Changes in Attitude in Marriage & Divorce from the Golden Era to Now.

[jamespowers]

Going back a long time, it probably was just as you say. The more modern idea has been to choose a mate you loved; most married people have about the same level of good looks and come from the same class, anyway. Now it just seems to be a business arrangement. And when the business goes bad, they pack up and leave.

That doesn't explain Lyle Lovett or Bill Gates. :eusa_doh:
Well maybe it does somewhat.

 

[Joie DeVive]

I am glad it all worked out in the end but it could have gone much worse at that time in our history.
An employment agency that advocated earning a living that way. What a bunch of jerks! :eusa_doh: First you get dumped by your husband and then suffer the indiginity of fools. :eusa_doh:

Don't get me wrong, there were some hard times for that family, but you're right, they were luckier than most. My Dad's side of the family didn't fare nearly as well in the Depression, so the talk that there could be another scares the living daylights out of me.

And you are quite right about poverty and divorce still going hand in hand. I don't have any of the stats in front of me, but a large percentage (I might go so far as to hazard the majority) of children living in poverty today are living with single mothers. It's really sad.

 

[Joie DeVive]

It wasn't just getting one though. With limited prospects, how many women were willing to get a divorce knowing it would mean a life of difficulty and probably penury for them and their kids. women have much more options now.

No argument here. Though in many cases (though not all) women still face a more difficult road after divorce. I was responding solely to the statement that a divorce was extremely difficult to obtain in the golden era, and I think that depended entirely upon where you lived...

 

[jamespowers]

Don't get me wrong, there were some hard times for that family, but you're right, they were luckier than most. My Dad's side of the family didn't fare nearly as well in the Depression, so the talk that there could be another scares the living daylights out of me.

And you are quite right about poverty and divorce still going hand in hand. I don't have any of the stats in front of me, but a large percentage (I might go so far as to hazard the majority) of children living in poverty today are living with single mothers. It's really sad.

When you look at it, it is really a mess:
David Wood, researching for the journal Pediatrics, notes that "the majority of single-parent, female-headed families live in poverty, regardless of whether the mother works." He continues: "fifty-five percent of children who live in single-parent, mother-only families are poor, compared with only 10% of children in two-parent families." Thus, "almost one-third of children who are poor are poor because they live in a family headed by a single mother." Additionally, "sixty-five percent of children who are poor versus 25% of children who are not poor live in households that do not include their biological father."
Wood, David. (2003) Effect of child and family poverty on child health in the United States. Pediatrics, v112. Retrieved from The Family in America, April 2004.
"Ten percent of the nation's families are headed only by a woman, but 40 percent of the families classified as poor have female heads."

We won't even mention the inability to pay for higher education that would finally break the cycle of poverty. It is a mess that really pulls at the fabric of our culture.

 

[Paisley]

I researched and wrote a paper for economics class several years ago about the economics of single parenthood. I'll sum it up in a word: poverty.

My employer, a CPA firm, no longer takes marital dissolution (divorce) cases. That's probably because too often, we weren't getting paid.

My 17-year-old niece is living with her boyfriend, and my family sees nothing wrong with this. "He's been really nice to her," they say. It's a matter of time before she ends up pregnant. And it's not as if my family has never seen how all of this works.

 

[Foofoogal]

Edith Wharton wrote a novel about a whole family of children of various married and divorced couples in "The Children" set c. 1925.

the very idea there was a book about a common place way of life now speaks volumes.

 

[just_me]

Tell that to a child whose parents have just told them that they are getting divorced.
I don't know where you find people who have divorced amicably. I have never seen it amongst my friends and acquaintances. It is a battle for money, custody and goods that is equivalent to a world war. :eusa_doh:
The children get to be pawns and feel unwanted and cast aside. Aside from getting away from the the abusive spouse scenario, its horrible. The only people who win are the lawyers. :eusa_doh: [huh]

I see people who have divorced amicably every day when I look in the mirror and when I go to work and say "hi" to my ex-husband, or when I see my two best friends who are divorced from each other, remarried, but still are good friends, or when I see my next-door neighbor whose husband stops by all the time to see their son. I'll stop with those examples, but I know more amicably divorced couples.

My parents divorced when I was ten years old and it was the best thing my mother could have done.

 

[Barbigirl]

Must agree with the just-me -- Off Topic

I see people who have divorced amicably every day when I look in the mirror and when I go to work and say "hi" to my ex-husband, or when I see my two best friends who are divorced from each other, remarried, but still are good friends, or when I see my next-door neighbor whose husband stops by all the time to see their son. I'll stop with those examples, but I know more amicably divorced couples.

My parents divorced when I was ten years old and it was the best thing my mother could have done.

7/2002 To quote a 6 year old (mine) "it is much better since we got divorced now we don't have to watch tv while mom and dad go in the other room to fight."

