Live data from Hacker News

"Marriage is for white people"

washingtonpost.com

51–60 of 81 posts

Re: "Marriage is for white people"

#51

> 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…

"Rogers [Nas's ex-wife] will receive $30,471 in spousal support per month; the couple's son will receive $9,027, according to the court records."

from:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/07/23/arts/AP-US-People...

Re: "Marriage is for white people"

#52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are so many inaccuracies in that comment I don't know where to begin. 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 me…

> There are so many inaccuracies in that comment I don't know where to begin. You could begin by sourcing your claims :) I wrote my reply casually, based on my knowledge of the law, statistics, studies, and a number of personal anecdotes. This time, I'll source myself and provide links to official statistics and the actual law this time, as you're mistaken on a few counts. > 1) ...The validity of a prenuptial agreeme…

1) Unconscionable -- IS NOT SUBJECTIVELY DEFINED. At law, it must be objectively apparent that the prenup is "substantially unfair". It's not simply a matter of the judge's conscience -- b/c the determination is a legal one (not a factual one), it must be apparent to the appeals court. BTW, only first-year law students use legal dictionaries, which do not have the force of law in any state, and at best, offer only the shared elements of the meaning of a term as it is individually used in all 50 states.

1b) You see that part where it says "spousal support"? That's crucial -- b/c the REST of the prenup is evaluated at the time of execution, not the time of divorce.

2) Both spouses' quality of living is considered -- the post-divorce quality of living must be equalized -- his may go down, but then so does hers. Usually, even with spousal support, the woman is at a disadvantage. BTW, if you think partying every night is a lowered standard of living for Nas, you don't understand who he is or what he does for a living.

From the source YOU cited: "Divorce Myth 5: Following divorce, the woman's standard of living plummets by 73 percent while that of the man's improves by 42 percent.

Fact: This dramatic inequity, one of the most widely publicized statistics from the social sciences, was later found to be based on a faulty calculation. A reanalysis of the data determined that the woman's loss was 27 percent while the man's gain was 10 percent. Irrespective of the magnitude of the differences, the gender gap is real and seems not to have narrowed much in recent decades." http://health.discovery.com/centers/loverelationships/articl...

5) My source was Newseek, based on the latest US Census and the latest edition of the study you cited. If you want to wade through the census data, feel free to do so. "In 2005, the marriage rate was 7.5 per 1,000 people, while the divorce rate was 3.6 per 1,000, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. But since the people who get married in any given year usually are not the same people who get divorced (OK, maybe a few), the statistic isn't very meaningful. Even if you look at divorces among married couples, the rate has declined from a peak of 22.8 divorces per 1,000 in 1979 to 16.7 divorces in 2005." http://www.newsweek.com/id/161233.

5b) And I reiterate, that harsh divorce laws discourage divorce for both genders. The gender imbalance is not inherent in the laws, it is an outgrowth of the fact that women have babies and usually stay home to take care of them, meaning that they lose/leave their jobs and thus earn lower pay for their relative age/experience. BTW, have you ever looked at European family law? Divorce is even easier than getting married, and it shows -- European divorce rates trump the US.

I worked in the Family Court for a year. I can say from experience (a) people do not think about divorce when they think about getting married, unless they are wealthy and/or educated (b) young people do not generally put much thought, if any, to marriage beyond what their hormones are telling them, (c) people have plenty of kids before/outside of marriage just fine as it is, and finally (d) stress from child-rearing is a significant factor in most divorces -- couples with more children are more likely to get divorced. Don't believe me? Have you ever heard of "Jon and Kate + 8"? For a few weeks, you couldn't read a newspaper without seeing talking heads talk about the divorce rate among parents of large broods (4+ children).

Re: "Marriage is for white people"

#54

> 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…

The American legal system has lots of things that are very hard to explain to foreigners. The sheer amount of case law and the jury system make for lots of income for lawyers and very little justice. Child support should be limited to what it actually costs to rear a child, not some arbitrary multiple of that.

It varies from child to child. If someone's child is in some rich boarding school, I personally think they should be allowed to continue on at that school unless it is financially infeasible for both parents to live apart and still afford it.

If the 'bare minimum' of raising a child is $300/month, then I don't think they the child should necessarily be forced out of their school and into the public school system or something just _because_ that's the bare minimum. I think that these factor should be taken into account.

disclaimer: I am _not_ a rich person, nor do I have any children.

