4 ms·

The article points out that there are a lot of "surplus" liberal women and conservative men, but I'm not sure what the author wants to happen. Should people be

The article points out that there are a lot of "surplus" liberal women and conservative men, but I'm not sure what the author wants to happen. Should people be settling for subpar marriages with a spouse who doesn't share their core beliefs? Author quotes research saying these are less happy on average.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
My wife and I worked it out for 25 years. We had disagreements but it wasn't necessary to adopt the other's position. However, the recent political trends that directly seek to turn everyone against each other - I think it poisons accommodations like we had.
- heavenlyblue 3y ago
  Was she conaervative and you liberal?
  - true_religion 3y ago
    Not the original poster, but I’ve been married 13 years. My spouse is liberal, and I was originally conservative. I feel like back in the day, the political spectrum was more narrow and although there were disagreements it was more on how to apply the law, not on if a law should exist at all. Roe v Wade for example is from 1973. This law was established in my childhood, and as a nominal conservative I support it. Removing it is a radical change, leading to an alien landscape where people are fleeing newly antiabortion states and refusing job offers on the basis of what laws they have to live under. Life, death, and medical care are too fundamental to be left to the states. If you do, then do you really have a strongly knit country? I’ve digressed a bit, but I think the stakes have changed so people on both sides of the spectrum share little common ground.
    - rsynnott 3y ago
      > This law was established in my childhood, and as a nominal conservative I support it. The trouble, there, is that the modern American mainstream right (and to a large extent the right, or at least the far-right, in most developed countries), _is not conservative_; in general it's far more radical, and wants to make far more sweeping changes, than the mainstream left. There was a fairly long period when the political right heavily overlapped with 'conservatives', that is people who are perhaps overly into Chesterton's fence, but that's largely over now. > leading to an alien landscape where people are fleeing newly antiabortion states and refusing job offers on the basis of what laws they have to live under. I would note that that people having to be conscious of repressive state laws isn't _all that alien_; ethnic minorities in the US have moved states based on the laws they'd be living under for literal centuries, and LGBT people have similar concerns (it wasn't even legal to be gay nationwide in the US until 2007, for instance). The difference here is the abrupt _removal_ of pre-existing rights, of course.
      - aapl88889 3y ago
        Many European countries have either outright abortion bans or limits on abortion after a certain number of weeks (including Germany, Italy, Spain and Ireland). This is similar to many Republican states you call "radical."
      - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
        > The trouble, there, is that the modern American mainstream right (and to a large extent the right, or at least the far-right, in most developed countries), _is not conservative_; in general it's far more radical, and wants to make far more sweeping changes, than the mainstream left. As a post-conservative (hard right for two decades), I agree with this. I also think the left had a part in our arrival here. ex: I think ignoring the rural poor for generations whizzed away a lot of good will. In this, the left clearly lost their way. But I also keep coming back to one overriding factor: That no one anywhere wants to clean their own house. No matter what I belong to now or have ever been a part of - that nature either dominates or barely doesn't.
  - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
    It was the other way around. I was a staunch conservative for decades.
- notfromhere 3y ago
