4 ms·

The trouble is that divorce, and even relationships turning bad, isn't something that necessarily happens in a vacuum. Very few marriages would really survive a

The trouble is that divorce, and even relationships turning bad, isn't something that necessarily happens in a vacuum. Very few marriages would really survive all changing circumstances, no matter what the vows say. A relationship that might have worked out OK can turn bad and end in divorce in part because money gets very tight, for too long a time. I do agree that a more nuanced analysis would need to find some way of determining whether, or at what rate, the particular cases that are pushed over the edge by financial hardship were already in some way toxic or creating a poor environment for the kids, and were likely to stay that way even if circumstance improved somewhat.

notch656a 4y ago
Poverty rate has remained fairly flate since ~1970 while divorce rates have come up. If poverty were the dominating reason for divorce, then divorce should have been much more common in pre-1980s and particularly pre-1960s America when poverty was significantly more common. It's entirely possible the new era of welfare benefits and no-fault divorce open up the door of divorce for many people. If fewer divorces is your goal then recreating social policy and values of conservative earlier America is a pursuit you may be looking into.
- brimble 4y ago
  I'm not sure that kind of multi-decade analysis gets at what you're trying to. Too many confounding factors. Meanwhile, money trouble is often reported as a major factor in marital/relationship struggles. Better might be to find a cohorts of broadly similar SES, then look at them over just a few years, and divide them into "household earnings went up" and "household earnings went down", then compare divorce rates. Still not perfect, but much closer to being useful. > It's entirely possible the new era of welfare benefits and no-fault divorce open up the door of divorce for many people. Yes, it probably did! Especially the latter. > If fewer divorces is your goal then recreating social policy and values of conservative earlier America is a pursuit you may be looking into. I'd prefer to try to fight it by improving benefits so being poor doesn't cause as much stress. Ideally, also by lowering the poverty rate.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    I'm confused, America had a system where divorce rates where much lower (even in the face of poverty!) , which is ostensibly your goal. You've simply brushed aside a tested system. Of course you could test your novel experiments in parallel, assuming you can find willing parties to fund this experiment.
    - brimble 4y ago
      "I'm just so confused that you don't want to go back to 1950s mores around marriage and divorce, it's tested and it works" Are you really confused, though? [EDIT] To be clear, I'm not uncertain about that, and know you aren't. That was rhetorical.
      - notch656a 4y ago
        I'm genuinely confused at your complete dismissal, no it wasn't rhetorical or sarcasm. Your goal was to reduce divorce; completely ignoring and brushing aside historical precedent in favor of your pet theories (which may work and may not) calls into question your actual goals. Earlier your thesis was regarding concern for the children and the impact of divorce, but when confronted with an actual historical precedent where fewer children grew up in divorced households you simply ignored the precedent entirely in favor of marching on towards your other social goals. I'm not the one saying 1950's 'works' -- I never advocated against divorce or that the family needs to be married. Personally I'd rather see a society where lifelong monogamy or marriage is optional and our society, including children, aren't made to feel out of place because they don't fit into the (largely religious) institution of marriage. I think if you dig deep you may find marriage actually has a long history, one that can't be ignored if we are to understand how it fits into modern society. >"I'm just so confused that you don't want to go back to 1950s mores around marriage and divorce, it's tested and it works" If you're going to fabricate quotes this conversation is over, good day.

notch656a 4y ago

Poverty rate has remained fairly flate since ~1970 while divorce rates have come up. If poverty were the dominating reason for divorce, then divorce should have been much more common in pre-1980s and particularly pre-1960s America when poverty was significantly more common. It's entirely possible the new era of welfare benefits and no-fault divorce open up the door of divorce for many people. If fewer divorces is your goal then recreating social policy and values of conservative earlier America is a pursuit you may be looking into.

brimble 4y ago
I'm not sure that kind of multi-decade analysis gets at what you're trying to. Too many confounding factors. Meanwhile, money trouble is often reported as a major factor in marital/relationship struggles. Better might be to find a cohorts of broadly similar SES, then look at them over just a few years, and divide them into "household earnings went up" and "household earnings went down", then compare divorce rates. Still not perfect, but much closer to being useful. > It's entirely possible the new era of welfare benefits and no-fault divorce open up the door of divorce for many people. Yes, it probably did! Especially the latter. > If fewer divorces is your goal then recreating social policy and values of conservative earlier America is a pursuit you may be looking into. I'd prefer to try to fight it by improving benefits so being poor doesn't cause as much stress. Ideally, also by lowering the poverty rate.
- notch656a 4y ago
  I'm confused, America had a system where divorce rates where much lower (even in the face of poverty!) , which is ostensibly your goal. You've simply brushed aside a tested system. Of course you could test your novel experiments in parallel, assuming you can find willing parties to fund this experiment.
  - brimble 4y ago
    "I'm just so confused that you don't want to go back to 1950s mores around marriage and divorce, it's tested and it works" Are you really confused, though? [EDIT] To be clear, I'm not uncertain about that, and know you aren't. That was rhetorical.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      I'm genuinely confused at your complete dismissal, no it wasn't rhetorical or sarcasm. Your goal was to reduce divorce; completely ignoring and brushing aside historical precedent in favor of your pet theories (which may work and may not) calls into question your actual goals. Earlier your thesis was regarding concern for the children and the impact of divorce, but when confronted with an actual historical precedent where fewer children grew up in divorced households you simply ignored the precedent entirely in favor of marching on towards your other social goals. I'm not the one saying 1950's 'works' -- I never advocated against divorce or that the family needs to be married. Personally I'd rather see a society where lifelong monogamy or marriage is optional and our society, including children, aren't made to feel out of place because they don't fit into the (largely religious) institution of marriage. I think if you dig deep you may find marriage actually has a long history, one that can't be ignored if we are to understand how it fits into modern society. >"I'm just so confused that you don't want to go back to 1950s mores around marriage and divorce, it's tested and it works" If you're going to fabricate quotes this conversation is over, good day.