Getting into an institution with no easy way out discourages entry in the first place. Alimony has no place in a society where men and women are equal; child support is based on the paradigm of a traditional stay at home mom who never worked and who will never work, taking numbers from Kentucky(!?) in the late 50's, early 60's as a base and slowly increasing from there.
Add to this the fact that to get out of the institution of marriage; two lawyers are needed, both paid for--generally--by the working spouse. The minute children are in the mix divorce becomes more of a nightmare.
I forgot to add the involvement of the judicial system with its clogged calendars and burdensome discovery procedures.
It is no surprise at all that people avoid marriage.
> child support is based on the paradigm of a traditional stay at home mom who never worked and who will never work,
Not at all.
It's based on the belief that children are the responsibility of both parents. If the children live with one parent it is therefore believed that the other parent should still contribute to the costs, which sounds fair and sensible to me.
> Add to this the fact that to get out of the institution of marriage; two lawyers are needed
The same lawyer cannot represent opposed parties for obvious reasons...
Same in Switzerland.. and in same vein (probably as in US too), many parts of the country are inaccessible for living due to costs if there is only 1 spouse working (unless in top 1% of the income bracket, but even then it can be tricky).
It comes back down with more kids, but generally couple should stay single here till they want/are expecting kids. Being childless married couple hurts financially pretty badly for no reason.
No doubt the things you mention make marriage less attractive, but I think it's also worth noting that more and more young couples are choosing not to have children. I suspect, based on my own experience and that of friends, that this is a big factor in decisions not to marry. Why get hitched if you're not planning to start a family?
To put it more simply - marriage was created for a man and a woman who were both fulfilling strict social expectation of their gender. Man would hunt for food & protect the tribe, which eventually turned into work a 9-5 job and earn money. Woman would manage the house, cook food, raise kids.
It has increasingly less place in the world as lines between gender roles continue to blur.
I disagree. Throughout most of history, people lived in extended families, and only recently (starting from 1900s) has it become nuclearized for most of the people.
A radio interview years ago with a woman from Africa compared African and western mariages. She basically claimed the Western and African view of a mariage was different to the point of incompatibility, and wondered what the hell we were doing.
African marriage, according to her, was based on what amounted to economic stability: 2 people share the cost and maintenance burden of a house, food, ... If one partner was ill, there was a guarantee the other would provide support. Children would need care early on, but added extra economic output when they became older. All of this required a long term commitment, as breaking up a marriage would condemn everyone involved to poverty. Love or even friendship were a nice bonus, but not required as long as partners could live and work together (in the most literal sense). Even something as parents abusing their children was not as bad as the children not having parents and die in the streets, besides, pressure of the local society should deal with the worst abuse.
Western mariage was based only love. We got rich enough to have the possibility for 1 person to pay and maintain house, food, ... Children can get economic support from a broken up marriage, even if the emotional impact of a breakup is extremely damaging to them. As a result, the basic stability requirements simply aren't there.
This means mariage does not require long term commitment, it provides long term commitment.
While I do not fully subscribe to this view, this woman certainly changed how I look at a marriage.
>> a woman from Africa compared African and western mariages.
Africa is a big place. That sounds more like west or south Africa. For instance, the north-east (Egypt and the Mediterranean countries) have a much more middle eastern view of the institution. And even within southern Africa, there is great disparity between rich an poor. Much of the economic certainty professed falls away with African people from more wealthy backgrounds. It is likely overinclusive so call these "African" views of marriage, rather they are the views of some particular African economic and social groups. Other groups have other ideas, some of them much more similar to western notions.
That's probably me simplifying and misremembering.
I heard a random radio interview somewhere in the 1990's as a teenager, started really listening only in the middle of it, and by then the introduction phase was over. I never really knew who the interviewed person was, if she was famous for anything, ... It's just that what she told stuck.
Needless to say: plenty of chance for miscommunications, errors in representation are my own.
One thing that's massively changed, at least in my corner of the world (various bits of Europe) is that grandparents used to be much more involved in raising children. Nowadays, they are more commonly uninterested, living far away, or lack the past societal norm pressure. EDIT: Or are older, as they themselves had children later than past generations, and therefore less able to help.
Without that unpaid, keen, trustworthy workforce, raising children is much, much harder. You either have to rely on paid (very expensive), and variably-trustworthy professional childcare, or put something like 50-60 hours a week of childcare. I'm talking about everything other than normal working hours, where typically children are at school or nursery etc.
