41–50 of 217 posts
Good for them. More people need to reject this archaic sexist tradition. Legal enforcement of the fantasy notion of "true love for life" is damn near barbaric. If you and your partner can swing it, more power to you, but social pressure on others to place themselves into legally binding situations revolving around this notion is something that need to die. In the west (at least the states) these are legally binding a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that marriage in USA is biased against anyone. But the divorce is HEAVILY biased agains men. For example, more than 70% of divorces are initiated by women, while they also get the custody of the children 90% of the time. When it comes for child support, it's even worse. If in a family the husband begins to get a lower salary due to the state of the economy, then everybody should/will spend less. But if…
please cite your sources
It is of course anecdotal, but as best I can tell, it is anecdotal evidence that is shared by every person in America- aka, 'public knowledge'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that marriage in USA is biased against anyone. But the divorce is HEAVILY biased agains men. For example, more than 70% of divorces are initiated by women, while they also get the custody of the children 90% of the time. When it comes for child support, it's even worse. If in a family the husband begins to get a lower salary due to the state of the economy, then everybody should/will spend less. But if…
Marriage itself can be quite biased against males in the states. I have a friend who's wife successfully divorced him because she was not being "sexually satisfied". If a male tried to do the same, people would scream "domestic rape". Expectations of each sex, viewed through the lense of the courts, are very uneven. And of course after the divorce the situation only becomes more dire.
It's going to be controversial and maybe even shocking, so brace yourself for a moment before reacting please.
I think peaceful societies self-destruct.
With a few notable exceptions that require a geography suitable to isolationism, long term peace has historically been achieved through your country or one of your ally's having military supremacy over the rest of your neighbors.
Obviously, diplomacy can keep the peace for long periods of time, even human lifetimes, but eventually incidents happen when there's a hothead in one government, and then that's when the military supremacy determines whether you get attacked or not.
Anyways, I've found the more a country renounces war and gets further away from it, the more birth rates go down. You get an explosion of commerce and art for ~30 to ~70 years, and then the society self-destructs.
No longer forced to confront mortality and with no externally unifying cause, people start living for luxury, pleasure, and consumption. They stop having children. Birth rates fall off.
Eventually, this destroys a country's economy, the military supremacy fades, and one of their neighbors comes in and cleans house, and the cycle begins anew.
This has happened many times through history. It's happening in Japan right now. If I became an advisor to anyone in the Japanese government, I'd advocate two things as chief priorities - (1) exceedingly good relations with China, and (2) re-militarize.
Then join the next war they can on America's or China's side. Combined with some standard messages of nationalism/strength/growth/unity, birth rates would almost certainly increase.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whether or not marriage as an institution is biased against males or females (honestly, it seems to be biased against both) I am always astounded by people who see no value whatsoever in marriage. America is practically founded on capitalism. How can you understand specialization & its benefits, and not see how marriage (well, used to) makes use of it? Yes, if marriage was just about pretending "True Love is real, an…
I love children, but as a specie, we've secured our dominant position on this planet a long time ago. There's over 7 billion of us now. If children isn't your thing, why bring some into the world, and risk neglecting them?
1) Due to social values, we build momentum. If marriage ceases to happen and children cease to be born, 50 years from now we won't have 50 million fewer people- we'll have 1 billion fewer people, and it will take decades to reverse the trend. (made-up numbers, but I hope you take my point)
2) It's not just about protecting the species. We have a tiny bit of a Ponzi scheme going. The young support the old, and as a result graphs like this: http://japanfocus.org/data/fig3.jpg (Japan's population) As a taxpayer, make your blood run cold.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whether or not marriage as an institution is biased against males or females (honestly, it seems to be biased against both) I am always astounded by people who see no value whatsoever in marriage. America is practically founded on capitalism. How can you understand specialization & its benefits, and not see how marriage (well, used to) makes use of it? Yes, if marriage was just about pretending "True Love is real, an…
I love children, but as a specie, we've secured our dominant position on this planet a long time ago. There's over 7 billion of us now. If children isn't your thing, why bring some into the world, and risk neglecting them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"But as I have come to see it, it is more about facing the world as a "team". In larger groups (that is to say, extended family, all composed of marriage links), perhaps even as a "tribe"... think about that." I agree! Why do those links have to be marital? I'm not sure they have to be. Which is why the we need to be more open.
because, marital/blood link are more stronger than open/causal links.
I have a theory that I haven't found expounded before. It came from a combination of travel through 60+ countries, living and working and interacting with local people on a pretty intimate level sometimes, and study of lots of history. It's going to be controversial and maybe even shocking, so brace yourself for a moment before reacting please. I think peaceful societies self-destruct. With a few notable exceptions t…
"So far, the trend has not affected Asia’s two giants, China and India." It is not fair to label a trend as "Asian" when you need to exclude China and India.
What would you label it as then? SingaJapaTaiwaVietnian? Besides, you can always argue that the trend simply hasn't penetrated the larger entities yet, but will in the future.
