3 ms·
It seems interesting that they identify people as moving from historically marrying for "financial stability" towards marrying for love, yet divorce rates have
by bobf 16y ago
It seems interesting that they identify people as moving from historically marrying for "financial stability" towards marrying for love, yet divorce rates have increased. Although it is perhaps slightly counterintuitive, I think it actually makes a lot of sense. If you are relying on a spouse for financial stability, you are more likely to stick it out through the hard times of a marriage. Love is a bit more fickle.
- seiji 16y agoThere's a Bullshit episode where Penn "argues that free trade and economic interdependence are the best means to achieve peace." He brings up an example of hating Teller, but never hurting him because there's no money to be made as a single stunt magician.
- oldgregg 16y agoFinancial stability vs. love is a false dichotomy. You could also say that shift is from Community & Family Commitment to Emotionally Driven Radical Autonomy. Read Bowling Alone by Robert Putnam or look at what "love" marriages are doing in India. In the 60's everyone was casting off (often shitty) cultural restraints, but it was an overcorrection that was almost completely narcissistic. Suddenly you have no fault divorce and a culture that increasingly doesn't view that as a problem. Fast forward 40 years and my generation is largely self-serving paxil-popping automatons. :-) Facebook brings us together but it ultimately doesn't make us really sacrifice for each other. That's an infinitely harder problem that technology will probably never solve.