Soo... this extra pressure is enough I think to bust a marriage with children (it seems that parental separation rates are increasing, with or without marriage), or to put couples off having them in the first place - in which case the utility of a marriage in a secular world is much lower. In the UK for instance, next to none.
If you're speaking about the United States's the (relatively small) tax gains, they only become advantageous for a marriage between a stay at a non-earning stay at home spouse and a high-earning breadwinner. Any other paring creates a tax penalty.
I was 50-50, but wedding surprisingly ended up one of the nicest experiences of my life, and there is plenty to compete for that spot. People tend to forget its not for the couple but for everybody else.
Wedding creates additional bonds. I didn't expect it, but it did. You want to have strong bonds in marriage, the more the better, because tough times will inevitably come. Bonds can be created in other ways (ie intense adventure experiences together), but they are different. It also covers things when SHTF - visits in hospitals, inheritance etc.
Divorces are expensive if people make them expensive when going down revenge rabbit hole. It can be as simple as 2 signatures on 1 paper and that's it. Choosing spouse is the most important choice in life and tons of folks don't do wise choices in this, with results all around. With kids divorce becomes more complex, but then even without marriage its complex depending on local laws.
As expected, the article says nothing of single-parent households. It mentions the black people that don't get married being disadvantaged but fails to mention that a majority of black children are raised in single-parent households.
Do you think that not getting rewarded for being unmarried is more of a problem than children being raised in a single-parent household?
I certainly agree that parents being married is a bonus for the child. Apart from any strictly emotional considerations, married parents form a more stable platform for care and support during childhood. The fact that splitting up is so inconvenient probably keeps parents together through bigger disagreements than unmarried parents.
Now that I say it though, divorces are such major trauma that perhaps the tail risk counterbalances that benefit. I guess still not, but it's less clear.
Interesting times ahead. Especially for Gen Z and younger, who rely heavily on dating apps instead of going out to meet new potential partners. Dating apps which are highly ineffective at actually generating relationships for most people (particularly for straight males). I predict Gen Z birth rate will be less than 1 per woman, but this might not be a problem for Western economies for now as Western countries can just increase immigration.
> Dating apps which are highly ineffective at actually generating relationships for most people (particularly for straight males).
I didn’t really find that’s the case. I think that’s the perception, but it wasn’t that hard to meet nice, educated people looking for actual relationships on the various dating apps I once used. The failure rate has got to be much less than the failure rate out of all the potential partners one meets naturally.
If anything, dating apps are equalizers. They don’t require you to break into a clique in any activity where you might try to naturally meet people.
Birth rates have been falling for decades at this point. Pretty much since the industrial revolution. Dating apps are new. Hard to blame birth rates on them.
As a white Christian male, I’ve often had the thought that Hispanic immigration into the US, being largely practicing Catholics, could very well trigger a turn toward more traditional values in this country.
You don't think the idea of having to support a spouse as if they were incapacitated or a child for years after you've gone your separate ways absurd? In a society where supposedly, both men and women are equal to boot? And the base justification being little more than that you happened to have lived together for a time as partners.
It's a really strange way to run an insurance program. A portion of your salary goes to mandatory unemployment insurance in Germany. If alimony was fair it would be charged the same way on married people and paid by both parties.
My understanding is that the agricultural revolution played a major role in the traditional version monogamous marriage becoming "standard".
Since the industrial revolution the role of marriage and the structure of marriage has been slowly shifting. Most notably to be more equal,but also to be less mandatory
Maybe marriage just makes sense in an agricultural society, and doesn't make sense in an industrialized or knowledge-based society
Readit News
Add to this the fact that to get out of the institution of marriage; two lawyers are needed, both paid for--generally--by the working spouse. The minute children are in the mix divorce becomes more of a nightmare.
I forgot to add the involvement of the judicial system with its clogged calendars and burdensome discovery procedures.
It is no surprise at all that people avoid marriage.
Not at all.
It's based on the belief that children are the responsibility of both parents. If the children live with one parent it is therefore believed that the other parent should still contribute to the costs, which sounds fair and sensible to me.
> Add to this the fact that to get out of the institution of marriage; two lawyers are needed
The same lawyer cannot represent opposed parties for obvious reasons...
Dead Comment
It comes back down with more kids, but generally couple should stay single here till they want/are expecting kids. Being childless married couple hurts financially pretty badly for no reason.
Dead Comment
"Therefore, examine whoever binds forever".
It doesn't fit the modern world at all. It was designed when people tended farms and raised a brood of children. We have new needs and lifestyles now.
It has increasingly less place in the world as lines between gender roles continue to blur.
