Justin Wolfers sets the record straight. Basically the news is good, divorce rates are declining, and the institution of marriage is in good shape.
« Real Change | Main | Worse »
The Truth About Divorce
01 Oct 2007 04:31 pm
Comments (11)
Why is this a good thing?
Counting my highschool girlfriend, who claimed she was my first wife, I've been amiably divorced three times. All three were women with strong sense of self, and after being married for some time we found our most likely future paths were divergent.
I cannot say that the long married people I see around me make me regret this course. Nor am I impressed with the feverish braying about how intact families are important for blah blah blah. If we really believed this we wouldn't imprison parents for years on end for trivial drug offenses.
I don't care much any more for relationships that aren't in the form of a marriage, but I don't see any reason a marriage should be forever. In fact, I lean towards an automatic end after seven years, as encouraging a more realistic view of the future and how we shape it.
Baloney says I.
The only reason divorce rates are declining is because less people are shacking up without going through the inconvenience of getting married.
Less marriages - less divorces. Seems rather apparent to me.
Woops. I meant "more" people are shacking up.
The only reason divorce rates are declining is because less people are shacking up without going through the inconvenience of getting married.
Less marriages - less divorces. Seems rather apparent to me.
...no. The total number of divorces would be effected by what you describe. The divorce rate would not.
The divorce rate is the definition of a misleading statistic. As mentioned above, small numbers of serial marriers inflate the number. Also, we don't define success in marriage by total number of divorces. Consider the "starter marriage" phenomenon, where many people marry in their early twenties and divorce within 3 to 5 years. These people are likely to be married again, and that second marriage is likely to last until the death of one of the married people. No one would call that a failure of marriage. And yet those people have a divorce rate of 50%.
This is the reward for not letting teh gays have marriage.
"These people are likely to be married again, and that second marriage is likely to last until the death of one of the married people. No one would call that a failure of marriage. And yet those people have a divorce rate of 50%."
No one, except, of course, for most religious people, who believe that marriage should last forever and divorce is a sin. Divorce is pretty obviously a failure of marriage. Batting .500 is great for baseball but not so hot when it comes to life-long commitments.
Popular culture has turned sharply against adultery, especially adultery by people with children. Hollywood movies that sympathetically treat sympathetically adulterous parents have become much rarer than in, say, the 1970s. Lots of young people today experiences much pain growing up because their parents divorced in the wake of the sexual revolution, and they didn't like it one bit.
Divorce is becoming increasingly a working class phenomenon (along with a small layer at the top of society of rich men who can trade in their first wives for trophy wives).
I don't see any reason a marriage should be forever. In fact, I lean towards an automatic end after seven years, as encouraging a more realistic view of the future and how we shape it.
Well, we'e been together almost 16 years now, and seperation seems inconceivable. All those sappy poets who wrote about true love were right . . .
Oh, but we're gay--we're not allowed to marry, lest we spoil it for the rest of you.
No one, except, of course, for most religious people, who believe that marriage should last forever and divorce is a sin. Divorce is pretty obviously a failure of marriage. Batting .500 is great for baseball but not so hot when it comes to life-long commitments.
Jesus. That's the entire point-- "batting .500" is a ridiculous way to look at it because a 30-year marriage following a 2-year one is clearly not a failure of marriage. As I was saying, simply looking at the rate is a deeply stupid way to assess marriage. Get it?
I'm trying to remember the swarm of sympathetic adultery movies from the 70s and can come up with one: Coming Home w/ Jane Fonda, Jon Voight, and Bruce Dern. And that didn't involve children. Obviously, you've got some in mind. Remind me what they were.
Comments closed October 15, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
What is the cause?
I ask because the "divorce rate" was always a bit deceptive. For years we've have a divorce rate over 50% and yet less than 50% of people who got married ever got divorced. The rate was "inflated" due to a relatively small number of serial-spouses who were getting married and divorced several times.
If the decrease is caused by a decrease in the serial-spouses, I'm not sure its going to make a real difference in the issues often associated with the divorce rate.
Posted by r4d20 | October 1, 2007 6:08 PM