|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What are the societal causes of family breakdown?
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Just looking at the original linked article again, it refers to children living with parents. Assuming that means howsoever that relationship is defined - i.e. the issue of whether they are legally married, living as if they were but without legal process, or indeed if the state deems you married if you cohabit and have children - is a second order issue.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I may get jumped on (or gently put right) but I venture that many men and women who say they no longer feel in love actually mean that at that point they've decided they care more about themselves than about another. To love requires one to not be selfish. (Paul put it more pithily). If one decides that one really wants to be selfish, then another person is just an inconvenience. There may be something/someone more instantly gratifying to attend to. And so one stops "feeling in love".
My mother distinguishes very clearly between "being in love with" somebody and loving them and insists that the former is selfish, as it is about how I feel rather than about the other person. Ideally in a relationship one should move from the former to the latter - but loving somebody is not always easy.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
One thing that does occur to me: there have been studies suggesting graduates are less likely to divorce; Finland has one of the highest proportions of graduates in the developed world. That leaves the question of why higher education is linked to stable families (better analytical skills, perhaps?).
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
One thing that does occur to me: there have been studies suggesting graduates are less likely to divorce; Finland has one of the highest proportions of graduates in the developed world. That leaves the question of why higher education is linked to stable families (better analytical skills, perhaps?).
I'd think income would be a stronger correlate than intellect. Marriage isn't exactly a math equation.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Just a question. Are we sure these national figures are comparing like with like?
Do we know whether each country is only counting children who live in a household with both biological parents, as against those who live in a household with only one adult parent? Or are some of them counting children as living in a household with both parents as including children who live in a household where there are two married or paired adults, one of whom is only their step-parent?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
So what causes couples to fall out of love and feel that it's not worth it to carry on anyway?
My husband of 25 years left me because he said he didn't love me any more. I'd dearly love to know an answer to why he thought this meant he couldn't stay any longer.
Ugh. Short answer is that I have no idea. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Someone asked my husband and I what the "secret" is to a 20+ marriage. My husband answered. If I were to answer, I would have said, "we have not a freaking clue."
A definite nod of agreement with the posts that comment that "being in love" is confused with romantic love and sexual attraction etc. I also agree that "being in love" is selfish and loving someone is unselfish. Marriages almost definitely go through periods of not being "in love". "being in love" is a very particular feeling. And being in love is not necessary to a good marriage. Being unselfish and loving that person is necessary.
I wish I had a answer for you. I wish I had the answers myself. Marriage is a constant struggle. I think, maybe so for some people more than others. Your husband could have been a complete asshole and was just extremely selfish for choosing "being in love" (which maybe only exists in the beginning of a serious relationship) and the euphoric feelings that accompany that stage over a loving relationship that is constant and reliable and comforting. Or it could be that in addition to being "out of love", he was also so distanced from you for whatever reasons, that he was no longer happy at all. In any way. I have absolutely no idea. Only you and he would know.
I think that maybe more so than building "romance" into a marriage, people need to put more effort into building friendships within a marriage. That's what keeps marriages together (and happy), common interests and a feeling of friendship. Romance then follows.
I think.
I hope you find, or have found peace.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Just a question. Are we sure these national figures are comparing like with like?
Do we know whether each country is only counting children who live in a household with both biological parents, as against those who live in a household with only one adult parent? Or are some of them counting children as living in a household with both parents as including children who live in a household where there are two married or paired adults, one of whom is only their step-parent?
Not really, Enoch - I voiced some of those questions further up the thread.
If anyone has a spare £40 handy, it's probably this report being referenced. I'm fairly sure the methodology and definitions will be given.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
It is also interesting looking at the original OECD report
There are two tables and the second which is the percentage of 11, 13, and 15 year olds living in original, step, single families. There Finland is 71% with both, 13% in step families, and 16% with one parent only (1% is other). England is 70% for original, 12% in step families, and 16% single parent (1% other). The first table which the Guardian quoted is for where children are aged 0-14 (and UK there is the entire UK not just England).
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
So actually the differences, even if real, are small?
And from Trisagion's link it look s like the real heroes of faithfulness are the Ostrobothnians!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
to farting in bed
Then who can be saved?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Quotes file
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
My mother distinguishes very clearly between "being in love with" somebody and loving them and insists that the former is selfish, as it is about how I feel rather than about the other person. Ideally in a relationship one should move from the former to the latter - but loving somebody is not always easy.