African marriage, according to her, was based on what amounted to economic stability: 2 people share the cost and maintenance burden of a house, food, ... If one partner was ill, there was a guarantee the other would provide support. Children would need care early on, but added extra economic output when they became older. All of this required a long term commitment, as breaking up a marriage would condemn everyone involved to poverty. Love or even friendship were a nice bonus, but not required as long as partners could live and work together (in the most literal sense). Even something as parents abusing their children was not as bad as the children not having parents and die in the streets, besides, pressure of the local society should deal with the worst abuse.
Western mariage was based only love. We got rich enough to have the possibility for 1 person to pay and maintain house, food, ... Children can get economic support from a broken up marriage, even if the emotional impact of a breakup is extremely damaging to them. As a result, the basic stability requirements simply aren't there.
This means mariage does not require long term commitment, it provides long term commitment.
While I do not fully subscribe to this view, this woman certainly changed how I look at a marriage.
Africa is a big place. That sounds more like west or south Africa. For instance, the north-east (Egypt and the Mediterranean countries) have a much more middle eastern view of the institution. And even within southern Africa, there is great disparity between rich an poor. Much of the economic certainty professed falls away with African people from more wealthy backgrounds. It is likely overinclusive so call these "African" views of marriage, rather they are the views of some particular African economic and social groups. Other groups have other ideas, some of them much more similar to western notions.
I heard a random radio interview somewhere in the 1990's as a teenager, started really listening only in the middle of it, and by then the introduction phase was over. I never really knew who the interviewed person was, if she was famous for anything, ... It's just that what she told stuck.
Needless to say: plenty of chance for miscommunications, errors in representation are my own.
Without that unpaid, keen, trustworthy workforce, raising children is much, much harder. You either have to rely on paid (very expensive), and variably-trustworthy professional childcare, or put something like 50-60 hours a week of childcare. I'm talking about everything other than normal working hours, where typically children are at school or nursery etc.
Soo... this extra pressure is enough I think to bust a marriage with children (it seems that parental separation rates are increasing, with or without marriage), or to put couples off having them in the first place - in which case the utility of a marriage in a secular world is much lower. In the UK for instance, next to none.
But it is a scary endeavour with no practical upside, high financial cost and absurd legal risk.
Why would I get married? Love? You can love without marriage.
If marriage is to prove you love someone then I don’t think I want to bother loving anyone.
There's tax incentives and you become each other's medical proxy, among other things.
>high financial cost
The paperwork is cheap. Weddings are as expensive as you make them.
>absurd legal risk
That's true, divorces are expensive.
That’s not universal, it’s not the case in Sweden for instance as far as I can make out.
But, the rest of what you said is true.
Though it’s unlikely that both partners who want to get married would want to forego a wedding ceremony.
Wedding creates additional bonds. I didn't expect it, but it did. You want to have strong bonds in marriage, the more the better, because tough times will inevitably come. Bonds can be created in other ways (ie intense adventure experiences together), but they are different. It also covers things when SHTF - visits in hospitals, inheritance etc.
Divorces are expensive if people make them expensive when going down revenge rabbit hole. It can be as simple as 2 signatures on 1 paper and that's it. Choosing spouse is the most important choice in life and tons of folks don't do wise choices in this, with results all around. With kids divorce becomes more complex, but then even without marriage its complex depending on local laws.
Do you think that not getting rewarded for being unmarried is more of a problem than children being raised in a single-parent household?
Now that I say it though, divorces are such major trauma that perhaps the tail risk counterbalances that benefit. I guess still not, but it's less clear.
I didn’t really find that’s the case. I think that’s the perception, but it wasn’t that hard to meet nice, educated people looking for actual relationships on the various dating apps I once used. The failure rate has got to be much less than the failure rate out of all the potential partners one meets naturally.
If anything, dating apps are equalizers. They don’t require you to break into a clique in any activity where you might try to naturally meet people.
This is not a pejorative. As an immigrant, I think this will be great.
Does this basically translate to, "we'll judge the shit out of any non-traditional family again"?
Deleted Comment
What do you consider "normal"?
I’m all for that :)
We can make marriage attractive again, if we make divoce very, very hard or very, very easy. What we have now is in between and that helps nobody.
It's a form of indentured servitude, sometimes granted to someone that you hate or that hates you.
Since the industrial revolution the role of marriage and the structure of marriage has been slowly shifting. Most notably to be more equal,but also to be less mandatory
Maybe marriage just makes sense in an agricultural society, and doesn't make sense in an industrialized or knowledge-based society