My children are well adjusted, excellent students and have lived a much calmer, quiet, pleasant life under a joint custody arrangement and they have two focused responsible happy parents. I would say with cell phones and ipods poverty is not an issue. My situation with my ex is friendly to the point of him telling me about his online dating.

It doesn't have to be hell if you have two rational civilized adults, who can see past now and think of long term happiness and the good of the kids.

 

[jamespowers]

I see people who have divorced amicably every day when I look in the mirror and when I go to work and say "hi" to my ex-husband, or when I see my two best friends who are divorced from each other, remarried, but still are good friends, or when I see my next-door neighbor whose husband stops by all the time to see their son. I'll stop with those examples, but I know more amicably divorced couples.

My parents divorced when I was ten years old and it was the best thing my mother could have done.

I am glad you have a different experience as hearing the other side of it from friends gets old real fast. :eusa_doh:

 

[jamespowers]

I researched and wrote a paper for economics class several years ago about the economics of single parenthood. I'll sum it up in a word: poverty.

My employer, a CPA firm, no longer takes marital dissolution (divorce) cases. That's probably because too often, we weren't getting paid.

My 17-year-old niece is living with her boyfriend, and my family sees nothing wrong with this. "He's been really nice to her," they say. It's a matter of time before she ends up pregnant. And it's not as if my family has never seen how all of this works.

It truly is a shame.
Another statistic that gets over looked is that 80% of our prison inmates are from that demographic group. :eusa_doh:

 

[Foofoogal]

It doesn't have to be hell if you have two rational civilized adults, who can see past now and think of long term happiness and the good of the kids.

I detest divorce Barbi but I do applaud people that can forget about themselves and think of the children first.
I also think it takes 2 to sacrifice to make a marriage work or even a divorce.
I do think though that it has become way too easy to get out and many do not put the effort in.
I was telling my honey last night that the only silver lining in this economy meltdown is maybe people will be forced to not only stay home more but they will have to put more effort in working it out.
-------------
Years ago I saw a documentary on the effect of divorce on the financial picture and dramatically how it knocked people back about 2 generations and took a very long time to recover if at all. It truly was the most telling thing I had ever seen and it was on PBS for the record.

-----------------------
what is wrong with the search engines. they are a mess. (off topic)

I want to go to the beach.....

 

[Dr Doran]

I was searching through the threads, and I couldn't seem to find one about this , and I want to hear what loungers have to say.

I notice that a lot of threads circulate around fashion, photo's of yourself, basically- the way we look. I think that being vintage is a lot more than just the way we dress...

Do you act the part? Are your views old-fashioned?
What do you ladies look for in men? And men what do you look for in ladies?
Men, do you like to dance? etc... You're thoughts? If you don't is it because you feel as if you wouldn't be able to fit in with society?

For myself, I'm one of the most old-fashioned women you'll ever meet(morally, fashionably, hobbies) , and I'm waiting for a man to ask me to dance.

Clearly today many actions are greeted without the opprobrium that once served (presumably) as a deterrent.

A question: Was public opprobrium an effective deterrent? My suspicion is yes, fairly effective, but I do not know. How would we construct a falsifiable experiment to measure this? This is essential, otherwise we are only bandying generalities.

Also, a lot of what people have been talking about as vintage behavior differed depending upon what country you were in, even in the Western World.

The most interesting (for me) content on this thread has been the discussion of the differences in sexual behavior between Now and the "Golden Era." I'm rather surprised that no one has discussed the differences in medical and reproductive technology and disease prevention that have PERMITTED these changes. Instead, many on this thread have preferred to discuss these issues in affective terms.

Before the advances in medical technology that reduced child and adult mortality, women had to have a much larger number of children than they do now in highly technologized countries. Women's lives were by necessity centered around the production and maintenance of offspring. Before industrialization, each female in a high-mortality regime (most settled societies in the world) needed to produce an average of about 6 children only in order to maintain population stability. There was no way around this aside from massive immigration. This changes with the "demographic transition" which occurred in the 20th century and can be reduced to four words: fewer children, longer lives.

1.) Religious prohibitions against sexual activity outside of marriage served an important deterrent function. Males were less likely to want to invest time, money, energy into offspring of whose paternity they were uncertain. This general rule applies to not only humans, but animals. Sanctions against extramarital sexual activity evolved long ago for the maximization of the upkeep of the children.

2.) When sexually transmitted diseases were still very mysterious, it was highly important for people to refrain from intercourse with a large number of partners. With the exception of the occasional monster epidemic, we have a much better ability to control such diseases.

3.) The lack of a societal safety net, which provides some level of upkeep for people without jobs, meant that divorce once was an absolutely horrible thing to do to children. Societies that have rearranged their resource net to provide for bereft children may see customs changing so that divorce is no longer regarded as horrible and sad as formerly.

