posted
We were discussing this on the premarital sex thread, but I think it is enough of a tangent to merit a separate place for discussion.
Here is the source of the statistics. We see here that the older someone is, the less likely they are to have *ever* been divorced. Why might this be? Many have suggested that the main reason we see more divorce today is because divorce is more of an option for people. But if it is just as much an option for the elderly as it is for everyone else, why aren't they divorcing as much?
I think it is because those of past generations were more devoted to committing to marriage, whether working through it or "settling" because it was better to stay together than leave to find greener pastures. I believe that this attitude is better for stable families (though I'm sure many disagree). But it seems many think I shouldn't be jumping to the "more commitment" conclusion to begin with.
So, Hatrack, what do you think?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
As a 21 year old male, part of the younger generation I guess, my personal goal in life is to get married and have a bunch of kids. Anything and everything I do after that will be extra. But my commitment to a stable, long lasting family is the thing I look forward to most in my future.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm 22, and I'm very, very committed to my marriage. So is my husband (25.) The most important goal in both our lives was to get married and stay married to someone, and have kids if at all possible.
Both my grandmothers were divorced at least once.
I think it's not something that can be generalized as much as we try to generalize it.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the older generation is more committed to staying in their marriages regardless. I also think there is less of a grass is greener on the other side mentality. About 10 years ago, I wondered if my great-gradparents were going to get a divorce. My great-grandfather drank much too much and was all around rude to his wife. Beyond that, she did ALL the work and he sat around and watched tv. I told my mom this thought and she just laughed and said they had been like that for 50 years and she didn't think either would ever see any reason to change that. I couldn't imagine being in a marriage like that but for them it was normal and ok. In a lot of ways, it was similar to the marriage of most of their contemporaries. The women of that generation did the housework. I don't think it ever crossed my Great-grandma's mind that she should expect help.
The point of this long ramble is that marriage in the older generation might be more ccommitted but they don't necessarily work better. Instead, that generation is more prone to accept behavior on the part of their partner that would send someone in a younger generation running. I don't believe that being in a committed marriage that has serious flaws like alcoholism and sexist attitudes is good for women or men and if those are the people who are now getting divorced instead of sticking it out... I say good for them
Posts: 416 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it was social inertia, mostly. Whether it made families more or less stable was irrelevant to the fact that by the time the divorce "revolution" came about, they were already set in their ways, for good or ill. It may lead to more stable families, but that doesn't mean it's better. Is a marriage of 40 years that includes a demeaning partner that slowly poisons the whole family, affecting their relationships in the future, better?
--- I've experienced this cultural stasis recently with parents and wedding stuff. Certain things that seem completely obvious to either side ends up being opposite of the other side. They could try to see the other side, and compromise, or at least acknowledge it, but it's more comforting to follow your existing path.
posted
I'll second Lyrhawn. I'm a 20 year old male (so younger generation), and I hope to get married and have kids. I want to have a nice, stable family and everything.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The point of this long ramble is that marriage in the older generation might be more ccommitted but they don't necessarily work better.
I can agree with this, because I think the sexist attitudes of generations past were unhealthy. We have come so far since then. We should have happier marriages because of it. And perhaps we do. And yet *more* people are divorcing. Have our standards for personal happiness exceeded what we ought to expect, considering what is best for the children born into marriages? I know this can't be explored very well through statistics, but it is something I wonder about.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know how you feel KQ. Everyone at work thinks I'm older than my 25 year old brother that also works there. It's incredibly annoying.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The alternative is, as mentioned in the other thread, that humans aren't as "swan-like", biologically, as we think of ourselves. We may be, generally, just serial monogamists... Which can be supported by certain biologial realities such as human females being almost always "in heat".
quote:It may lead to more stable families, but that doesn't mean it's better.
Maybe not as good for the parents, but maybe better for the children? BTW, when there is abuse, I agree that it is often better to get out of the situation. But what about when there isn't? Or, would there be less abuse if people were more committed to marriage and family? Isn't abuse a selfish behavior, done to gratify one's own feelings at another's expense?
Some might argue that parents should sacrifice their own interests if it is better for their children.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know how you feel KQ. Everyone at work thinks I'm older than my 25 year old brother that also works there. It's incredibly annoying.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The alternative is, as mentioned in the other thread, that humans aren't as "swan-like", biologically, as we think of ourselves. We may be, generally, just serial monogamists... Which can be supported by certain biologial realities such as human females being almost always "in heat".
Should we work to overcome our biology if it is so much better for our children? I don't like to use biology to excuse my bad behavior. Well, maybe with pregnancy hormones. But you can bet I try to be as rational as possible, raging hormones or not.
I understand that it is pretty difficult for men to overcome their biological urge to spread their seed far and wide in order to stick with one woman. I appreciate the effort to overcome biology there for the sake of family stability. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Isn't abuse a selfish behavior, done to gratify one's own feelings at another's expense?
