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

The Divorce Colony (2015)

magazine.atavist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 48 posts

Re: The Divorce Colony (2015)

#31

Post by Terr_ »

gumby wrote: post #16
purpleflame1257 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a long time, the prevention of divorce was intended to protect women. It meant partners can't just be thrown aside if a better deal comes along. Eventually, of course, it became a trap for women (and men). Nowadays, unless you're religious, marriage is essentially just a socioeconomic winner trophy.

> Nowadays, unless you're religious, marriage is essentially just a socioeconomic winner trophy. That is unnecessarily cynical. Civil marriage provides several conveniences for the participants: it establishes a default common property structure (so there are no tax consequences for pooling earnings or for who pays the bills each month, or common ownership of assets, especially useful in the case where one dies); if…

Aside, I'd like to point out that some of the important aspects of marriage are things that cannot be accomplished by pure private contract, because the existence of the relationship puts obligations on third parties to recognize it. (Much like another special case, power of attorney.)

So if anyone says that government should not be involved in marriages/civil-unions/whatever, they're really talking about removing important features from the institution as well.

Re: The Divorce Colony (2015)

#32

Post by solraph »

rpmisms wrote: post #30

Divorce is an excuse for hedonism.

> Divorce is an excuse for hedonism. Sometimes? Absolutely.

All the time? No. Depressingly often, it is to escape a person and relationship they desperately need to be free of.

I know and am related to several people who are divorced. It was not hedonism that drove the proceedings, but exasperation and pain.

EDIT after further consideration: And even if it is - so what? What business of that is yours?

Re: The Divorce Colony (2015)

#33

Post by EnigmaFlare »

motohagiography wrote: post #5

It would be interesting to read a charitable case for why divorce was prohibited . We see it written up as women being forbidden from owning land, or perhaps without a marriage, not being recognized as full people with the freedom to own it. It probably had some rational basis beyond cruelty and was likely about incentives, like reducing the reward for spouses to kill each other for inheritances. Maybe it was the epi…

You touched on a major cultural conflict that exists in the west today - the competing interests of individual freedom and sustaining the society. Many old traditions that seem cruel or anti-freedom were/are really there to keep the society existing. Marriage and staying married is probably one of them for reasons you identified. Western society is already collapsing (birth rates below replacement level), perhaps partly because of easy divorce and other traditions being lost.

Another reason may be that most young men are unattractive to women and most old women are unattractive to men. So without any stable life-long partnership, people would make the most of their value in the attractive part of their life and leave the other part missing out emotionally (for men) and economically (for women) which probably isn't good for anyone.

Re: The Divorce Colony (2015)

#34

Post by EnigmaFlare »

gumby wrote: post #16
purpleflame1257 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a long time, the prevention of divorce was intended to protect women. It meant partners can't just be thrown aside if a better deal comes along. Eventually, of course, it became a trap for women (and men). Nowadays, unless you're religious, marriage is essentially just a socioeconomic winner trophy.

> Nowadays, unless you're religious, marriage is essentially just a socioeconomic winner trophy. That is unnecessarily cynical. Civil marriage provides several conveniences for the participants: it establishes a default common property structure (so there are no tax consequences for pooling earnings or for who pays the bills each month, or common ownership of assets, especially useful in the case where one dies); if…

> And it’s voluntary. If you don’t want a marriage, don’t have one.

Tell that to Australia and New Zealand where de-facto relationships (legally equivalent to marriage) occur automatically when you've been living together for 3 years or so. Some people can fall into it unaware but I know of people who intentionally dumped their partner just before the time limit to protect their property.

I don't know why it works like this but it seems like whoever wants marriage for people in general wants it more than each individual participant does, so it might be for a societal rather than individual benefit.

Re: The Divorce Colony (2015)

#35

Post by em-bee »

EnigmaFlare wrote: post #34
gumby wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nowadays, unless you're religious, marriage is essentially just a socioeconomic winner trophy. That is unnecessarily cynical. Civil marriage provides several conveniences for the participants: it establishes a default common property structure (so there are no tax consequences for pooling earnings or for who pays the bills each month, or common ownership of assets, especially useful in the case where one dies); if…

> And it’s voluntary. If you don’t want a marriage, don’t have one. Tell that to Australia and New Zealand where de-facto relationships (legally equivalent to marriage) occur automatically when you've been living together for 3 years or so. Some people can fall into it unaware but I know of people who intentionally dumped their partner just before the time limit to protect their property. I don't know why it works li…

also in some EU countries, living together establishes rights and obligations with regards to property, inheritance and financial support.

