I read recently an interview with David Cameron where he announced the tories will restore/increase tax benefits for married couples. His position seemed to be that by extending tax benefits previously available to married couples to single parents, the labour has caused the increase in divorces and single parenting.
I'm curious - how does this argument work.
I mean, I can see perfectly that having pro-children tax systems (i.e. giving tax benefits to people who have children), some people may be persuaded to have children or it may be made easier for them to raise children.
However, I don't see this really working that wall for marriages. Usually when people want to divorce each other, they do not do it for financial reasons, but because they can't live with each other - so how will having "pro-marital" tax benefits help this? Same with single parenting - it's not like single mothers suddenly will find fathers and foster fathers for their children, because this will get them a better taxation scheme.
:huh:
Yeah its bullshit, like general "OMG in the past marriages lasteded!!!!" sure they did, there were several legal and/or social reprecussions for divorcing. Those went away, divorces popped up. Big fucking surprise.
Quote from: Martinus on January 05, 2010, 08:02:52 AM
I mean, I can see perfectly that having pro-children tax systems (i.e. giving tax benefits to people who have children), some people may be persuaded to have children or it may be made easier for them to raise children.
However, I don't see this really working that wall for marriages. Usually when people want to divorce each other, they do not do it for financial reasons, but because they can't live with each other - so how will having "pro-marital" tax benefits help this? Same with single parenting - it's not like single mothers suddenly will find fathers and foster fathers for their children, because this will get them a better taxation scheme.
:huh:
The centre of the Tory critique of marriage policy is that basically the deepest forms of poverty are also shaped by relationship structure, especially around children. Reihan Salem and Ross Douthat have a similar argument when they say that Democrats view the 1950s as a sort of economic golden age, because industry hadn't hollowed out, everyone had a job, people's economic and social positions were improving while Republicans see it as a golden age because of its family values. Salem and Douthat suggest that the two are linked and go on from there.
Now marriage is a social good. Cohabiting couples with children are more likely to split up than married couples (the former split up in 43% of cases before the child's 5th birthday, married couples only 8% of the time). Marriage is also more stable, especially for children and regardless of income. Marriage or rather family breakdown is a significant factor in studies about the success children have at school and even things like addiction.
The Tory critique isn't really aimed at middle class couples, indeed it's shaped by a fear that marriage could become a middle class preserve. It's also part of a larger worry that our tax and benefit system discourage work and so on. There's something to this. For example a single mother who is on benefits but takes a part-time job and earns £80 a week loses £60 of her benefits, which are reduced to £20 a week. Once you add on the costs of childcare and transport that are required for work it's quite possible that she could be financially better off without a job.
They also disagree with the social implications of current policy. So for example our benefit system pays less to a married couple with kids than to two single parents or to a cohabiting couple, our benefit system penalises people with savings (you're not eligible if you have over a certain, rather low, amount) and I believe ours is one of the only systems in Europe that doesn't offer our housing benefit to people with a mortgage. So in effect you've got all of these social goods marriage, saving, buying your own home that are punished when people become unemployed.
Now the Tories won't have the solution to those problems because we're in a recession and a the fiscal shit so we're expecting swingeing cuts. Though the Centre for Social Justice which is the big think-tank on the right for this sort of thing does have a number of costed proposals for addressing what I think are serious issues. In practice the Tories 'pro-family' policies are quite simple (because they're cheap) so, for example, grandparents are given more rights when being considered for custody in an extreme case, schools have to send school reports to both parents in the case of divorce, fathers should be able to receive the tax credits if they look after the children more (are househusbands), they want to establish a relationship guidance before civil unions and civil marriage (based on what Vicars do prior to a marriage), I believe there's a scheme in Bristol they want to take nationwide.
But the Tories have said that changing the tax or benefit system probably won't happen in the first budget because we're fucked. All the parties are talking about 'aspirations' rather than pledges now because no-one can really pledge anything that'll cost any money.
Edit: It should be said that David Cameron's gone out of his way to basically say that every family's important in terms of Tory policy but that he wants to recognise that marriage/civil unions are special and different and should be encouraged.
Ok, I know the answer to this one and it is down to a misunderstanding of statistics.
The stats show that children who come from households where the parents are married do better than those that don't. This includes households where the parents co-habit long-term but don't marry.
So, the Tories have concluded that it is the getting married that strengthens the family; whereas I believe that strong families are often composed of people who believe in the institution.
Hope that isn't too garbled, dashing off out with my family to enjoy the snow.
Sheilbh, you annoying person, making a coherent post in the same time it take me to make a short gibber :lol:
:worthy: You're a political/social studies God, Sheilbh.
Guys, I do not dispute any of what you said - I just don't see the casual link between making marriage more tax-friendly and preventing people from divorcing each other or making single parents to marry. Unlike child rearing (where economic incentives could play a role), I don't think economic benefits figure highly in people's decisions to marry someone they don't want to marry or to stay in the marriage with someone they would rather divorce (I am not talking about situations where it is more beneficial to actually stay unmarried and living together than to be married - such situations should be corrected, of course, but I don't think most people divorce to get a better taxation scheme, either).