4.) Likewise, the general wealth surplus of a society can mean an unprecedented level of freedom (sorry, that word is too affective as well -- perhaps I should say something more neutral, like whimsy) for individuals. Impoverishment -- difficulty in the acquisition of sufficient resources for personal upkeep and the upkeep of one's dependents -- will keep sensible people living modest lives because any excess will be ruinous.

Technology determines The Realm Of The Possible. It is not the absolute determiner of behavior, but it thus hugely influences behavior and psychology. This is most especially true in terms of a given society's reproductive practices, family organization, and demographic regimes.

The highest moral for a society is to be able to reproduce itself. This is a universal moral as without it a population (human or otherwise) will have nothing at all. The means by which this moral goal is achieved will vary in times and places according to technology and also according to non-infrastructure factors such as cultural peculiarities and historical-political factors; but the tendency will be for individuals to grab as much latitude as they can without themselves becoming diseased or destitute or seeing their children diseased or destitute.

This still doesn't excuse (here I'll give my personal opinion instead of an academic treatise) people flaunting their SSSSSSEXXX everywhere they go. It's pretty bad -- especially in 15 year old girls.

As for dancing, I'm a horrible dancer. I just don't have it.

 

[reetpleat]

Clearly today many actions are greeted without the opprobrium that once served (presumably) as a deterrent.

A question: Was public opprobrium an effective deterrent? My suspicion is yes, fairly effective, but I do not know. How would we construct a falsifiable experiment to measure this? This is essential, otherwise we are only bandying generalities.

Also, a lot of what people have been talking about as vintage behavior differed depending upon what country you were in, even in the Western World.

The most interesting (for me) content on this thread has been the discussion of the differences in sexual behavior between Now and the "Golden Era." I'm rather surprised that no one has discussed the differences in medical and reproductive technology and disease prevention that have PERMITTED these changes. Instead, many on this thread have preferred to discuss these issues in affective terms.

Before the advances in medical technology that reduced child and adult mortality, women had to have a much larger number of children than they do now in highly technologized countries. Women's lives were by necessity centered around the production and maintenance of offspring. Before industrialization, each female in a high-mortality regime (most settled societies in the world) needed to produce an average of about 6 children only in order to maintain population stability. There was no way around this aside from massive immigration. This changes with the "demographic transition" which occurred in the 20th century and can be reduced to four words: fewer children, longer lives.

1.) Religious prohibitions against sexual activity outside of marriage served an important deterrent function. Males were less likely to want to invest time, money, energy into offspring of whose paternity they were uncertain. This general rule applies to not only humans, but animals. Sanctions against extramarital sexual activity evolved long ago for the maximization of the upkeep of the children.

2.) When sexually transmitted diseases were still very mysterious, it was highly important for people to refrain from intercourse with a large number of partners. With the exception of the occasional monster epidemic, we have a much better ability to control such diseases.

3.) The lack of a societal safety net, which provides some level of upkeep for people without jobs, meant that divorce once was an absolutely horrible thing to do to children. Societies that have rearranged their resource net to provide for bereft children may see customs changing so that divorce is no longer regarded as horrible and sad as formerly.

4.) Likewise, the general wealth surplus of a society can mean an unprecedented level of freedom (sorry, that word is too affective as well -- perhaps I should say something more neutral, like whimsy) for individuals. Impoverishment -- difficulty in the acquisition of sufficient resources for personal upkeep and the upkeep of one's dependents -- will keep sensible people living modest lives because any excess will be ruinous.

Technology determines The Realm Of The Possible. It is not the absolute determiner of behavior, but it thus hugely influences behavior and psychology. This is most especially true in terms of a given society's reproductive practices, family organization, and demographic regimes.

The highest moral for a society is to be able to reproduce itself. This is a universal moral as without it a population (human or otherwise) will have nothing at all. The means by which this moral goal is achieved will vary in times and places according to technology and also according to non-infrastructure factors such as cultural peculiarities and historical-political factors; but the tendency will be for individuals to grab as much latitude as they can without themselves becoming diseased or destitute or seeing their children diseased or destitute.

This still doesn't excuse (here I'll give my personal opinion instead of an academic treatise) people flaunting their SSSSSSEXXX everywhere they go. It's pretty bad -- especially in 15 year old girls.

As for dancing, I'm a horrible dancer. I just don't have it.

All interesting, and i am sure relevant.

I would like to suggest that there is a big difference between sexual habits and mores and how people treat each other. I may be a religious or cultural attitude that lumps them together.

A woman that has casual sex but would never steal, is nic to everyone and holds the door open for people is okay in my book.

Pacific islanders were quite liberal in sexual attitudes, but I am sure they had respect for each other.