Re: The Divorce Colony (2015)

#36

Post by rayiner »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #28
ndriscoll wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a straightforward line of reasoning for the benefit of any children if they exist: divorce is highly disruptive for the child, and should not be available except under extreme circumstances for much the same reason why people are forced to pay child support today. Likewise, one could imagine forcing marriage upon people for the benefit of any children born out of wedlock. In fact, society could much more read…

An unamicable divorce can certainly be bad, but don't under-estimate how bad it is for a child to grow up in a marriage where both partners hate each other, but can't leave. Forcing marriage seems like a terrible way to achieve the same thing.

This is something Americans say, but we have empirical data that it’s not true. Compare poor Asian Americans, who have very low divorce rates (similar to rich Asians), to poor whites, who have very high divorce rates. Poor Asian kids have double or triple the chance of becoming upper middle class as adults compared to poor whites. Mormons, another group that emphasizes family stability, also have much higher economic mobility than other whites. As Charlie Munger used to say: figure out what works and then do it.

My parents are Asians who don’t get along, while my wife’s parents are white people who have been divorced three times each. Her parents are happier, but my life was easier and opportunities came much more readily. Divorce is a great way to turn a solidly middle class family into two financially struggling families, disrupt kids’ education, extra-curricular activities, social circles, etc. And it doesn’t end when the kids grow up, because that strain of financial resources continues into adulthood when parents come to depend on children.

Americans are rich enough where imposing those costs on their kids isn’t fatal. But imagine you’re in a third world village, and at the edge of survival to begin with. Your mom and dad are “no longer in love.” Dad leaves, and the mom and kids starve to death immediately. That’s why most traditional societies have strong norms against divorce.

Re: The Divorce Colony (2015)

#37

Post by rayiner »

ndriscoll wrote: post #29
pavel_lishin wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An unamicable divorce can certainly be bad, but don't under-estimate how bad it is for a child to grow up in a marriage where both partners hate each other, but can't leave. Forcing marriage seems like a terrible way to achieve the same thing.

It's actually amicable divorces which would most obviously be banned under such a justification. You're basically signaling to the child "I didn't hate your other parent, wasn't being abused, etc. I'm just choosing to abandon my family (you)". Similar reasoning could justify adultery being a crime against your children.

Correct.

Re: The Divorce Colony (2015)

#38

Post by exolymph »

rayiner wrote: post #36
pavel_lishin wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An unamicable divorce can certainly be bad, but don't under-estimate how bad it is for a child to grow up in a marriage where both partners hate each other, but can't leave. Forcing marriage seems like a terrible way to achieve the same thing.

This is something Americans say, but we have empirical data that it’s not true. Compare poor Asian Americans, who have very low divorce rates (similar to rich Asians), to poor whites, who have very high divorce rates. Poor Asian kids have double or triple the chance of becoming upper middle class as adults compared to poor whites. Mormons, another group that emphasizes family stability, also have much higher economic…

> Compare poor Asian Americans, who have very low divorce rates (similar to rich Asians), to poor whites, who have very high divorce rates. Poor Asian kids have double or triple the chance of becoming upper middle class as adults compared to poor whites.

I'm not pro-divorce, but it's difficult to isolate just one variable here. There are numerous other cultural differences.

Re: The Divorce Colony (2015)

#39

Post by rayiner »

exolymph wrote: post #38
rayiner wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is something Americans say, but we have empirical data that it’s not true. Compare poor Asian Americans, who have very low divorce rates (similar to rich Asians), to poor whites, who have very high divorce rates. Poor Asian kids have double or triple the chance of becoming upper middle class as adults compared to poor whites. Mormons, another group that emphasizes family stability, also have much higher economic…

> Compare poor Asian Americans, who have very low divorce rates (similar to rich Asians), to poor whites, who have very high divorce rates. Poor Asian kids have double or triple the chance of becoming upper middle class as adults compared to poor whites. I'm not pro-divorce, but it's difficult to isolate just one variable here. There are numerous other cultural differences.

But attitudes about family are the thing Mormons and various Asian groups have in common, while diverging on most other respects.

Re: The Divorce Colony (2015)

#40

Post by rpmisms »

solraph wrote: post #32
rpmisms wrote: post #30

Divorce is an excuse for hedonism.

> Divorce is an excuse for hedonism. Sometimes? Absolutely. All the time? No. Depressingly often, it is to escape a person and relationship they desperately need to be free of. I know and am related to several people who are divorced. It was not hedonism that drove the proceedings, but exasperation and pain. EDIT after further consideration: And even if it is - so what? What business of that is yours?

Your defensiveness is to my point. Marriage is difficult. The idea of leaving for a series of inconveniences is a hedonistic ideal. There are cases where divorce is inevitable, but it's gotten absolutely ridiculous.
Post reply on HN