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 05, 2010, 08:49:46 AM
Ok, I know the answer to this one and it is down to a misunderstanding of statistics.
The stats show that children who come from households where the parents are married do better than those that don't. This includes households where the parents co-habit long-term but don't marry.
So, the Tories have concluded that it is the getting married that strengthens the family; whereas I believe that strong families are often composed of people who believe in the institution.
Hope that isn't too garbled, dashing off out with my family to enjoy the snow.
I was going to say the same thing. Marriage may be an indicator rather than a cause. Causing cohabitating couples to marry may simply drive up the divorce rate.
Why not just impose a 100% income tax on people who are not married by a certain age? And then ban gay marriage.
Quote from: Martinus on January 05, 2010, 08:56:21 AM
Guys, I do not dispute any of what you said - I just don't see the casual link between making marriage more tax-friendly and preventing people from divorcing each other or making single parents to marry. Unlike child rearing (where economic incentives could play a role), I don't think economic benefits figure highly in people's decisions to marry someone they don't want to marry or to stay in the marriage with someone they would rather divorce (I am not talking about situations where it is more beneficial to actually stay unmarried and living together than to be married - such situations should be corrected, of course, but I don't think most people divorce to get a better taxation scheme, either).
I think economic situation, especially for people on low incomes, is a huge issue in deciding whether or not to get married - why would you get married to raise your child when you'd lose your tax credit or your benefits? But I also think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. The Tories aren't, to the best of my understanding, terribly interested in discouraging divorce or people marrying who don't want to get married. But that sort of thing could be an unintended consequence of their policies.
There have been reports in the media of couples who wanted to get married but would have their benefits cut and they decided not to because they need the money. It's not that it'll stop people getting divorced but that people who are married are less likely to divorce than cohabiting couples are to split up - regardless of children or income. Now given the effect that a family breakdown has on many aspects of a child's life I think it's worthwhile to make marriage a more viable option (ie. people won't necessarily lose money when they get married).
I've personal experience over the past few months and a number of friends who've also been through it and I have to say I agree that our benefit system is just a bit fucked. I mean you lose your benefits the day you start a new job which means that in a salary situation you've got no money for living expenses, rent or tax. My friends and I are lucky. We've got families who are able to support us for our first month of work but if you've not got that sort of support network. If you don't you're waiting a month for your first paycheck during which you've got to cover your rent, living expenses, utilities, tax and transport for a month (far less childcare) without any support from the state (that would pay for most of that while you're unemployed). I think it's absurd and does discourage work.
I thimnk it's actually to encourage more new marriages than prevent divorces. Newlyweds need the cash most - and once they're hitched it's more difficult to split up.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 05, 2010, 08:49:46 AM
So, the Tories have concluded that it is the getting married that strengthens the family; whereas I believe that strong families are often composed of people who believe in the institution.
I mean my worry is that a lot of the statistics are socially self-selecting. This sounds harsh, though I don't mean it in that way, but do children in a married family do better because they're married or because, as marriage is more common in the middle classes, because they're bourgeois?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2010, 09:15:52 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 05, 2010, 08:49:46 AM
So, the Tories have concluded that it is the getting married that strengthens the family; whereas I believe that strong families are often composed of people who believe in the institution.
I mean my worry is that a lot of the statistics are socially self-selecting. This sounds harsh, though I don't mean it in that way, but do children in a married family do better because they're married or because, as marriage is more common in the middle classes, because they're bourgeois?
I believe there is something in the notion that being married is on average a social good for children regardless of class.
Obviously there are exceptions, where the relationship or one partner is so disfunctional that the kids would be better off without him or her - but anyone who has kids knows that raising kids is above all else hard, constant
work. Two sets of hands are simply better than one. A single parent never gets a break in their day to day handling of the kids - sure they can have babysitters, daycare and grandparents, but it is not really the same thing.
This affects kids, it can't help but do so. On average at least.
Yes, but it is married couple versus co-habiting couple that is being considered here malthus :D
@sheilbh....yes, just so. The problem is that a lot of the research is almost tautological...........almost like "new research shows that winners are doing better than losers". It was not a problem for the architects of the welfare state back in 1945, because people's problems were so obvious; the difficulty now is why do we still have losers when so many opportunities are thrust into people's paths?
Quote from: Tamas on January 05, 2010, 08:07:39 AM
Yeah its bullshit, like general "OMG in the past marriages lasteded!!!!" sure they did, there were several legal and/or social reprecussions for divorcing. Those went away, divorces popped up. Big fucking surprise.
Also, believing in ever-lasting love made sense when life expectancy was lower than 50 years. Believing in eternal love now, when life expectancy for both males and females is nigh-on 80 years old, is plain kooky.
They should be giving tax breaks to people who don't have children
Love? Marriage is an economic arrangement for bringing up children.
Or, at least, that should be the state's interest in the matter.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 05, 2010, 11:50:04 AM
Love? Marriage is an economic arrangement for bringing up children.