Some might argue that parents should sacrifice their own interests if it is better for their children.
Abuse is complicated. I think more often it has to do with self-control rather than selfishness-- some people just never learn to control themselves. And then there are people who can, but grew up in an abusive family and think that's the way it's supposed to be. Or even if they don't, don't know another way.
Of course parents should try to do what's best for the children in most cases. But sometimes that's splitting.
I wasn't very happy with my parents divorced as a kid (it wasn't what they call "amicable"), but I would have been less happy if I had to hear the yelling ALL THE TIME and/or my parents killed each other. They are just completely incompatible personality types with different expectations for a relationship, and both of them have issues left over from when they were growing up. I don't think it would have worked no matter what.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course parents should try to do what's best for the children in most cases. But sometimes that's splitting.
I agree. My grandmother divorced her husband, and I am immensely glad she did. She very much did the right thing in her situation. And divorce *was* harder back then.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't talking overt abuse. In families, meme transfer is porous, both good and bad. Despite the pithy bumper stickers, racism CAN be a family value, as well as sexism, or any other boorish and unhealthy behavior.
The family is the perfect petri dish for this. I have interesting anecdotes about my grandparents (now all passed). My parents, in divorce, are much healthier than either sets of their parents were, while married, from what I've heard and seen.
quote:I wasn't talking overt abuse. In families, meme transfer is porous, both good and bad. Despite the pithy bumper stickers, racism CAN be a family value, as well as sexism, or any other boorish and unhealthy behavior.
I wonder how much of this can be helped by really getting to know your partner before you marry them? It may be that we do a better job of that today. Though I can understand in small, rural communities of the past, there was probably a very small selection to choose from. Tolerance in marriage was probably far more essential then when *really* getting to know your spouse was impractical.
I wonder how well people are able to hide the unpleasant memes their families do impart to them? How willing are people in love to overlook those things, believing their love will get them through? How much does infatuation blind us?
Again, I repeat my belief that compatability is far more important than being "in love".
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wonder how much of this can be helped by really getting to know your partner before you marry them? It may be that we do a better job of that today. Though I can understand in small, rural communities of the past, there was probably a very small selection to choose from.
Tangent to the original thread: this is why I say that moving in with your prospective partner before you decide to get engaged/married is a potentially good idea.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, I repeat my belief that compatability is far more important than being "in love".
Beverly, you keep saying this like it is an either/or thing. It is possible to be both madly in love and have your head on straight enough to not marry someone incompatible.
e: You can get to know someone without living with them.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course parents should try to do what's best for the children in most cases. But sometimes that's splitting.
This is very true. From what I understand, my mother's parents stayed together while their kids where at home "for the sake of the children," and apparently it made for a positively MISERABLE home life.
As for why older generations do not divorce, I think it's probably less of an issue of greater commitment than it is an issue of more stigma attached to divorce. Remember that women as individuals with careers wasn't commonplace for the generation of people currently in, say, their 70s or 80s now; they were generally much more tied to marriage and family as a career, with the option of career outside the home being something most women just didn't do. These older women may stay married just because that's all they've ever known, and they wouldn't know what else to do otherwise.
It's all speculation from me, though; older folks, with older grandparents, may have more factual (or at least anecdotal) evidence to back this up or refute it.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:e: You can get to know someone without living with them.
True, but I still believe there are many things about a person - or the extent to which certain things matter to you - that you just do not encounter outside of a shared living situation.
I don't want to derail this any more than the other thread was de-railed, so look there if you want my thoughts on this .
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Remember that women as individuals with careers wasn't commonplace for the generation of people currently in, say, their 70s or 80s now; they were generally much more tied to marriage and family as a career, with the option of career outside the home being something most women just didn't do.
Both my grandmothers are in that age range, or a little older. Both worked most of their adult lives. And most of their girlfriends did, too. Maybe it has something to do with where they lived?
In fact, though, my great-grandmothers also both worked (although those were different circumstances.) I'm the first stay-home mom in four generations in my matriarchal line.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Remember that women as individuals with careers wasn't commonplace for the generation of people currently in, say, their 70s or 80s now; they were generally much more tied to marriage and family as a career, with the option of career outside the home being something most women just didn't do. These older women may stay married just because that's all they've ever known, and they wouldn't know what else to do otherwise.
I hadn't even thought of that. How many older women, if they were to get divorced, would still be able to provide for themselves at the same level of comfort?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tangent to the original thread: this is why I say that moving in with your prospective partner before you decide to get engaged/married is a potentially good idea.
I can understand reaching this conclusion. It isn't the one that I reach, but that's OK.
quote:Beverly, you keep saying this like it is an either/or thing. It is possible to be both madly in love and have your head on straight enough to not marry someone incompatible.
