What is the American obsession with race? I'm sure there's a more useful explanation behind these rates (perhaps family tradition of marriage, income, place of living etc. etc.).
"Marriage is for white people"
31–40 of 81 posts
Re: "Marriage is for white people"
#32And how does this relate to hacker news?
From the HN guidelines: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
It's surprising how all the diverse interests here share such an extreme intolerance for this meta discussion. It's a fascinating dynamic.
Re: "Marriage is for white people"
#33Blacks and their slavery shoulder chip, GET OVER IT Newsflash : "more Irish were sold as slaves to the American colonies and plantations from 1651 to 1660 than the total existing “free” population of the Americas" http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/SLAVES.TXT http://www.scoilgaeilge.org/academics/slaves.htm From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ire…
First - great collection of links. The history of slavery deserves a more thorough understanding than what's normally taught in high school. And yet, it was not the Irish who couldn't vote as late as the 60s, nor were the Irish the ones in segregated schools through the 70s, nor were there Irish divisions of the armed forces in World War II sent on the most dangerous missions. There were not masses of Irishmen enslav…
I'm in my 40s, which means that I never knew a society that wouldn't allow blacks to vote. I certainly had nothing to do with slavery. I used to find this identity politics justified, then amusing (as I thought through it some more), and now it's just feeble.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those that start each day looking for opportunities and those that start each day looking to the past. I'd rather be the second kind of person. So I don't discriminate based on color, won't put up with others who do, and am finished with considering race an interesting or important issue.
As an aside, there's a serious issue with segregating population based on skin color (as opposed to any other random collection of genes)for purposes of commentary -- it actually reinforces the idea that somehow people of one color are different than another. Of course we all know that patterns appear in the genetic pool, but using skin color as a predominant discriminating factor is, as best, misguided. At worst, it can cause the exact types of behavior we all agree is so bad.
Re: "Marriage is for white people"
#34Combine that with a cultural norm in (a large portion of) the black community to not get married outside of one's race, and you'd expect to see this.
You could construct other situations where marriagable women outnumber marriagable men and see what that does to the marriage rates, too. Example: college practically anywhere in the United States in the 2000s, compared to college in past generations. When the population is about fifty-fifty male/female, the equilibrium favors a lot of pairings. When it is 60/40 F/M, at least 1/3 of women are structurally incapable of being in a traditional monogamous relationship. (Then add in the cultural change that happens once some portion of men realize this and act on it -- the "hookup culture".)
Re: "Marriage is for white people"
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the HN guidelines: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
The HN-worthiness of this article aside, I continue to be amazed just how quickly and how far anyone who posits the question is down voted. It's surprising how all the diverse interests here share such an extreme intolerance for this meta discussion. It's a fascinating dynamic.
Re: "Marriage is for white people"
#36> Sex, love and childbearing have become a la carte choices rather than a package deal that comes with marriage. The American legal system right now is absolutely draconian and broken to men. A man can try to be a good father and husband, do nothing wrong except be a bit of a putz, then his wife divorces him, gets full custody of the kids, and 30-50% of his after-tax income. She receives more money if he doesn't get…
1) Contrary to popular belief, most prenups are not thrown out -- the only requirements for a valid prenup to survive legal challenge is that both the (future) husband and wife were separately represented by counsel, AND that both spouses disclosed ALL properties (real and personal) they possessed. The validity of a prenuptial agreement is measured at the time it was signed, unless extraordinary circumstances justify re-evaluating it at the time of divorce -- and in such cases, the re-evaluation takes into account the relative importance of holdings. For example -- a normal person selling a startup for millions is an extraordinary event. Warren Buffet selling a company for millions is not. EDIT: Note that I am simplifying the requirements; the others involve a lawyer, so the lawyer will let you know what they are if you ever do a prenup.
2) Spousal support -- does not include money for the children. It is solely to "equalize" income between the former spouses, and can be readjusted on petition at any time by either spouse.
