4 ms·

I'm not going to downvote this. (I'm paying partictular attention to the "how I want to live my life" part) But there's a number of presumptions made that I thi

I'm not going to downvote this. (I'm paying partictular attention to the "how I want to live my life" part) But there's a number of presumptions made that I think are worth calling out that should not be assumed: - That the ending of a relationship is necessarily a failure. - That two very young people are in a place to understand the implications of choosing a life partner. - That extended families are necessary to "keep things from going south". (What does that mean? Helping mediate conflict, or to bury persistent issues in the name of stability?) There's others here, but I'll stick with the three. But overall, while it may be good for some ("you do you"), I find a lot here to raise an eyebrow at and much too discomforting to simply scroll past. So much of this seems to reinforce unhealthy and oppressive norms that, in my strong opinion, lead eventually to so many destructing relationships in the long run. For additional reading, I'd greatly recommend "The Way We Never Were" by Stephanie Coontz as to why this mid-century style relationship was highly unusual in the historical context. https://www.amazon.com/Way-We-Never-Were-Nostalgia/dp/0465098835 https://www.amazon.com/Way-We-Never-Were-Nostalgia/dp/046509... Edit: Formatting

frognumber 4y ago
I am very well aware of those assumptions. I've lived in several countries. I've found that things function better, and people seem healthier, in more collectivist societies where there are real, permanent families and communities. To the point of the book, the way things actually were is that we evolved as tribal creatures. We didn't pick our communities, didn't have much choice of mate, and we did need to rely on our tribes and families. My belief is that's the way we're wired. We're social creatures. That's not the US in the fifties, but rather a statement on the nature of humanity for tens of thousands of years. Now, we're wealthy enough each of us can be 100% independent. I don't see that as a pathway to happiness, though. The connections I see between people in the US seem so shallow compared to those I've seen in other cultures. Yes, that does mean I need to repress a lot of "self" to fit in, and bury many issues, but I'm okay with that. The US has a loneliness and a mental health pandemic. The whole place is so incredibly isolating. And yes, ending a relationship is a failure *for me*. I'm not saying it needs to be for other people. However, I want someone to grow together and to grow old with. I want more people around me too, whom I know well.
- notch656c 4y ago
  I would argue society-level collectivism is actually a big destroyer of these families. The phenomenon of say the elderly being disconnected from the younger I theorize is in part due to the fact they extract their social security through violence of the state in taxation rather than through family bonds. The lack of mutual familial reliance destroys the unspoken quid-pro-quo arrangements that held families together. The end effect also is children are a pure cost driver as the support they provide as adults to seniors is equally distributed amongst society rather than mostly directed towards the benefit of the parent who invested in their upbringing. This brings a massive free-rider problem where everyone is incentivized for the other guy to have kids but not for you personally to have one. I theorize this also has destroyed to some extent inner city poor families. Non-familial nation state social payments to single mothers can actually work against marriage in poor families, as the single mother may be financially penalized for getting married. The resulting lack of father figure inspires more poverty and crime and recycling of the issues. When my partner and I were first expecting we honestly were not sure whether to get married or not, as a lot of possible government benefits vaporized when you took my partner from "single poor mom" to "married middle of the road family."
  - dzonga 4y ago
    no doubt. take away social security and state pensions and see the birth rate shoot up. since the benefit and cost is localized. people will be encouraged to have more children i.e spread the risk of getting taken care of in the future by their progeny. some gvt social programs are necessary - but social security is not one of them. it's one big ponzi

frognumber 4y ago

I am very well aware of those assumptions. I've lived in several countries. I've found that things function better, and people seem healthier, in more collectivist societies where there are real, permanent families and communities. To the point of the book, the way things actually were is that we evolved as tribal creatures. We didn't pick our communities, didn't have much choice of mate, and we did need to rely on our tribes and families. My belief is that's the way we're wired. We're social creatures. That's not the US in the fifties, but rather a statement on the nature of humanity for tens of thousands of years. Now, we're wealthy enough each of us can be 100% independent. I don't see that as a pathway to happiness, though. The connections I see between people in the US seem so shallow compared to those I've seen in other cultures. Yes, that does mean I need to repress a lot of "self" to fit in, and bury many issues, but I'm okay with that. The US has a loneliness and a mental health pandemic. The whole place is so incredibly isolating. And yes, ending a relationship is a failure *for me*. I'm not saying it needs to be for other people. However, I want someone to grow together and to grow old with. I want more people around me too, whom I know well.

notch656c 4y ago
I would argue society-level collectivism is actually a big destroyer of these families. The phenomenon of say the elderly being disconnected from the younger I theorize is in part due to the fact they extract their social security through violence of the state in taxation rather than through family bonds. The lack of mutual familial reliance destroys the unspoken quid-pro-quo arrangements that held families together. The end effect also is children are a pure cost driver as the support they provide as adults to seniors is equally distributed amongst society rather than mostly directed towards the benefit of the parent who invested in their upbringing. This brings a massive free-rider problem where everyone is incentivized for the other guy to have kids but not for you personally to have one. I theorize this also has destroyed to some extent inner city poor families. Non-familial nation state social payments to single mothers can actually work against marriage in poor families, as the single mother may be financially penalized for getting married. The resulting lack of father figure inspires more poverty and crime and recycling of the issues. When my partner and I were first expecting we honestly were not sure whether to get married or not, as a lot of possible government benefits vaporized when you took my partner from "single poor mom" to "married middle of the road family."
- dzonga 4y ago
  no doubt. take away social security and state pensions and see the birth rate shoot up. since the benefit and cost is localized. people will be encouraged to have more children i.e spread the risk of getting taken care of in the future by their progeny. some gvt social programs are necessary - but social security is not one of them. it's one big ponzi