St Clive of Oxford was bang on the money here, IMO.
quote:
“Ceasing to be 'in love' need not mean ceasing to love. Love in this second sense - love as distinct from 'being in love' - is not merely a feeling. It is a deep unity, maintained by the will and deliberately strengthened by habit; reinforced by (in Christian marriages) the grace which both partners ask, and receive, from God. They can have this love for each other even at those moments when they do not like each other; as you love yourself even when you do not like yourself. They can retain this love even when each would easily, if they allowed themselves, be 'in love' with someone else. 'Being in love' first moved them to promise fidelity: this quieter love enables them to keep the promise.”
Mere Christianity
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And from Trisagion's link it look s like the real heroes of faithfulness are the Ostrobothnians!
Oh to be able to describe oneself as an Ostrobothnian.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
That's the real question here. What pushes people to breakup the family?
Unrequited love pushed me to break up my family after 16 years. I didn't realise it was it was unrequited until my ex fell head-over-heels for an OTT womanising individual. The means of contact was daily use of a CB radio.
There's always a load other complicating factors , and I not placing blame, it really boiled down to 'Once the truth was on the march, who could stop it' ?.
This was over 12 years ago , yet I still occasionally think I could have prevented it , (which is bit daft, and probably pretty arrogant on my part).
If, however, a couple are in love at the start there does need to be more research as to what makes them fall out of love.
FWIW I have since come to the conclusion that romantic love between 2 people needs to be a daily practice , (like Buddhism). Anything that comes along to threaten it , however seemingly insignificant, must be rejected by both parties.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
That's the real question here. What pushes people to breakup the family?
Unrequited love pushed me to break up my family after 16 years.
There seems to be a lot of talk about love here, and how marriage cannot survive without it. But it was not always thus. Arranged marriages would not assume any kind of love between the partners. I'd say the societal change that has led the west to such high divorce rate is a joint expectation that love will last the rest of their lives, and a willingness to contemplate the alternative - i.e. divorce. When divorce was not socially acceptable or too expensive to contemplate, it didn't happen so much.
How many of you would stay in a marriage where there was no love because it is a better option than breaking up?
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
That's the real question here. What pushes people to breakup the family?
Unrequited love pushed me to break up my family after 16 years. I didn't realise it was it was unrequited until my ex fell head-over-heels for an OTT womanising individual. The means of contact was daily use of a CB radio.
There's always a load other complicating factors , and I not placing blame, it really boiled down to 'Once the truth was on the march, who could stop it' ?.
This was over 12 years ago , yet I still occasionally think I could have prevented it , (which is bit daft, and probably pretty arrogant on my part).
If, however, a couple are in love at the start there does need to be more research as to what makes them fall out of love.
FWIW I have since come to the conclusion that romantic love between 2 people needs to be a daily practice , (like Buddhism). Anything that comes along to threaten it , however seemingly insignificant, must be rejected by both parties.
Do not go on punishing yourself. If your ex-wife fell for a womanising lech CBist, you didn't break up the family. She did.
I think you should place blame, and it's healthier to do so. For one thing, you can't even forgive someone as long as you're pretending to yourself they have not done you wrong. Unless there's something really significant that you've left out - and not a lot of Mills & Boon guff about relationships - it looks clear where the blame falls and where it should lie.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Net Spinster - congrats on tracking down the underlying data! I went looking for that yesterday but only found the bigger paid report.
ken wrote: quote:
...So actually the differences, even if real, are small?
The differences between Finland and UK are small for adolescents (11-15). However that's parents who produced on average 13 years ago. The first table lists parents who produced on average about 7 years ago. So the first table is more heavily weighted to recent performance.
Given the above, you would expect the first table to show a higher proportion of children living with their parents - because breakups will continue, so older children will face a proportionately higher risk of parental breakup. And indeed, if you look for most countries, there is around a 25 to 35% higher risk of breakup in the second table.
That's not true of the UK (nor of Belgium either). For the UK, the risk of breakup is already higher in the first group than the second group, which points to a much higher rate of relationship disintegration developing in the UK as compared to elsewhere. The interest in these tables is in the the developments shown by the differences.
Also, the Finnish figures look anomalous in the other direction - has there been some sort of major change in parental togetherness there in the early 2000's?
[ 31. December 2012, 14:52: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
That's the real question here. What pushes people to breakup the family?
Unrequited love pushed me to break up my family after 16 years.
