Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Did Marriage Become a Mark of Privilege?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 132 posts

Re: How Did Marriage Become a Mark of Privilege?

#51

Post by mfoy_ »

thriftwy wrote: post #29
mfoy_ wrote: post #7

To quote Alec Baldwin's character, Ellerby, from The Departed : "Marriage is an important part of getting ahead; lets people know you're not a homo. Married guy seems more stable. People see the ring, they think 'at least somebody can stand the son of a bitch'. Ladies see the ring, they know immediately you must have some cash or your cock must work." A touch on the homophobic and misogynistic side, but it seems rele…

Once marrying becomes an unfortunate choice, it starts to signal the opposite. "This guy is so desperate he had to marry "

That frame of mind implies that marriage is something women want and something men do not want.

Why? It sounds like you're making some weird assumptions about sex-positivity, child-rearing, or finances.

Re: How Did Marriage Become a Mark of Privilege?

#52

Post by humanrebar »

moomin wrote: post #4

"As marriage has declined, though, childbearing has not, which means that more children are living in families without two parents and the resources they bring." Er, no, it doesn't mean that at all. I mean, I 100% support anyone doing the ridiculously hard job of raising a kid all by themselves, but just because Justin Wolfers and Betsey Stevenson aren't married it doesn't mean they aren't committed to each other and…

> ...just because Justin Wolfers and Betsey Stevenson aren't married it doesn't mean they aren't committed to each other and their children.

Sure, but marriage is literally a commitment to each other, current offspring, and future offspring. Theoretically a couple could enter an "anuptual agreement", but that's a rare occurrence if it happens at all.

A vaguely defined agreement can work fine, sure. But specifically defined and specifically enforced agreements have their merits.

Re: How Did Marriage Become a Mark of Privilege?

#53

Post by godelmachine »

mfoy_ wrote: post #7

To quote Alec Baldwin's character, Ellerby, from The Departed : "Marriage is an important part of getting ahead; lets people know you're not a homo. Married guy seems more stable. People see the ring, they think 'at least somebody can stand the son of a bitch'. Ladies see the ring, they know immediately you must have some cash or your cock must work." A touch on the homophobic and misogynistic side, but it seems rele…

Could I upvote this 1000 times?

Re: How Did Marriage Become a Mark of Privilege?

#54

Post by g00gler »

mlrtime wrote: post #3

Many men are understanding that marriage is a no win situation. You find yourself working your entire life to support your wife and family only to have a high percentage of ending in divorce. Your assets will be taken from you and you will be lucky if you get 50% custody. If you do not wand children there is no point in getting married.

Not necessarily true. I think that's an outdated, albeit mainstream, approach to marriage.

It should be more like forming an LLC wherein you make a partnership agreement. Called a prenuptial agreement in the US, I assume it's more popular amongst the wealthy.

I'd want a solid contract wherein there would be no alimony, separate finances, and rational child support meaning no, you don't get X percentage of my income, you get 50% of the actual cost of raising the children.

Should be much easier this way. Say the wife contributes 35% of the mortgage payment on a monthly basis, 35% of the home is hers in a divorce.

If she stays home to watch the kids, you "pay" her a portion of your salary to account for this.

Maybe we can crowd source some niche accounting software to make this trivial.

Re: How Did Marriage Become a Mark of Privilege?

#55

Post by dguaraglia »

mlrtime wrote: post #3

Many men are understanding that marriage is a no win situation. You find yourself working your entire life to support your wife and family only to have a high percentage of ending in divorce. Your assets will be taken from you and you will be lucky if you get 50% custody. If you do not wand children there is no point in getting married.

I'm pretty sure not getting married is pretty popular with professional women too. Turns out they also have a career they care about. Who would've thought of women as humans, right?

Re: How Did Marriage Become a Mark of Privilege?

#56

Post by humanrebar »

ashark wrote: post #37
njharman wrote: post #24

> “Women don’t want to take a risk on somebody who’s not going to be able to provide anything,” That's such a fucked up sexist thought. It says woman are in control of marriage, what men want is irrelevant. And that the role of men is provider. Men belong at work and women belong in the kitchen, is that it?

Article's full of that. Mostly it's about how all these now-unemployed and uneducated men aren't worth marrying. Which makes all the posts in this thread about how it's caused by men not wanting to marry women because it's too risky kinda funny. Article's all about too few men being marriage material. They end on a hilariously useless and misguided piece of advice that wouldn't be out of place in The Onion's version…

> The idea is that if people follow that sequence, their odds of landing in poverty are much lower.

Half of all babies are accidental, regardless of marital status. If sex is in the equation before "degree" (it is), then the whole sequence is flawed.

Re: How Did Marriage Become a Mark of Privilege?

#57

Post by Xophmeister »

kop316 wrote: post #8

I wonder if this is also due to the high cost of the actual marriage ceremony. A (cheap) engagement ring can cost over $1000, and can easily jump to $5-10K. Then a traditional ceremony can easily be over $10K, with no upper bound on how expensive it is. This was the cause of me no longer being with an ex, they were already in debt $80k from school, but still wanted a ceremony that could have easily cost $40K. I had n…

It cost me 1RMB to get married. That was less than £0.10, at the time. I still have the receipt...you know, just in case ;)

We -- that is to say, our parents -- did splash out a bit more on the reception(s), but nothing excessive.

Re: How Did Marriage Become a Mark of Privilege?

#58

Post by debacle »

I find a lot of the conclusions drawn in the article unscientific, and they don't really jive with my experience. From what I've seen, totally anecdotally, being more successful and being married are symptoms of being a more stable individual. I don't know many people in good jobs or with careers that aren't in some sort of relationship, and many of those I know who can't maintain a relationship also can't maintain a job.

The only exception to that rule that I've found is black women. I don't know many black women in stable, long term relationships, regardless of their career success. The reasons for that are more social than economic.

Re: How Did Marriage Become a Mark of Privilege?

#59

Post by mfoy_ »

jk563 wrote: post #32
CalRobert wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps those are the weddings we focus on and we forget all the cheap ones? I've known quite a few people (myself included) who did it for a few hundred quid (turned out Tuesdays were cheaper so we did it then at town hall). Of course, it's cheaper if no family come. Remember, all those gifts they give you are a social debt for which they will want to collect.

> Remember, all those gifts they give you are a social debt for which they will want to collect. I feel that is a bit of a sweeping statement. I certainly don't expect anything back for the gifts I've bought for friends and family for weddings, I would be shocked if I were a unique case.

I know people who say they felt guilty about getting wedding gifts and whatnot. They said it felt like they were forcing their friends to buy them things... which I guess is what it is.

Re: How Did Marriage Become a Mark of Privilege?

#60

Post by jmull »

njharman wrote: post #24

> “Women don’t want to take a risk on somebody who’s not going to be able to provide anything,” That's such a fucked up sexist thought. It says woman are in control of marriage, what men want is irrelevant. And that the role of men is provider. Men belong at work and women belong in the kitchen, is that it?

> It says woman are in control of marriage, what men want is irrelevant.

They aren't saying that. You wouldn't suggest that a man be able to force an uninterested woman to marry him, would you?

Surely we want both women and men (or whatever the genders) to have complete veto power in this, right?

(Not that you can't argue that it's a sexist reason not to want to marry someone. I don't think it is but I can see how it's debatable.)

Post reply on HN