Nope, you are inferring that. My point is just this: Commitment will do more to make a marriage work than being in love will. Especially since the initial sheen of "new love" will inevitably fade. It cannot be depended on. It is not more important than commitment, and in my opinion it is not even equally important. But I wholeheartedly agree that it *is* important.
You seem to think I am pushing for something you've heard other people push for--compatability without being "in love". If this is your interpretation of my words, it is incorrect.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Both my grandmothers are in that age range, or a little older. Both worked most of their adult lives. And most of their girlfriends did, too. Maybe it has something to do with where they lived?
Maybe. Both my grandmothers are also in that age range. One worked on and off prior to the death of her husband, and then consistently until retirement. The other...I'm not sure about her, but I don't think she worked. I know she was against my mom going to college.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote:Remember that women as individuals with careers wasn't commonplace for the generation of people currently in, say, their 70s or 80s now; they were generally much more tied to marriage and family as a career, with the option of career outside the home being something most women just didn't do. These older women may stay married just because that's all they've ever known, and they wouldn't know what else to do otherwise.
I hadn't even thought of that. How many older women, if they were to get divorced, would still be able to provide for themselves at the same level of comfort?
I remember reading a thread awhile back (though it may have been on GreNME's forum) that women worked more often back then than most of us realize. Though they were often limited in the *sorts* of jobs they worked. The sorts of jobs are lesser paying ones, true, but someone could support themselves on such--especially if their children are grown.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe figuring out compatibility includes sexual compatibility, as well as living-togetherness compatibility. We aren't so far apart, I think.
My wife and I (3 weeks married, yay!), lived together almost 2 years (well, one year before engagement, and then a year engagement), dated a little over a year before that, and knew each other 3-4 years before that. At each step we learned more about each other, and because we were (IMO) reasonably decent people, our first inclination wasn't to bail on each other when a problem arose; it was to try and work through it, and covered a host of issues; religious, sexual, and just plain behavioral.
It worked out well for us. But I also don't expect that simply following in our path will lead to a marriage. It will likely (hopefully) lead to more people breaking up before marriage, because I do respect marriage, particularly as an environment for creating a family. The problem is that marriage is only the environment; the fungi produced in the petri dish are brought in by the particular people involved. If we don't try some experiments first, it may be that a couple of seemingly benign strains, when combined will destroy anything the two people try to create. Or worse, it slowly rots the foundations, showing children (and others) a skewed version of marriage.
How was that for mixed metaphors, eh?
You can never be 100% sure that at some point, something will just snap in one or both people, causing a collapse. It's still a (IMO worthwhile) risk, even though many feel the bar has been lowered on that front of late.
posted
Beverly, I am not getting this from what other people have you said. I am getting this from you. You have said several times that you don't trust the in love feelings and that people should think more about compatibility than the in love feelings before getting married.
There really is a much simpler solution, you know. Don't start dating anyone you know you wouldn't want to marry, and stop dating them once you find out they are incompatible to you. You can't necessarily choose who you fall for, but you can certainly choose who you spend time with and on, and few people fall in love without spending time on each other.
Be a little more selective about who you date, and you can marry the one you fall for.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:At each step we learned more about each other, and because we were (IMO) reasonably decent people, our first inclination wasn't to bail on each other when a problem arose; it was to try and work through it, and covered a host of issues; religious, sexual, and just plain behavioral.
My husband and I have done this while married. What's wrong with marrying first, then working out the issues?
In fact, how is a marriage going to really work if you don't?
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I remember reading a thread awhile back (though it may have been on GreNME's forum) that women worked more often back then than most of us realize. Though they were often limited in the *sorts* of jobs they worked. The sorts of jobs are lesser paying ones, true, but someone could support themselves on such--especially if their children are grown.
I was trying not to imply that a divorced woman with no children couldn't get a job - because especially in modern America, it's very easy to get a subsistable job even if you have no education beyond highschool.
I'm under the impression that women in that period were far less eligible for college and high-paying jobs because of sociological reasons, and that because of that, the man in the family traditionally provided the majority of the income, whether the wife worked or not. As a result, the wife in a modern day relationship that originated in that era might be living a lifestyle that her lone working capabilities might not be able to provide, and that might be something many of them contemplate when considering a divorce.
quote:It worked out well for us. But I also don't expect that simply following in our path will lead to a marriage. It will likely (hopefully) lead to more people breaking up before marriage, because I do respect marriage, particularly as an environment for creating a family.
Bok, you're a man after my own heart. Curse your wife and my sexuality for barring you from me forever!
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:My husband and I have done this while married. What's wrong with marrying first, then working out the issues?
In fact, how is a marriage going to really work if you don't?