There seems to be a lot of talk about love here, and how marriage cannot survive without it. But it was not always thus. Arranged marriages would not assume any kind of love between the partners. I'd say the societal change that has led the west to such high divorce rate is a joint expectation that love will last the rest of their lives, and a willingness to contemplate the alternative - i.e. divorce. When divorce was not socially acceptable or too expensive to contemplate, it didn't happen so much.
How many of you would stay in a marriage where there was no love because it is a better option than breaking up?
There are two types of love being talked about here. One is "being in love", which is a euphoric state usually at the beginning of a relationship. The other is a more nurturing long lasting love between two people who have made a commitment to share a life.
Arranged marriages historically, and currently, tended to develop into love or they developed into unhappiness and/or rampant infidelity. Unhappiness and infidelity definitely not good things. Divorce is an option so people can pursue their own personal and familial happiness.
Staying in a marriage with No love is not a satisfying option. Some people choose to stay in a loveless marriage because they don't have the ability or the means to live apart. I don't recognize that as a good thing.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Is love active or passive?
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
It's both active and passive but it doesn't work very well unless it's active.
I think.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Do not go on punishing yourself. If your ex-wife fell for a womanising lech CBist, you didn't break up the family. She did.
Thanks for saying that Enoch . I'm something of a blame myself type.
I think you should place blame, and it's healthier to do so. For one thing, you can't even forgive someone as long as you're pretending to yourself they have not done you wrong. Unless there's something really significant that you've left out .
The significant thing is that this CB carry on went on for 18 months under my nose. I was more concerned with holding an ailing small-farm business together than putting a stop to it.
Indeed I kinda knew this guy, and it seemed like more like humorous distraction in the midst of a difficult time.
No-one, definitely not me, thought my ex was a personality that going to fall for the nonsense this fella used to come out with.
Even the ex seemed to be genuinely unaware of the impending outcome . That was one reason I couldn't get properly angry at the time, (mind you I was pretty angry as I recall). The other being she didn't , to my knowledge, behind my back. So the trust wasn't broken as such , therefore the family was spared a whole heap of damaging bitterness.
Mine is cautionary tale I guess . Esp in this age of easy communication.
Not wanting to go Mills an Boon on you, but aren't some marriages a case *rocks with a ship's name on them*?
<Anyway it really is time I STFU about it . Sitting here getting over man-flu just happened to bring it back>
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
Perhaps part of the difference may be people's expectations from marriage and/or parenting and the level of maturity that they bring to it I've seen some people with pretty unrealistic expectations, often reinforced by popular magazines and culture, and I think these often contribute to early breakdown in the relationship.
I'm not sure how one would find statistical data to back this up, however.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
That's the real question here. What pushes people to breakup the family?
Unrequited love pushed me to break up my family after 16 years.
There seems to be a lot of talk about love here, and how marriage cannot survive without it. But it was not always thus. Arranged marriages would not assume any kind of love between the partners. I'd say the societal change that has led the west to such high divorce rate is a joint expectation that love will last the rest of their lives, and a willingness to contemplate the alternative - i.e. divorce. When divorce was not socially acceptable or too expensive to contemplate, it didn't happen so much.
How many of you would stay in a marriage where there was no love because it is a better option than breaking up?
There are two types of love being talked about here. One is "being in love", which is a euphoric state usually at the beginning of a relationship. The other is a more nurturing long lasting love between two people who have made a commitment to share a life.
Along those lines I would say it is the difference between the modern notion of love as an uncontrollable feeling/ emotion (whether that's passion or affection) v. love as a chosen action (which I believe is closer to the biblical usage).
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Along those lines I would say it is the difference between the modern notion of love as an uncontrollable feeling/ emotion (whether that's passion or affection) v. love as a chosen action (which I believe is closer to the biblical usage).
I would not agree that the first is a modern notion. I think it's been around forever, just kind of separate from marriage most of the time because marriage was more about survival. I also am not sure that the second kind of love is only a chosen action because I think that there is a kind of uncontrollable emotion that is either there or not there.
Sorry I formatted all wrong. New iPad. And now I'm really tired and going to bed!
[ 04. January 2013, 14:54: Message edited by: tclune ]
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Along those lines I would say it is the difference between the modern notion of love as an uncontrollable feeling/ emotion (whether that's passion or affection) v. love as a chosen action (which I believe is closer to the biblical usage).
I would not agree that the first is a modern notion. I think it's been around forever, just kind of separate from marriage most of the time because marriage was more about survival. I also am not sure that the second kind of love is only a chosen action because I think that there is a kind of uncontrollable emotion that is either there or not there.