A lack of courtesy, politeness, or otherwise acting well towards others has little to do with how someone chooses to behave in a physically intimate way.

 

[reetpleat]

I detest divorce Barbi but I do applaud people that can forget about themselves and think of the children first.
I also think it takes 2 to sacrifice to make a marriage work or even a divorce.
I do think though that it has become way too easy to get out and many do not put the effort in.
I was telling my honey last night that the only silver lining in this economy meltdown is maybe people will be forced to not only stay home more but they will have to put more effort in working it out.
-------------
Years ago I saw a documentary on the effect of divorce on the financial picture and dramatically how it knocked people back about 2 generations and took a very long time to recover if at all. It truly was the most telling thing I had ever seen and it was on PBS for the record.

-----------------------
what is wrong with the search engines. they are a mess. (off topic)

I want to go to the beach.....

A woman on the radio said that divorce seems to go up as the economy gets worse, but my lawyer friend tells me her experience is that it is down for now because people can't afford two households. On the other hand, economic issues places a sever stress on a relationship.

 

[Paisley]

From the perspective of this 39-year-old, the unhappily married people I know have probably had a better life together than they would have had separately. I don't suggest that no marriages should end. I know that some are absolutely untenable. Nor do I suggest extremely strict divorce laws. In the past, people simply bought or cheated their way out, or remained chained to a destructive spouse. I only suggest that people take the long view and consider a couple of experiences from my family.

Some of my brothers and sisters and I used to ask my parents, "Why don't you two get a divorce?" Heaven knows it was miserable listening to their constant bickering. Then there were the money wars and other problems. If that marriage were a horse, you'd shoot it.

Yet they're still married. My father visits my mother every day in the nursing home where she is recovering from surgery and a stroke; he'll take care of her when she comes home. If not for him, she'd be in her grave. Good thing they didn't shoot that nag of a marriage.

My brother was late to his own wedding. A few years later, he was ready to leave his wife when she decided to go to work; on mom's advice, he decided to stick with the marriage, though. Many years later, his wife took care of him through a long illness that ended last year. They were hardly the ideal couple, but I think they too were better off married than divorced.

My two sisters? Divorced six times between them. At least four times for dumb reasons. They didn't seem any happier for the experience. Don't most married people feel like throwing in the towel at some time?

 

[just_me]

Paisley - if your parents and your brother had gotten divorced, who's to know if they might have found more suitable partners and been in happier relationships. Those new partners would have also taken care of them through sickness and health. I'm sorry your relatives were/are so ill, but I think it's a mistake to judge the success of a marriage on whether one spouse takes care of the ill spouse.

Yes, many married people want to throw in the towel but stick in unhappy marriages for any number of reasons - fear of the unknown, monetary reasons, the children, etc. Some turn out to be better for staying, but my opinion is that most are just unhappy marriages and that's how they'll always be.

 

[Foofoogal]

Don't most married people feel like throwing in the towel at some time?

of course. It is not to be a soap opera where everyone has wine and music plays every day.
I find it quite strange really that people don't understand this.
Even individuals have good and bad days.
I have a huge family and divorce was unheard of till this generation.
Part of the problem is the ones getting divorces in my family are ones marrying people whose families have had divorces in them already.
If you come from a long line of love so to speak it is easier or you expect to work out the bad days.
Doran summed it all up nicely.

 

[Foofoogal]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090114/hl_nm/us_estrogen_affairs

maybe it is the medical part like Doran suggested. [huh]
It also may be due to a story I saw today but cannot find about office affairs that 1 in 4 people have them. Not exactly healthy for a long term marriage.

 

[John in Covina]

Office affairs and the like result a lot of times from people working together in close proximity. They form a relationship based on a closeness that would not occur under most other circumstances. It results in a period of time where there is actually a house husband or wife and an office or work husband or wife.

Also we learn to covet that which we see regularly.

 

[Paisley]

Paths not taken

Paisley - if your parents and your brother had gotten divorced, who's to know if they might have found more suitable partners and been in happier relationships. Those new partners would have also taken care of them through sickness and health. I'm sorry your relatives were/are so ill, but I think it's a mistake to judge the success of a marriage on whether one spouse takes care of the ill spouse.

Yes, many married people want to throw in the towel but stick in unhappy marriages for any number of reasons - fear of the unknown, monetary reasons, the children, etc. Some turn out to be better for staying, but my opinion is that most are just unhappy marriages and that's how they'll always be.

I know people who have divorced for good reasons and found better partners. But my brother wouldn't have remarried--he said as much. My father never made any such remarks, but I think he'd be a lonely old man now. My mother would have to have lived with relatives and worked all day, probably as a cook: hard work for little paychecks. Would she have married a wonderful man who would still be around to take care of her (she's nearly 80)? Where's a fortune teller when you need one?