Job Discussion Forums

[veiledsentiments]

I agree with the fact that the high amount of divorce in the west is due to our emphasis on the the individual and unrealistic expectations of what marriage/love will bring us.

As I have read this thread, one point doesn't seem to have been brought up. One major reason why there is more divorce in western countries is simply because women got the right to divorce as easily as men. Plus we have the 'freedom' now to make a living and even to succeed financially. We no longer have to crawl back to abusive hubby or daddy begging him to take us back in so that we can eat. (or the other traditional option of the world's oldest profession)

If you have a level of employment equality for women, marriage becomes an option, not a necessity. A woman does not have to accept physical and mental abuse any more.

When the women of Asia have the same options, I expect the divorce rate will also rise there.

VS

[Steiner]

I think an interesting statistic to see would a comparison of the percentage of marriages which are good/bad for both the East and West. Unfortunately, that is impossible and completely subjective. Maybe you could look at physical abuse, verbal abuse, and fidelity. I'll bet the numbers would look a lot more even. Lots of Chinese men don't run off and marry the secretary, divorcing the wife; they just sleep with the mistress(es) for year after year, keeping the wife.

[Steiner]

And I completely agree with scot47's comments on duty and rights.

[James_T_Kirk]

Wow, I really didn't feel very much burning desire to get married before reading this thread, and now I feel even less! Marriage is an outdated social institution that isn't for everybody, and I for one am glad that Westerners are beginning to realize this. Marriage is hard damn work, and you have to ask yourself a key question before considering marriage: Is all the hard work that will be required to keep a marriage alive worth it? Even if the answer seems "yes" today, the statistics demonstrate that the answer might change to "no" in the future.

[Wolf]

veildedsentiments - I also hope that fewer women will have to resort to the profession of hunter/gatherer to survive. Sorry, I couldn't resist. It's a pet peeve of mine - I've never been convinced that prostitution really is the world's oldest profession . . . .

James T Kirk - I wonder if it's not the institution of marriage that is outdated but rather the views that many people (from all parts of the globe) have an immature or imbalanced view of marriage. Ideally, the best place to raise children is a loving family. (an unloving family is a different story....)

[guest of Japan]

Socrates felt that all children should be taken away from their parents and raised in a communal environment. The children should never know their parents and they should never receive anything from them. The state would raise and educate them and their natural abilities which were fostered by the egalitarian education they received would be the sole deciding factor into which level of society they would live, whether it be shoemaker or king. This idea wasn't very popular with people who had children.

[Tong Dawei]

Geeze Wolf, you're cruisin' man with 708 posts!

Anyway, I don't recall if this sentiment, veiled or otherwise, has been put forth yet but i would say that the only reason why a social contract (marriage) should be entered into is for the sake of the children that will result from the union. With all of the aforementioned concerns over individuality, the contract should be in place to protect the interests of the children should the union become undone.

I guess the orinial poster's two Asian respondents were not aware that divorce is dramatically on the rise in their respective countries! I love it (not) when people spew their personal version of ethnic superiority as if it were a true statement about everyone from a particular place in a vain attempt to make themselves look/feel better. They probably did it unwittingly as a knee jerk response, i dunno... It's pathetic...

I was going to continue this post by saying that two people don't need a social contract to prove their love for each other. BUT, I just remembered that I heard some where that if two people even begin living together then things automatically change in the eyes of the law and it is up to the concerned parties to fashion an agreement as to their liking to enforce legally binding boundries/parameters of the relationship. I think I heard this. I could research this a bit maybe if you feel the need.

Interestingly (for me anyway), i think that all too many of those people with with their concerns for individuality choose to get married because they think/hope that marriage to that other person will make them happy. Unfortunately for most of these people this is not a valid reason to get hitched. IMO people should already be exuding a genuine sense of happiness before they decide to join forces.

I guess that's eight cents in total...

[Steiner]

[Tong Dawei]

Steiner:

[Steiner]

You don't have to make her happy. You shouldn't make her sad if you can help it, though.

And I'm not saying it often happens that two people take more care to partners' needs above their own, but when it does happen it makes for a good marriage. Two people who are both trying to take as much as they can will probably be miserable. One trying to give and the other trying to take--probably miserable. Both putting the other's concerns above their own--it's the best way, for my money.

And yeah, if you're lnot a reasonably content, stable well-balanced person and you're ooking for someone to turn your life around and make you happy, you're probably not going to find it. That takes Prozac.

[scot47]

guestofjapan,

Let us remember what happened to Socrates !

[guest of Japan]

He he he.

He had the option to take banshment. Obviously he could have never been and EFL teacher.

[denise]

I'm really enjoying reading the various takes on marriage/divorce, but I can't help going back to the original question and wondering whether it'd ever be possible to get students with such strongly-held (and based only on what they've been told to believe? not on actual experience or careful observation & analysis?) opinions to even acknowledge the possibility that there are other interpretations besides their own.

What would such people think after reading this thread? Would they in fact open their minds and consider alternative viewpoints, or would they persist in the belief that we Westerners are immature and undisciplined? I'd like to think that when presented with a well-thought-out opinion that just happens to differ from theirs, they would actually acknowledge it, but...

I hope I don't sound too cynical about students' abilities to think critically, but the sorts of statements brought up in the original post just seemed so dogmatic that I really do question the thinking processes behind them.

d

[arioch36]

Tong Dawei, you severely misquoted Steiner. he didn't say anything about making your partner happy. Rather, considering the other person's welfare before your own. Big difference.

I too find it amusing how Japanese/ Chinese look down on Americans/the "west" for our divorce rate, but fail to mention how quickly their's is increasing. The Chinese student is taught to believe, seriously, that Chinese are simply better people then others. So I use Forrest Gump as a lead in to discrimination. They can readily percieve the discrimination that happens in the West. When initially asked., most of them will say that they never discriminate against anyone.

This is the product of

[dduck]