OK, yes, on the first point you're right-- love as an emotion has obviously always existed. What I should have said was that the modern era seems to have elevated that emotion as the be-all and end-all purpose/meaning of marriage, where other cultures/ eras did not.
On the 2nd point though, you seem to have missed my point. I am defining a particular kind or meaning of love-- love as a chosen action, quite apart from emotion. The fact that there are other meanings for "love"-- including as an emotion-- was my point.
[ 04. January 2013, 14:56: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
I am putting this here as it seems pertinent to the topic title.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
One cause of divorce among people I've known is boredom. The drudging dailyness of the same thing day after day, sit at home every night, nothing to talk about. Is that all there is to life, just boredom? Especially if there are no kids.
A variation is the man is married to the career, is in the office evenings, weekends, one wife told me her husband heads for the office Sundays instead of church, I had thought she was a single Mom! After the kids are "old enough" the wife declares "I wanted to be married to a man, not to an income" and leaves, whether or not she has a man to go to. I saw it a lot in the hard charging office.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I am putting this here as it seems pertinent to the topic title.
Do you agree with it?
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I am putting this here as it seems pertinent to the topic title.
Do you agree with it?
well, I do not. At least, not in the way that I define "feminism", which is not entirely identical to the way it's defined in the article. I do not believe that "a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle". I think that having a stable partnership (marriage, although not necessarily in the legal/religious sense) is something that most women need (just as most men need the same). The desire to partner up is natural and I think healthy. This is not the same as saying that women necessarily can't do it alone, just that it's not ideal (in most cases). same as for me.
I think that the breakdown of "family" started not when couples started divorcing more often, but rather when the concept of "family" switched from primarily the extended family, to primarily the "nuclear" family (couple and their kids). we have been convinced (by society, media, whatever) that the one partner we have can and must fulfill ALL our needs, and that if they do not it's a flaw in the marriage. In the past this was not (usually) the case, as our various needs were fulfilled by an entire group of people. we could rely on our spouse for certain things, but we also had parents, siblings, cousins etc. with whom we maintained a close enough contact that we could turn to them to fulfill other needs (companionship, understanding, help with kids, deep philosophical discussions, whatever it is we need that our spouse can not always provide for us).
"Family" broke down when the norm became to move away from home (as in further than just across town). our society is such that it's generally considered a bit wierd to stay in the town where one was born, living near our parents and siblings, grandparents, aunts uncles and cousins etc. Perhaps that's not true elsewhere, but it seems to be true around here. I know very few people who live near their parents, and even those who do are the one sibling who has stayed around.. the rest have all moved on.
I'm not saying that there isn't a sense of family if folks don't live nearby, or that the love is any less. I feel very close to my sister even though we do not live on the same coast. but it's hard to turn to her when I need help painting the living room, and it's hard for her to turn to me when she needs a sitter at the last minute. Mom lives far from both of us, and while we do visit frequently, it's just not the same as when we all lived near each other.
My own marriage went through a lot of hard times, and the only reason it survives today is that we both learned NOT to expect each otehr to fulfill all our needs.. and to seek that elsewhere. He goes to AA meetings and meets with folks who have the same views on faith as he does (whcih he wants to discuss with me, but which I have a lot of problem relating to). I share my work related troubles with friends online, because sharing with my husband results in him stressing out so badly aobut it that I end up comforting him.. which just adds to my own stress about whatever it was I was complaining about in the first place. we make do, but it took a long time to get to where we don't feel let down becaue we can't share those aspects of our lives with each other. because we were somehow convinced that this is what marriage is about. Instead, we focus on those things that we ARE able to share, and enjoy together. but because neither of us have family in the area, it's harder than it might otherwise be. My sister had a marriage which had fewer of the more obvious problems my marriage had, yet it wasn't able to survive.. and this is not due to any failing on her part or that of her ex, but rather on their lack of someone to fill in the missing pieces. they each ended up looking for "everything" elsewhere.
Obviously, the above is very much an over simplification. relationships are complex, and no one thing makes or breaks them. but it's my oppinion, that, to the extent that societal atitudes have impacted families, it is this placing of the nuclear family at the center, and the expectation that this should be enough.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Along those lines I would say it is the difference between the modern notion of love as an uncontrollable feeling/ emotion (whether that's passion or affection) v. love as a chosen action (which I believe is closer to the biblical usage).