  I don't know how you can be in a relationship with someone that has such differences in core philosophical beliefs on topics like who should have full rights and citizenship. Back in the day it worked because the gap between Democrats and Republicans was relatively narrow. Can't imagine a marriage where one person is a Trump republican and the other a liberal democrat working out.
  - tomatotomato37 3y ago
    I'd wager there are a lot of people who think of themselves as Conservative/Liberal due to mimicry from parents or environment who are actually fairly centrist once challenged. Combined with the fact a lot of people also aren't very engaged with politics to begin with it isn't that hard to see how a seemingly contradictory relationship could actually be quite successful
    - Spivak 3y ago
      That's my in-laws. They vote Republican and call themselves conservative because that's how they were raised but you would never know because they're pro-choice, proud lgbt allies due to having a gay daughter and a trans nephew-in-law (name?), supporter of black lives matter, have found family, own an electric car… I know more Republicans who vote for them despite their social issues than do. Trying to predict anyone's views based on the D/R is a gamble at best.
  - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
    > I don't know how you can be in a relationship with someone that has such differences in core philosophical beliefs on topics like who should have full rights and citizenship. We discussed and had opinions on these things but they were mostly abstract as far as our marriage was concerned. One exception might have been abortion. Our marriage followed her unexpected pregnancy. Though she was strongly in favor of legalized abortion, she was at least as strong against having one herself. > Back in the day it worked because the gap between Democrats and Republicans was relatively narrow. Can't imagine a marriage where one person is a Trump republican and the other a liberal democrat working out. This is it. I don't think it was narrow before. It's that today the distance is far greater and it's turned into a DMZ where people get shot if they try to cross.
rsynnott 3y ago
I mean, you can observe a phenomenon without being required to provide a solution. Sometimes, there isn't one.
- erehweb 3y ago
  You certainly can, but if you're going to be published in The Atlantic, I'd like to see more. This could be personal (should partisans become less selective?) or societal (how could we reduce partisanship?). Even just asserting with evidence "nothing can be done, and here's what's in store for society" would be something.
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    So your proposed solutions are: > This could be personal (should partisans become less selective?) The author tells people what to do, with, one would assume, no chance of success > or societal (how could we reduce partisanship?). The author proposes, well, I've no idea really, some form of radical social reform? How would one do that, artificially? Is it even desirable? > Even just asserting with evidence "nothing can be done, and here's what's in store for society" would be something. The author makes wide-ranging predictions based in a political moment (these are rarely if ever accurate, realistically). Honestly, all of the above are, I think, common _failings_ of this sort of article and the author has done well to avoid them.
    - erehweb 3y ago
      Sure, if you don't say anything, then you won't say anything wrong. I'd like an article to give me a bit more to think about, even (or especially?) if I don't agree with their point of view.
      - rsynnott 3y ago
        I mean, item one is just kind of nonsense, and item three is just pure speculation on a complex issue; it’d be no better than guesswork. For item two there is an answer, but it’s boring at this point; the way to make a country, absent mind control, less partisan is to shift to multiparty democracy, which requires a change to the electoral system (and arguably abandonment of the executive presidency; multiparty states are usually parliamentary). The US’s constitutional setup makes this, for practical purposes, impossible, and neither existing side wants it anyway, so it is not going to happen. Everyone already knows this. The author _could_ have repeated it, but I’m not sure it would have added anything.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago

