Are High Divorce Rates Really a Bad Thing?

Before reading this, keep in mind that this is being written by a bald man who is married to a great woman, has been married for 20 years, and intends to stay married to her for the rest of his life.  The question isn't weather marriage is bad, its a question of weather marriage really needs to be the core of human relationships any longer.  For several decades we have seen marriage decaying as an institution, with divorce rates now reaching 50%.  What does this mean?  It means that if your newspaper annouces the marriage of 10 couples, 5 of those couples will be divorced.  For many years this has been the rallying cry for those who panic about the moral fabric of our society falling apart and has been the rallying cry of traditionalists to go back to the way things were done in the "good old days" to restore marriage.  But, is that really the way to fix the high divorce rate?  In fact, why do we assume that the increasing divorce rate needs to be fixed?

As in all things, its important to understand what we are really talking about.  Without really defining a thing, we can't really discuss that thing.  So what is marriage?  Although there is a lot of disagreement as to what a marriage really is , most of us would agree that a marriage consists of the following factors:

• An agreement between partners to ensure sexual fidelity
• A close bond of emotional intimacy
• An agreement to share child rearing responsibilities in some way
• An agreement on how to share financial resources
• An agreement to ensure inheritence
• A legal, social, and often, religious bond

In summary, marriage is a legal, social and sometimes religious, contract between individuals to stay within prescribed sexual guidelines, to share financial and child rearing responsibilities, and to ensure that wealth stays within the family. 

We also need to know how marriage arose.  Historians agree that marriage has been with us in different forms since the dawn of the human race.  From a historic/anthropological perspective, marriage was a necessary social arrangement that enabled the human species to survive during times of resource scarcity.
Women, physically not as strong as men, were not able to provide for themselves and their offspring.  Large game and defense required the greater size and physical power of males so women had to have a way to bind males to them to help obtain food for self and offspring and protect them from predators both human and non-human.  Men, on the other hand, didn't need women to defend them, but did need to ensure the survival of their own offspring.  A man also needed to know that when they he was risking his life to protect and hunt for a baby, that it was his baby and not another tribesman's.  Thus marriage was born. 

Marriage did not arise from loving or spiritual reasons; it arose as a means of securing and protecting resources in a primitive economy dependant on the brute force of physically powerful males.  As our social and economic connections became more complicated, the bond of marriage became enforced by governments and were sanctioned by spiritual forces, leaving little option but for people to enter marital bonds and to stay them.  After all, Mr and Mrs. Primitive are told, if the state and god say that they have to remain married, how dare they defy that order?  As man spread over the earth, the institution of marriage remained central to his existance because the subsistence, hunting/labor intensive society required it.

But is it still necessary?

In those days, women couldn't survive on their own because their relative physical weakness prohibited them from achieving material wealth on their own.  But is that the case any longer now that women have the same ability to earn money as the men?  Of course not.  In those days, men could not ensure paternity so had to use the threat implied in the enforcement of marriage to secure fidelity.  But in the days of DNA testing and paternity testing, is that still necessary?  Of course not.  Today, marriage is no longer a tool to ensure the allocation of resources but is, instead, a focal point for romantic love in the advanced economies of the western world.  The point of marriage is no longer resources; it is happiness.

Marriage is now entered into to find love and happiness with a romantic partner.  Since all of the original purposes of marriage can be met without a spouse, happiness is the only remaining purpose of marriage.  That being the case, there is no reason for us to consider a 50% divorce rate to be a social evil.  After all, if a couple is no longer happy together, why should they stay togther?  If the point is happiness, and your spouse isn't making you happy, why stay with your spouse.  And finally, why is that viewed as a social evil.

One of the reasons is always considered a problem because it is felt that the divorce process is difficult for children, which is true and how a couple handles there divorce is going to largely impact how traumatic the divorce is on the children.  Also, there has historically been concern over the fact that children from divorced couples are from "broken homes".  This, however, is only that way because the majority of couples did not go through divorce.  The only reason we recognize a home as "broken" is because the majority of homes are "unbroken".  Now, however, that distinction is becoming less and less relevant.  Being from a divorced couple is not difficult on the child if the divorce is handled responsibly by they parents in an environment where divorce is equally as common as not being divorced.  In such a case, fully half of the child's peers have a similar home life toher own weather her parents are divorced or not.  When single parenthood is the common state, then the stigma of being a child of divorced persons evaporates. 

This is very much akin to the trauma experienced by children who've had sexual relationships with adults. This is traumatic largely because of the extreme isolation children in this situation go through in a culture where sex with children is such a taboo.  In cultures where sexual relations and even marriage between adults and children is the norm, the trauma isn't there.  The trauma is largely a social construct.  (This is not to deny that usually, in our culture, sex with minors is usually of an extremely exploitative nature which also causes tremendous trauma for the child!  But this doesn't negate the point that even when the adult genuinely loves the child and isn't being exploitative, the child is traumatized in the long term because of the shame and isolation s/he experiences)

 My argument is that our aversion to divorce is largely due to the social habituation to marriage; the fact that marriage is traditional.  Since the original purpose of marriage is gone and has been replaced by the pursuit of happiness, it makes no sense to cringe at rising divorce rates because this is merely a sign of progress and the freedom of individuals, liberated from life in primitive conditions, to pursue happiness.

