the next 50-60 years is hard! Staying best friends for life is hard. Maintaining romantic feelings and enjoying the changing things sexual partnership brings over a lifetime, is hard too. Oh, and let's throw in the enormous perspective and life changes that children bring. It takes two people who are willing to put in the time, energy, occasionally sacrifice, and explore together. For longer than people are really capable of projecting. Certainly longer than they stay the same person. Alternatives exist, and I'm happy people explore them. But IMHO the core problem of a long human relationship isn't made any easier by adding more humans. 1:1 communication/connection seems a lot simpler than groups of any formation. And going through life without a close, long relationship (of any kind) does miss a lot of the value of the journey. So props to those who make it, and figure out how to keep on making it. Props to those who discover they can't make it with that particular person. Props to everyone except the assholes who give you shit for trying.

throwaway09482 8y ago

I strongly dislike this article. The article portrays the view that divorce is something that's "ok, because situations change and it's alright to change your mind". I say this as someone who almost got divorced this past year. The problem with divorce is that most of the time it involves breaking a promise—a vow actually. And that's the real issue that I find so disturbing. In fact, I see no problem with two people saying "I will marry you and stay with you as long as conditions x, y, and z are met". As long as both parties understand the conditions going into the marriage and recognize the possibility that it may end under specific circumstances, then fine with me. Who am I to judge someone's lifestyle choices? But breaking an unconditional promise to be with someone forever is disturbing. I'm increasingly repulsed by this idea that people aren't responsible for their actions. Cause always has an effect, even if it's an effect that is delayed for years. And personally, without having some basis of moral axioms (keeping your word for instance), then it really just feels like our existence borders on nihilism. What's the point of anything? If words are meaningless, then why even bother in the first place? Why make a "promise" if it's just going to be broken later? It means nothing. You live, you die, and all along the way not one thing was held sacred. In a universe without any meaning, we have to create our own, and if someone's word can't even be trusted, then why bother with anything at all? So in summary, I don't have a problem with divorce per se, but breaking your word to someone else is a massive problem, and TED articles like this aren't helping by contributing to the increasing vacuity of promises that have no meaning.

tomp 8y ago
Indeed, the unconditionality of the promise is one of my biggest problems with marriage. I’d be much happier with a conditional promise (“... until death so us part, or you hit me, or we cannot have children, or you become substantially different than you’re now, ...”) but eventhem it’s hard to list all the exceptions.
- strikelaserclaw 8y ago
  don't forget to get that document notarized :P
8y ago