I would not agree that the first is a modern notion. I think it's been around forever, just kind of separate from marriage most of the time because marriage was more about survival. I also am not sure that the second kind of love is only a chosen action because I think that there is a kind of uncontrollable emotion that is either there or not there.
OK, yes, on the first point you're right-- love as an emotion has obviously always existed. What I should have said was that the modern era seems to have elevated that emotion as the be-all and end-all purpose/meaning of marriage, where other cultures/ eras did not.
On the 2nd point though, you seem to have missed my point. I am defining a particular kind or meaning of love-- love as a chosen action, quite apart from emotion. The fact that there are other meanings for "love"-- including as an emotion-- was my point.
I think that the modern era of elevating the emotion of love as be-all end-end all in marriage is not necessarily a bad thing.
Love as a chosen action is not the only kind of love that a marriage needs. It needs love as a an action but it also needs the uncontrollable kind. Though a different kind than the "falling in love" kind. It needs a name.
I also agree with belle ringer. I also agree with any Anyuta though I personally struggle with the "meeting all of your needs" part. How much of a partner's needs should be fulfilled? Does it depend on how many of your needs are met by extended family and friends? What if a partner doesn't have that? What if one partner fulfilled many needs of the other but the other does not fulfill as many needs of the other partner? What if there is an imbalance there?
For me, more questions than answers. Therefore, I don't really "disagree" with people as much as I am just stating my perceptions.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
Also, (sorry, missed the edit window), I also may disagree with the idea that most women need to partner up. At least not for life. I don't believe that partnering for life is an innate human characteristic. I think people have the innate human need to partner for periods of time but lack the innate human characteristic that would make this easy for life. I think we have the innate human characteristic of making it generally very hard. However, for some it seems to be easier than others.
Feminism may have helped cause the breakdown of the nuclear family but I don't think that is necessarily as harmful as people may claim. Extended family and a network of friends can be plenty. Also maybe feminism can help motivate people to maybe change their behavior for the better. If women want the right partner, they should take time to find the right partner and not rush to find a husband. And if men want to keep their marriages maybe they need to stop sitting in front of the tv and/or taking their spouses for granted or engaging in affairs. Which seems to be the main cause of women leaving.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
I think the causes of family breakdown are mostly economic.
Industralization, the development of the welfare state and laws against child labour make us less dependent on each other than we used to be.
Women can achieve prosperity without the need of a husband by getting an education and taking a job outside the home. (Women generally are more likely to get a university degree than men nowadays.) Children (from a strictly financial perspective) are no longer a blessing (viz., a net financial gain for the parents and family through child labour) but an estimated $300,000-400,000 burden. We don't need a large extended family for protection from hostile neighbours - the police, military and courts take on the role. We have a welfare/pensions/social insurance scheme to help us if we cannot earn a living because of age or disability. In other words, we've outsourced many of the functions the extended family provided to non-family entities - mostly State or corporate systems.
All this makes forming and dissolving relationships far less consequential than it used to be. 300 years ago, an unmarried woman would usually be destitute - unable to make a living; today most women can divorce, pick up the emotional pieces and get on with her lives in relative comfort. That alone will mean it is far less likely women (or men) will get into, or stay, in a loveless or abusive relationship than before.
I always found it ironic that (U.S.) social conservatives who wring their hands at family breakdown are generally the strongest supporters of the very systems (capitalism/corporatism, law and order, etc.) that lead to it.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Also, (sorry, missed the edit window), I also may disagree with the idea that most women need to partner up. At least not for life. I don't believe that partnering for life is an innate human characteristic. I think people have the innate human need to partner for periods of time but lack the innate human characteristic that would make this easy for life. I think we have the innate human characteristic of making it generally very hard. However, for some it seems to be easier than others. ...
Perhaps some of the Orthodox shipmates can help here, but I think that is why they call marriage a podvig, something people have to stick at; i.e. a calling, a discipline, the way one lives out ones life of faith.
Fidelity is easier when one is in the first flush of love, or when one is not tempted. What measures a person's calibre is whether they are still faithful when they don't feel like it any more, or because the other person has trusted in them but they'd rather out.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Also, (sorry, missed the edit window), I also may disagree with the idea that most women need to partner up. At least not for life. I don't believe that partnering for life is an innate human characteristic. I think people have the innate human need to partner for periods of time but lack the innate human characteristic that would make this easy for life. I think we have the innate human characteristic of making it generally very hard. However, for some it seems to be easier than others. ...