3) Child support -- the custodial parent may not use child support for their own benefit (unless that benefit is incidental to the benefit to the child). If the custodial parent does use child support for their own benefit, the non-custodial parent is entitled to reimbursement for that amount, and possibly a reduction in child support.
Interlude: Nas. Nas is a millionaire. He had a kid, with a woman, and lived a lavish lifestyle. B/c of that, on divorce, his wife and kid get to continue living a lavish lifestyle via alimony (wife's standard of living during marriage) and child support (child's standard of living during marriage). Lesson to learn: If you're rich, live a normal lifestyle and you won't pay (relatively) much in support.
4) Poor people -- whether black or white -- do not trust the legal system. The reasons are mostly obvious. However, a good portion of it is that poor people base their understanding of the law on shows like Judge Judy and Jerry Springer, not realizing that these shows are staged and/or not real courts.
5) The divorce rate for first-time marriages is less than 30%. (20% is the figure I hear most often). The divorce rate for people who have been married before increases by about 10-20% for each subsequent marriage. If you take out the multiples, divorce is actually fairly uncommon. Note too, that the divorce rate amongst college-educated couples (both spouses) is less than half of the divorce rate amongst couples where neither spouse went to college (stats for first-time marriages).
5) Harsh divorce laws discourage divorce. Think about it -- the easier and less painful it is too divorce, the more likely people are to go through with it. Divorce rates jumped when no-fault divorce laws were passed.
Re: "Marriage is for white people"
#37What is the American obsession with race? I'm sure there's a more useful explanation behind these rates (perhaps family tradition of marriage, income, place of living etc. etc.).
Re: "Marriage is for white people"
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn’t track for me. Look at men in the past. It’s against men’s evolutionary nature to marry yet they still got married just as quickly (and they didn’t need wives to support them). So your argument that women are taking a role traditionally held by men before and hence aren’t marrying doesn’t seem to hold water. Here’s the problem: The feminist narrative currently out there is a myth. It says women were alway…
That's a pretty warped depiction of 'the feminist narrative,' and in any case exceptions don't make the rule. In California, in the 1850's, for example, it was determined that any property of a married woman's was legally the property of her husband. Therefore the hundreds of entrepreneurial and successful women land or business owners were suddenly rendered legally and financially dependent on their husbands. Only s…
Re: "Marriage is for white people"
#39Blacks and their slavery shoulder chip, GET OVER IT Newsflash : "more Irish were sold as slaves to the American colonies and plantations from 1651 to 1660 than the total existing “free” population of the Americas" http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/SLAVES.TXT http://www.scoilgaeilge.org/academics/slaves.htm From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ire…
Re: "Marriage is for white people"
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally, I believe that it has to do with the role of women in the current society, not exactly with the race. I don't live in America, but I think the trend is present in most western countries anyway. We're jumping from the "dependant housewive" to the "independent worker". I remember my mom used to say when I was a kid that I had to find a good husband. But now I have my own house and a good job... I don't need…
That doesn’t track for me. Look at men in the past. It’s against men’s evolutionary nature to marry yet they still got married just as quickly (and they didn’t need wives to support them). So your argument that women are taking a role traditionally held by men before and hence aren’t marrying doesn’t seem to hold water. Here’s the problem: The feminist narrative currently out there is a myth. It says women were alway…
Housewives being inferior? No way. Being a housewife requires a lot of skill, energy and certain sacrifices that most modern women (me included) don't want to make. Managing a house is like managing your own little company. Except you cover 90% of the job positions at once. And generally cannot fire your "employees". Housewives really deserve a lot of respect. And a honor spot in the entrepreneur comunity :)
Anyway, that's the issue, precisely. We have on one side, a lifetime job, where you will most likely have to depend on someone to provide enough money to run it properly. On the other side, you can be independent by getting a job you might change whenever you feel like. Wouldn't you prefer traveling, have different job experiences, etc. while you're still young? We women actually can now make this choice between committing early to family or wait some more years (I think sooner or later our genetic code will push us to want a family). It's more or less what the article says.