3 ms·

You're not implying that single parents have simply replaced toxic households, are you? The issues are most probably overlapping in numbers.

wickedsight 2y ago
No, they definitely haven't replaced them. But divorce being more common has certainly opened up doors for plenty of women to escape abusive relationships. That doesn't mean that they can all find that open door or all have an open door. There are still plenty of people in religions where divorced is frowned upon (to put it lightly) and there are also plenty of people who are mentally unable to pull out of a toxic relationship. But the reduction in societal pressure that 'marriage is forever' definitely has an impact.
- a-french-anon 2y ago
  Divorce laws indeed had some good outcomes like you wrote, but it also allowed people to make carefree choices when choosing a mate - something that should be a well thought out, very long-term deal - and as we all know, we're now in the realm of perverse incentives on the subject. And don't get me started on the vicious interactions between the "soft deprecation" of fault divorce, the abolition of adultery laws and economic aids for single parents. Clearly not the best mixture of choices.
  - wickedsight 2y ago
    > it also allowed people to make carefree choices when choosing a mate Lets flip that coin... Religion/tradition forces people to get married before they actually knew each other well. Then they move in together, have kids and must stay together forever. I feel like 'we need to get married to live together' is way more in the realm of perverse incentives. In the 70's, people on average married around age 22. Right now that's closer to age 29. Which one seems more carefree to you? To me it's the getting married at 22 without having lived together.
    - mensetmanusman 2y ago
      This might have survivorship bias though, since marriage rates are down 75% from the 70s, so we aren’t comparing apples to apples.
8490109481 2y ago
Speaking from experience there is also another case of parents who have an outwardly affirming relationship between each other but not necessarily to (all of) their children. Sort of like co dependents but only certain people close enough in proximity to both people bear emotional abuse/golden child-type selective behavior. The rest of the public are deceived by the outward appearance of a stable family.So the relationship between the parents is firm but they both treat the child harsh. This is a bad position to begin with because neither parent stands up with the child. A single parent could be a friend the child would not otherwise have. And on top of that it could fall below the threshold for outright removal of child by support services if there is no "obvious" problem (divorce, physical abuse, abandonment). Because a certain degree of emotional abuse for a young child is near totally invisible to others if the child thinks they're the one in the wrong and doesn't defend themselves (which both parents agree on so it is stronger). And invoking those services can severely damage one's working future due to material concerns about college the parents would not have paid otherwise. That in turn creates a sense of entitlement to opinion (we did everything for you, this is all you do to pay us back, etc...), feeling of creating debt/attachment to that past, and so on. Because they didn't hit or spank, but merely taught an important lesson in a more subtle way, they're not abusive like everyone else, so there is no problem, so on. I know I'm just venting by now but these sorts of issues take years or decades to come to light after venturing into an adult life and might not be easily quantifiable in the way "this couple divorced" or "this child was removed from the household" would. There are grey areas in between, some of which still have some support by the public (like some types of corporal punishment being acceptable to an undefined degree)

wickedsight 2y ago

No, they definitely haven't replaced them. But divorce being more common has certainly opened up doors for plenty of women to escape abusive relationships. That doesn't mean that they can all find that open door or all have an open door. There are still plenty of people in religions where divorced is frowned upon (to put it lightly) and there are also plenty of people who are mentally unable to pull out of a toxic relationship. But the reduction in societal pressure that 'marriage is forever' definitely has an impact.

a-french-anon 2y ago
Divorce laws indeed had some good outcomes like you wrote, but it also allowed people to make carefree choices when choosing a mate - something that should be a well thought out, very long-term deal - and as we all know, we're now in the realm of perverse incentives on the subject. And don't get me started on the vicious interactions between the "soft deprecation" of fault divorce, the abolition of adultery laws and economic aids for single parents. Clearly not the best mixture of choices.
- wickedsight 2y ago
  > it also allowed people to make carefree choices when choosing a mate Lets flip that coin... Religion/tradition forces people to get married before they actually knew each other well. Then they move in together, have kids and must stay together forever. I feel like 'we need to get married to live together' is way more in the realm of perverse incentives. In the 70's, people on average married around age 22. Right now that's closer to age 29. Which one seems more carefree to you? To me it's the getting married at 22 without having lived together.
  - mensetmanusman 2y ago
    This might have survivorship bias though, since marriage rates are down 75% from the 70s, so we aren’t comparing apples to apples.

8490109481 2y ago

Speaking from experience there is also another case of parents who have an outwardly affirming relationship between each other but not necessarily to (all of) their children. Sort of like co dependents but only certain people close enough in proximity to both people bear emotional abuse/golden child-type selective behavior. The rest of the public are deceived by the outward appearance of a stable family.So the relationship between the parents is firm but they both treat the child harsh. This is a bad position to begin with because neither parent stands up with the child. A single parent could be a friend the child would not otherwise have. And on top of that it could fall below the threshold for outright removal of child by support services if there is no "obvious" problem (divorce, physical abuse, abandonment). Because a certain degree of emotional abuse for a young child is near totally invisible to others if the child thinks they're the one in the wrong and doesn't defend themselves (which both parents agree on so it is stronger). And invoking those services can severely damage one's working future due to material concerns about college the parents would not have paid otherwise. That in turn creates a sense of entitlement to opinion (we did everything for you, this is all you do to pay us back, etc...), feeling of creating debt/attachment to that past, and so on. Because they didn't hit or spank, but merely taught an important lesson in a more subtle way, they're not abusive like everyone else, so there is no problem, so on. I know I'm just venting by now but these sorts of issues take years or decades to come to light after venturing into an adult life and might not be easily quantifiable in the way "this couple divorced" or "this child was removed from the household" would. There are grey areas in between, some of which still have some support by the public (like some types of corporal punishment being acceptable to an undefined degree)