Perhaps some of the Orthodox shipmates can help here, but I think that is why they call marriage a podvig, something people have to stick at; i.e. a calling, a discipline, the way one lives out ones life of faith.
Fidelity is easier when one is in the first flush of love, or when one is not tempted. What measures a person's calibre is whether they are still faithful when they don't feel like it any more, or because the other person has trusted in them but they'd rather out.
Well, first of all, you need to make a distinction between fidelity and life long monogamy. I do believe that the lack of fidelity, iow, cheating, can be a measure of a person's calibre to an extent. But leaving an unfulfilling marriage is not necessarily a measure of calibre. There is also a distinction between not being in the "first flush of love" and not "feeling like it anymore" or "they'd rather out" and being very unhappy and unfulfilled. I do believe it is somewhat selfish and unrealistic to expect "flushing love" over the course of an entire life long marriage and to then leave because of it. But if there is genuine unhappiness it's not wrong to leave. Depends on many circumstances though.
I also believe that there are other ways to opt out of a marriage than to divorce. Sometimes, people leave a marriage emotionally by not sharing their lives with their partners at all. And I'm not even talking about affairs, but simple ignoring of their partners wants, needs, desires, and interests. Just because people don't get a divorce or even continue living together doesn't mean that they are participating in a marriage. That can be a measure of calibre as well. And I wil continue to say that the option of divorce can be a motivating factor in getting people to stop taking their marital relationship for granted and so improves marriage in he long run.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Perhaps some of the Orthodox shipmates can help here, but I think that is why they call marriage a podvig, something people have to stick at; i.e. a calling, a discipline, the way one lives out ones life of faith.
Thank you, I've been trying to remember that word for a few days new. Josephine has used it in a number of debates and I've been wanting to use it myself. It is definitely an important concept
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cygnus
Shipmate
# 3294
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And from Trisagion's link it look s like the real heroes of faithfulness are the Ostrobothnians!
Oh to be able to describe oneself as an Ostrobothnian.
Well, some of us here can do just that. (Okay, half Ostrobothnian!)
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 123 | From: canada | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
Oh to be Ostrobothnian but not have to live there... Ostrobothnia (Pohjanmaa to the natives) is easily the most boring part of Finland.
That being said, I have grown a bit weary of all these comparisons with Finland. I've lived there for five (very happy) years, I owe that country a lot and I dearly love it; so maybe that qualifies me at least partially for comment: Finland is very different from other western societies in that the nation is small (5 million people) and culturally very homogeneous (this is a relative term, and their sdocio-cultural homogeneity is indeed high compared to that of other industrialised western nations).
In other words, their "exploits" in education, supposed family stability (I found these numbers hard to believe given what I saw when I lived there, but one should never, ever, question the hard evidence of solid statistics ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ) and economic success are all grounded in very specific factors such as climate, history, shared discourses and the like.
Let Finland be Finland (and long may it prosper) and if there's one snippet of food for thought to be taken from this it might be an invitation to reflect critically on the merits and weaknesses of a "multi-cultural" "everything goes" society.
[ 09. January 2013, 12:23: Message edited by: Desert Daughter ]
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
A couple of thoughts.
When we married, I didn't simply want to. I needed to. She saved my trauma'd self from the domination of bad dreams, helpless anger and feelings of full inadequacy. A lot of this was the normal loneliness of young adulthood, but I suspect everyone has their heavy shit in a bag on their back hurting them. Not that I was incompetent or a complete geek-nerd, I was successful and showed no sign of what the trouble was. But I became more myself, more of myself, with her, and was clearly less of me without. Terribly selfish, to have someone who made me more myself by her presence in my life.
The second thought is more general. I think most people consider more carefully what they're getting into when buying a used car than when getting together with another used human. Kick the tires, get a mechanic to check the systems, gauge the compression, compare to other similar vehicles, ask friends for advice. Whereas with finding someone to love, we lock eyes across a crowded room in some enchanted evening and more or less say, you and me babe, how about it? If Romeo and Juliet hadn't offed themselves, the sequel would have been Pritzi's Honor.
So I'd say that the thing to do is check out the prospective mate more carefully. Meet her mother and/or father. Could you love the parents when your prospect is their ages? Spend some time doing something stressful together. Being Cdn I'd say go on a canoe trip and shiver together after dumping the canoe and losing half your gear, or get lost after dark cross country skiing while hearing howling (it's probly coyotes, but if you believe it's wolves so much the better).
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