Mind you, I am a married guy.  I like being married and actually have, as a goal, to achieve a 100th wedding anniversary with Dina.  I am not against marriage, I am simply saying that marriage is not for everyone and that divorce is necessarily an evil.

America punishes minority group with punitive taxation

Its true.  There are latinos, gays, blacks, jews, and native americans who are forced by the country to pay for half of the country's bills.  And if they don't pay, their property is forcibly taken from them and they are thrown into prison.  In fact, the IRS specifically targets them in audits.  Why are members of these minority groups punished with such brutal, punitive taxes?  What crime have these minorities committed to be punished in such a way?  Was it murder?  Treason?  Did they commit bank robbery?  No....it was something that the American voter considers even more evil than murder or rape.


Their crime was.... ....being rich!  

That's right, they committed the unconscionable crime of being fortunate, working hard and taking chances that worked out to their advantage.  Did I forget to mention that this is also the same fate of all wealthy people in America?  Their real criminal minority status isn't being black or gay or latino or jewish.  The minority status they achieved that led to their punishment is found, not in their house of worship or genetic material or their homeland; but in their IRS 1040 Tax Return.  When it comes to punishment by taxation, they are in the same boat as any other race or religion or sexual orientation or ethnicity.  After all, today's America would never punish them for such trivialities because, we like to think, we have moved far beyond blaming one group for our problems.  We like to think we don't victimize our neighbors for our own benefit we gleefully light the torches to burn the wealthy at the stake at every opportunity (though we all want to be rich!)


Today, America's hatred is directed at one minority more than any other....the wealthy!


Most Americans support punitively taxing this one minority group.  In California, the same voters who cry for equal treatment for gays (which they are absolutely right to insist on!) gleefully reversed their thinking as they voted to punish one minority group by making them pay 47% of the state's taxes while in, Rev Al Sharpton's back yard, New York City voters smilingly voted to force this tiny minority into paying half of all taxes.  And across the country Americans laughingly voted punitive taxes onto this one group, making them pay for 40% of the country's bills.  

http://defeatthedebt.com/our-ads/john-galt/

Always makes me wonder why people always talk about making the rich "pay their fair share"?  I figure if I go to dinner with 100 friends and I pay half the dinner bill, I have paid 4900% more than my fair share.  I would think anyone at the dinner table would think that I paid more than my fair share.  When you look at America's "dinner bill" we have the exact same situation.  But which one of you would use force me to pay the dinner bill?  Most likely, none of you would.  And then, which among you would then, after making me pay half of the dinner bill, which of you would have the audacity to say that I didn't pay my fair share and should pay more?  Probably even less.

Yet most Americans, including some of you reading this, don't think twice about sending armed goons after their neighbors to take their money from them and then tell those same victimized neighbors that they don't pay their fair share. 

I guess that's why people leave, as they have been doing in NJ, to areas of lower taxation.  We will get what we deserve.

An Observation on Diversity

Diversity, as many of us know, is a hot topic, particularly in the workplace.  It is difficult to define.  It is difficult to leverage.  It is difficult to incorporate.  More of an organic mindset and mantra than a policy, the goal of diversity in the workplace is to make it an inclusive workplace.  Properly placed in an organization, it does not constitute any type of "special treatment" for minorities.  To the contrary, when properly placed in an organization, diversity initiatives can lift obstacles for all members of the organizations and allow them to contribute fully.  Diversity does not focus on preferential treatment of minorities, rather it focuses on equal treatment for all employees.  Diversity is about creating a safe place in the workplace where every employee can feel understood and valued.

But diversity has a real recognizable value to any organization.  By empowering all people to feel trusted, valued and respected, the organization creates fertile ground for initiative and active contribution.

Recently I had an eye opening experience in a meeting of my peers on the management team.  We have recently created the role of Team Leads, who act as supervisors of sorts, on each team.  Each manager has a Team Lead who assists with day to day leadership of the team, coaching team members and handling scheduling and escalations.  Our team leads are individuals who have distinguished themselves among their peers for higher technical knowledge, a high level of accountability and professionalism and a proven track record.  The striking moment came to me when I realized that out of the six team leaders, four were foreign born.  As I sat in the meeting, listening to them take turns presenting the wins and challenges of their teams, I reflected on what important assets we would have been denied in our organization if we we had not created an environment where diversity was encouraged and these important members of the team weren't able to bring themselves to the office with everything they had!