My wife and I worked it out for 25 years. We had disagreements but it wasn't necessary to adopt the other's position. However, the recent political trends that directly seek to turn everyone against each other - I think it poisons accommodations like we had.

heavenlyblue 3y ago
Was she conaervative and you liberal?
- true_religion 3y ago
  Not the original poster, but I’ve been married 13 years. My spouse is liberal, and I was originally conservative. I feel like back in the day, the political spectrum was more narrow and although there were disagreements it was more on how to apply the law, not on if a law should exist at all. Roe v Wade for example is from 1973. This law was established in my childhood, and as a nominal conservative I support it. Removing it is a radical change, leading to an alien landscape where people are fleeing newly antiabortion states and refusing job offers on the basis of what laws they have to live under. Life, death, and medical care are too fundamental to be left to the states. If you do, then do you really have a strongly knit country? I’ve digressed a bit, but I think the stakes have changed so people on both sides of the spectrum share little common ground.
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    > This law was established in my childhood, and as a nominal conservative I support it. The trouble, there, is that the modern American mainstream right (and to a large extent the right, or at least the far-right, in most developed countries), _is not conservative_; in general it's far more radical, and wants to make far more sweeping changes, than the mainstream left. There was a fairly long period when the political right heavily overlapped with 'conservatives', that is people who are perhaps overly into Chesterton's fence, but that's largely over now. > leading to an alien landscape where people are fleeing newly antiabortion states and refusing job offers on the basis of what laws they have to live under. I would note that that people having to be conscious of repressive state laws isn't _all that alien_; ethnic minorities in the US have moved states based on the laws they'd be living under for literal centuries, and LGBT people have similar concerns (it wasn't even legal to be gay nationwide in the US until 2007, for instance). The difference here is the abrupt _removal_ of pre-existing rights, of course.
    - aapl88889 3y ago
      Many European countries have either outright abortion bans or limits on abortion after a certain number of weeks (including Germany, Italy, Spain and Ireland). This is similar to many Republican states you call "radical."
    - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
      > The trouble, there, is that the modern American mainstream right (and to a large extent the right, or at least the far-right, in most developed countries), _is not conservative_; in general it's far more radical, and wants to make far more sweeping changes, than the mainstream left. As a post-conservative (hard right for two decades), I agree with this. I also think the left had a part in our arrival here. ex: I think ignoring the rural poor for generations whizzed away a lot of good will. In this, the left clearly lost their way. But I also keep coming back to one overriding factor: That no one anywhere wants to clean their own house. No matter what I belong to now or have ever been a part of - that nature either dominates or barely doesn't.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  It was the other way around. I was a staunch conservative for decades.
notfromhere 3y ago
I don't know how you can be in a relationship with someone that has such differences in core philosophical beliefs on topics like who should have full rights and citizenship. Back in the day it worked because the gap between Democrats and Republicans was relatively narrow. Can't imagine a marriage where one person is a Trump republican and the other a liberal democrat working out.
- tomatotomato37 3y ago
  I'd wager there are a lot of people who think of themselves as Conservative/Liberal due to mimicry from parents or environment who are actually fairly centrist once challenged. Combined with the fact a lot of people also aren't very engaged with politics to begin with it isn't that hard to see how a seemingly contradictory relationship could actually be quite successful
  - Spivak 3y ago
    That's my in-laws. They vote Republican and call themselves conservative because that's how they were raised but you would never know because they're pro-choice, proud lgbt allies due to having a gay daughter and a trans nephew-in-law (name?), supporter of black lives matter, have found family, own an electric car… I know more Republicans who vote for them despite their social issues than do. Trying to predict anyone's views based on the D/R is a gamble at best.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  > I don't know how you can be in a relationship with someone that has such differences in core philosophical beliefs on topics like who should have full rights and citizenship. We discussed and had opinions on these things but they were mostly abstract as far as our marriage was concerned. One exception might have been abortion. Our marriage followed her unexpected pregnancy. Though she was strongly in favor of legalized abortion, she was at least as strong against having one herself. > Back in the day it worked because the gap between Democrats and Republicans was relatively narrow. Can't imagine a marriage where one person is a Trump republican and the other a liberal democrat working out. This is it. I don't think it was narrow before. It's that today the distance is far greater and it's turned into a DMZ where people get shot if they try to cross.

rsynnott 3y ago

I mean, you can observe a phenomenon without being required to provide a solution. Sometimes, there isn't one.

erehweb 3y ago
You certainly can, but if you're going to be published in The Atlantic, I'd like to see more. This could be personal (should partisans become less selective?) or societal (how could we reduce partisanship?). Even just asserting with evidence "nothing can be done, and here's what's in store for society" would be something.
- rsynnott 3y ago
  So your proposed solutions are: > This could be personal (should partisans become less selective?) The author tells people what to do, with, one would assume, no chance of success > or societal (how could we reduce partisanship?). The author proposes, well, I've no idea really, some form of radical social reform? How would one do that, artificially? Is it even desirable? > Even just asserting with evidence "nothing can be done, and here's what's in store for society" would be something. The author makes wide-ranging predictions based in a political moment (these are rarely if ever accurate, realistically). Honestly, all of the above are, I think, common _failings_ of this sort of article and the author has done well to avoid them.
  - erehweb 3y ago
    Sure, if you don't say anything, then you won't say anything wrong. I'd like an article to give me a bit more to think about, even (or especially?) if I don't agree with their point of view.
    - rsynnott 3y ago
      I mean, item one is just kind of nonsense, and item three is just pure speculation on a complex issue; it’d be no better than guesswork. For item two there is an answer, but it’s boring at this point; the way to make a country, absent mind control, less partisan is to shift to multiparty democracy, which requires a change to the electoral system (and arguably abandonment of the executive presidency; multiparty states are usually parliamentary). The US’s constitutional setup makes this, for practical purposes, impossible, and neither existing side wants it anyway, so it is not going to happen. Everyone already knows this. The author _could_ have repeated it, but I’m not sure it would have added anything.