3 ms·
Poor people have existed in every time and era, yet we don't hear of low marriage rates in the 1800s, for example. It can't be just about the money. I persona
by tenebrisalietum 7y ago
Poor people have existed in every time and era, yet we don't hear of low marriage rates in the 1800s, for example. It can't be just about the money.
I personally think it's good that marriage isn't the only choice for women, or men for that matter. People like their independence and without the social pressure to marry just for the sake it, it ultimately results in happier people that don't have to do things just because of some vague, background expectation of society - which is ultimately composed of more people that don't care about you than do.
Unless you are poor, but if you are poor you are likely unhappy whether you are married or not.
Could universal basic income save marriage?
- twblalock 7y ago> Poor people have existed in every time and era, yet we don't hear of low marriage rates in the 1800s, for example. It can't be just about the money. It is now socially acceptable, and financially feasible, for women to avoid marrying. That was certainly not the case in the 1800s. It was barely the case in the 1950s.
- hkmurakami 7y agoThere are future dangers of loneliness and social isolation from single and elderly. Even without the general social stigma of being unmarried, structurally it's difficult to maintain ties with friends as their own family obligations increase and their social time increasingly revolves around inter-family activities. Furthermore we have an ongoing decay in social institutions that bring such people in regular contact with fellow citizens, married or unmarried. Church is probably one of the last such commonly found institutions?