Ketchupqueen, while I'm stoked that this worked out for you, again: do you honestly feel that this is how most relationships work?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:There really is a much simpler solution, you know. Don't start dating anyone you know you wouldn't want to marry, and stop dating them once you find out they are incompatible to you. You can't necessarily choose who you fall for, but you can certainly choose who you spend time with and on, and few people fall in love without spending time on each other.
This is pretty much what I am saying. But remember, you can't always tell right away if you are compatable with someone. I think too many people out there place more importance on the feelings of love instead of finding out if they are compatable, and that many marriages fail because of this behavior.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But if it is just as much an option for the elderly as it is for everyone else, why aren't they divorcing as much?
When you've been married for the majority of your life, it's hard to imagine life any other way. There might be a little resistence to the drastic lifestyle change that would be involved with an elderly couple getting a divorce.
As to the increasing number of divorces...
I agree with a lot of what's already been stated, so I won't restate it, but I do want to add that I think media portrays (or at least it used to) relationships filled with passion, romance, and happiness. They kind of gloss over the ugly realities of a marriage. So some people enter a marriage with these romance-novel expectations only to be disappointed when the honeymoon ends and the initial flames die out. They jump from marriage to marriage looking for this fictional concept only to be continually disappointed. It's these people that are skewing the divorce statistics to imply that everybody is getting divorced.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:because especially in modern America, it's very easy to get a subsistable job even if you have no education beyond highschool.
NO, it is NOT. Not in most parts of the country, especially if you're trying to support children.
quote:Ketchupqueen, while I'm stoked that this worked out for you, again: do you honestly feel that this is how most relationships work?
It works because we make it work. Just like it works for Bok because they make it work. I think most marriages CAN work if 1) considered carefully beforehand (like Katie said, choose who you date carefully so you'll fall in love with the right person) and 2) undertaken with the right attitude and principles.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There were certain issues that had the chance of being intractable. The world is not black and white, it's not even shades of gray. We were potentially faced with the fact that we were literally physically incompatible, despite appearing to both be fairly normal folks. We were fortunate to work through them, but there was time that it didn't appear like we were definitely going to. Even now, we continue work it out, there was no "Eureka!" moment.
I cringe when I think that we could have gotten married, only to find out that every time we were intimate, I'd always cause my wife physical agony. That would have been terrible for both of us.
From my experience, there may be certain things that need to be worked out in an environment of less commitment, though no less responsibility.
quote:My husband and I have done this while married. What's wrong with marrying first, then working out the issues?
In fact, how is a marriage going to really work if you don't?
I think there is a balance here. It is wise to really get to know the person you are marrying. I think one important thing is paying attention to the family they came from. Even if they want to be completely different from their family, the atmosphere a person grows up in still profoundly affects them.
But there is a point where you make the decision. You know what you need to know, and you are willing to commit to them. When this point is, each person has to decide for themselves.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It still looks like you are saying it is either/or. If people only date people they would be willing to marry, and they stop dating when they find out major things they don't agree on, then it serves like a filter. There will be people who are compatible but you still aren't wild about, and that's fine. At that point, you can marry because you're crazy in love, because you don't become crazy in love with people you never spend time with/on in the first place.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:but I do want to add that I think media portrays (or at least it used to) relationships filled with passion, romance, and happiness. They kind of gloss over the ugly realities of a marriage. So some people enter a marriage with these romance-novel expectations only to be disappointed when the honeymoon ends and the initial flames die out. They jump from marriage to marriage looking for this fictional concept only to be continually disappointed.
I *strongly* agree with this. It is one of the reasons I don't like romance as portrayed in movies/TV/even books sometimes.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:From my experience, there may be certain things that need to be worked out in an environment of less commitment, though no less responsibility.
I disagree. You're not the only one who has had similar issues, and there are people who work it out within the bounds of a marriage.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To sum up, choose who you date based on possible compatibility. Choose who you commit to for love.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:From my experience, there may be certain things that need to be worked out in an environment of less commitment, though no less responsibility.
In my opinion, you can't have the same responsibility without the same commitment.
edit: This is a comment about responsibility and commitment in general, not about marriage in particular.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: If people only date people they would be willing to marry, and they stop dating when they find out major things they don't agree on, then it serves like a filter.
But here you are *automatically* putting compatablity before "in love". You see? We perfectly agree with each other. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it depends a great deal on individuals. SOME individuals can go straight into marriage, no worries, and work issues out as they go. SOME individuals feel the need to have all their compatibility ducks in a row before they get married. Outside of a moral issue (whatever its basis) with premarital sex, I don't think one position is necessarily superior to the other.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
kq, I guess I just wasn't willing to take that much of a risk for either of us (and I'm sure she feels likewise). If that's selfishness, then so be it. I know that people can work though it in marriage, but that doesn't mean it's the best environment for these things, for all people.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
!! I thought you were like, older than me, at least! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
But you can bet I try to be as rational as possible, raging hormones or not.![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