{edit} That said, if the monthly child-support is determined to be really high based on the child going to an expensive school, the child-support payment should be reduced if the custodial parent decides to pull the child out of that school for a cheaper one {/edit}

Re: "Marriage is for white people"

#55

> 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…

The American legal system has lots of things that are very hard to explain to foreigners. The sheer amount of case law and the jury system make for lots of income for lawyers and very little justice. Child support should be limited to what it actually costs to rear a child, not some arbitrary multiple of that.

Case Law is in-transparent and tough to navigate through vs. Civil Law Code (Roman Law) from Continental Europe, where law has to be derived from higher written-down principles. It's mostly the Anglo-Saxon societies that have Case Law.

My intuition is that legal costs are higher in Anglo-Saxon countries, which is the direct result of the Case Law system.

China and Japan adapted Civil Law (Roman Law) as their system, which they then customized internally. They compared different legal systems and concluded Civil Law to be efficient.

Re: "Marriage is for white people"

#56
post #41
post #34

At the risk of stepping on a landmine, what if the issue isn't so much black people aren't marrying as (a large portion of) black men are unmarriagable? (Unemployed or underemployed, have drug problems, involved with the criminal justice system, etc. Pick any socioeconomic system you want to look at, young single black males do not come out looking great in aggregate.) Combine that with a cultural norm in (a large po…

Combine 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'll notice that the author never suggests that black women look to men in the other 78% of the US population for a potential husband. I guess that would be worse than never getting married.

Edit: should be other 87% of the US population.

Re: "Marriage is for white people"

#57

> 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…

There are so many inaccuracies in that comment I don't know where to begin. 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 me…

You totally miss the biggest problem lionhearted pointed out: through no fault of the father, if the mother decides she wants a divorce the legal system will pretty much by default strip the father of his children and hand them over to the mother. Regardless of any other circumstances.

That's the main reason why men should not get married and have kids in the USA.

Re: "Marriage is for white people"

#58

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.).

That's definitely not uniquely American, racism is unfortunately alive and well all over the world. Skin colour is the single item you can tell about a person at 100 meters distance, even before you can tell their gender. That makes it a prime candidate for differentiation and differentiation is a first step towards racism. If everybody would be born exactly the same shade of medium brown as of tomorrow I'm sure we'd…

And anybody with red hair knows how true that is.

Well, that's different. The ginger gene is recessive; a community that's mostly ginger has a high probability of being inbred. Other signs include webbed feet and hands, and extra nipples.

Re: "Marriage is for white people"

#59
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's definitely not uniquely American, racism is unfortunately alive and well all over the world. Skin colour is the single item you can tell about a person at 100 meters distance, even before you can tell their gender. That makes it a prime candidate for differentiation and differentiation is a first step towards racism. If everybody would be born exactly the same shade of medium brown as of tomorrow I'm sure we'd…

And anybody with red hair knows how true that is. Well, that's different. The ginger gene is recessive; a community that's mostly ginger has a high probability of being inbred. Other signs include webbed feet and hands, and extra nipples.

That's a deeply unpleasant comment. For one thing, people I know with red hair object to being called "Ginger". To htem it's offensive on the scale of some racial epithets, and in the same way, it's OK if they use the term.

For another, you've just created the possibility that people will go "Ooh, they've got ginger hair, I'll bet they're inbred."

And finally, you started with "well that's different ... " which, in the context, suggests it's OK to be prejudiced against people who happen to have red hair.

I hope that in real life you're less prejudiced than that comment makes you appear.

Re: "Marriage is for white people"

#60
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And anybody with red hair knows how true that is. Well, that's different. The ginger gene is recessive; a community that's mostly ginger has a high probability of being inbred. Other signs include webbed feet and hands, and extra nipples.

That's a deeply unpleasant comment. For one thing, people I know with red hair object to being called "Ginger". To htem it's offensive on the scale of some racial epithets, and in the same way, it's OK if they use the term. For another, you've just created the possibility that people will go "Ooh, they've got ginger hair, I'll bet they're inbred." And finally, you started with "well that's different ... " which, in t…

Are you claiming that the gene is not recessive? Because you're wrong.

Note: I am not saying that an individual ginger should be discriminated against. But a high proportion of them is a warning sign that something is going genetically wrong with a community.

Post reply on HN