This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The issue of modern divorce was discussed here last week in the context of yet another round of wider discussion about the Sexual Revolution. (It's pretty much becoming tiresome at this point, but anyway.) Everyone who bothered to chime in seemed to agree with the notion that divorce is usually a net negative for the wife, both romantically and economically. It appeared to me that there's mostly a consensus about that here.
Fair enough. However, I've seen online data indicating that a) roughly 40% of all marriages end in divorce b) roughly 80% of divorces are initiated by the wives c) in cases where the wife is college-educated, that figure is 90%. In other words, in cases of marriages that fail, modern women are more likely than not to voluntarily put themselves in a disadvantageous life situation.
So...what gives? Are modern women just that impulsive when feeling unhappy in a marriage? Or misled? Do they have illusions about singlehood?
Historically, divorce was very difficult to obtain, and it was more likely than not that the father would retain custody of the children (so there were definitely cases where the wife was blackmailed with "if you ever want to see your kids again..."). If a woman was at fault in a divorce, she was ruined socially and probably economically as well. Even where the husband was the offending party (e.g. cruelty or infidelity), a divorced woman still found it difficult to resume her life afterwards.
So for various reasons, it was men who usually initiated divorces. Move on to the 20th century, and we get the Reno Divorce, where now (if you are sufficiently wealthy to be able to afford it) you can get a divorce after spending enough time to qualify as a resident of Reno, Nevada.
Now women were initiating divorces, and as the decades passed, expectations for marriage changed, economic stability outside of marriage became possible for women, and changes in the attitudes of the law towards alimony and child support and child custody, as well as property and asset division, began to favour women, the balance tilted towards women being the ones who had the upper hand in divorce.
However, the shoe on the other foot is earning ability: if you're a housewife with custody of the kids, you have more expenses and now have a reduced income (whatever alimony was awarded to you). If you're not working, your situation does become worse than it had been. If you are working, can you get decent job or are you stuck because you haven't established a career before and during marriage?
Romantically, men - it seems - are much more reluctant to partner up with a woman who has children. So the ex-husband may be able to find a new wife and start making babies with her, but the ex-wife finds it more difficult to find a partner.
I think that the desire for independence, and that now you don't have to stay in an unhappy marriage and put up with a possibly abusive husband, still over-rides any downsides perceived for divorce. And I think that applies to men as well as women - I don't think men would want to stay in an unhappy marriage just because 'I'll be the loser economically' otherwise.
This is why I'm not against divorce legally or even culturally (cue: But TollBooth, aren't you a TRAD?). I've been in enough relationships (and exited them) to understand that the same person who you feel deeply connected and wholly in love with in Month 2 can be the same person who you literally never want to speak to again in Month .... 8. I've been safe enough to avoid getting married, but it is not at all hard to understand that some couples in the exact same situation - and millions of similar ones - would. If that turns out to not be a good match, an exit ought to be possible.
But the costs of divorce for both partners seem quite high. What's more, I've seen no evidence that pre-marriage cohabitation (i.e. a practice run) helps. Anec-datally, I've seen it do the opposite. So, we've a situation in which lots of people are entering into an agreement that will entangle them deeply for a long period of time. Financial and social penalties abound. It's very hard to actually tell if you and the other person are going to "make it" no matter what you do.
Quick aside: Pre-marriage counseling, usually in a religious context, in my opinion, does nothing to help with the choosing of a partner. Instead, I think, it mostly just doubles the level of commitment on the part of each party and kind of builds in a fatalist co-dependence. As Catholic as I am, I've seen many catholic marriages that probably should've ended drag on (til death!) out of a grim determination to the idea of marriage. More on that later.
Yet, it's close to self-evident that a stable, two parent household is the basic building block of society. If they start to disappear (even more than they already have (!)) bad things happen. But The Institution hasn't kept up from its 1000+ year history of being, at its core, an economic contract for mutual survival and reproduction. I don't know how to fix that, but I have a hunch it's important.
On folks who get into and stay in marriages because of an external commitment to an idea / ideal (mostly the very religious) ... That selection bias ought to be obvious. Anyone who can commit themselves in a meaningful way to an abstract idea, ideal, or metaphysical concept is going to have a level of self-discipline, thoughtfulness, self-awareness etc. that puts them into pretty safe territory across a whole host of Big Decisions in life. That's not the audience that matters.
I'm in a bit of a different situation. I don't see how a long-term relationship can be successful without a practice run, especially given the complaints around chore splits and finances.
Yet you're correct in that the data suggests rolling directly from living separately -> marriage is more successful. It doesn't compute for me. I've always ascribed the difference there to "only the most religious/susceptible to social pressure can resist cohabitation before marriage" and so will stick out relationships at a higher rate.
It's my belief that Cohabitation undermines the ultimate marriage between the same couple, because it throws off the stakes and the leverage between parties. A lot of couples get into bad habits during cohabitation, and it is difficult and muddy to straighten them out after marriage. When you get married without having lived together, you have a clean slate.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
One other thing pre marriage counseling offers is some basic conflict management tools that many young people especially young people with a single digit number of relationships may not have developed naturally.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The desire for independence is a meme.
I spotted this in the mod queue, with the Volunteer Jannies considering this a bad post, but this isn't really anywhere close to bad enough for me to put my mod hat on, but as a prolific user in good standing, I'm sure you could do better than that.
Pithiness/brevity isn't outright disallowed, but if you're going to dismiss an effort-post, or at least a line of it, going into more detail would be desirable. Or at least do more than just call it a meme.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link