Or, at least, that should be the state's interest in the matter.
I'm sure the average 15th century farm-working yeoman thought about economic arrangement first and foremost when marrying his wife.
99% of the time, it's because he wooed her and wanted to shag her without being casted out of the village and vilipended in chair for being a cad.
You'd be surprised just how often marriage actually was done for primarily economic or other non-love reasons.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 05, 2010, 11:39:42 AM
Yes, but it is married couple versus co-habiting couple that is being considered here malthus :D
Where did you get that from? :huh:
From the OP:
QuoteI read recently an interview with David Cameron where he announced the tories will restore/increase tax benefits for married couples. His position seemed to be that by extending tax benefits previously available to married couples to single parents, the labour has caused the increase in divorces and single parenting.
Emphasis added.
Strikes me that the contrast under discussion is between "married couples" (presumably could be common-law, i.e., lengthy co-habiting) and "single parents".
When did it morph into a discussion of the distinction between formally married couples and cohabiting couples?
Quote from: Drakken on January 05, 2010, 11:44:56 AM
Also, believing in ever-lasting love made sense when life expectancy was lower than 50 years. Believing in eternal love now, when life expectancy for both males and females is nigh-on 80 years old, is plain kooky.
:lol:
I love how this place makes me realize how cynical I'm not.
Richard, if you are correct in your identification of the issue, why would anyone defend tax policy that gives more deductions/benefits to "single" people living together then to married people living together?
Why shouldn't they be treated equally?
Quote from: Drakken on January 05, 2010, 11:52:10 AM
I'm sure the average 15th century farm-working yeoman thought about economic arrangement first and foremost when marrying his wife.
99% of the time, it's because he wooed her and wanted to shag her without being casted out of the village and vilipended in chair for being a cad.
No, you're applying Victorian values here. Prior to then, marriage was almost entirely for economic reasons. Though not for actual cash, it was having a healthy wife who could do chores about the farm to bring in more crops, and breed the next generation of farmhands to work in the fields then keep you in your old age when you're no longer healthy enough to do so yourself.
Quote from: Brazen on January 05, 2010, 12:09:34 PM
Quote from: Drakken on January 05, 2010, 11:52:10 AM
I'm sure the average 15th century farm-working yeoman thought about economic arrangement first and foremost when marrying his wife.
99% of the time, it's because he wooed her and wanted to shag her without being casted out of the village and vilipended in chair for being a cad.
No, you're applying Victorian values here. Prior to then, marriage was almost entirely for economic reasons. Though not for actual cash, it was having a healthy wife who could do chores about the farm to bring in more crops, and breed the next generation of farmhands to work in the fields then keep you in your old age when you're no longer healthy enough to do so yourself.
Wait, wait, so plain love, passion and wanting to shag without having the girl's family after your ass after she got pregnant by your manly attention not good reasons to marry the said girl in the 15th century?
Like all families were walking calculators. Marriage was also because of social convenience. Because like today, boys and girls did fool around and do stupid things, and no one wanted to raise a bastard grandchild. Hell, this reason was enough here for weddings in Quebec as far as the seventies.
And yes, cynical as I am, some boys and girls got married because they loved each other and wanted to have babies together, and their parents consented. If Shakespeare wrote about in the 16th century, it was because he didn't invent it.
Let's not apply Roman patriarcal values here either, where every parent coldly decided which child married whose child, without any consideration for their opinion, in exchange for a goat or other property. In the 15th century most boys, at least, were individuals enough to court their own chicks by themselves - and sometimes have fun with her without the parents knowing. :contract:
My apologies Malthus, I didn't read the OP of course (at least not properly), so swiftly moved on to a slightly different aspect of Tory policy.
It used to be human emotions actually had real practical uses, but now we've changed our habitats so much that the only thing natural about them is the nature of the humans living in them, so instead of calibrating our emotional faculties in the struggle for survival we spend our time playing the game of human emotion. Progress sucks, but I suppose it still beats the alternative.
edit: as brilliantly exemplified by the above discussion of whether people did it for reasons of utility, or for reasons of emotion - as if the two couldn't be the same --- it's a sad testament to human nature that once we received the ability to shape our surroundings to our liking we did in a fashion making us unhappy (as exemplified by ever-increasing rates of depressions and suicide in much of the western world). Solution? Other habitats, or other human nature (through genetic engineering)?
Drakken, bastardy rates in England in the 17th century were below 2% and age at first marriage was surprisingly high (27 years), there was no effective contraception available - silliness drops when a society disapproves and/or can't afford it.
Quote from: Drakken on January 05, 2010, 12:18:42 PM
Quote from: Brazen on January 05, 2010, 12:09:34 PM
Quote from: Drakken on January 05, 2010, 11:52:10 AM
I'm sure the average 15th century farm-working yeoman thought about economic arrangement first and foremost when marrying his wife.
99% of the time, it's because he wooed her and wanted to shag her without being casted out of the village and vilipended in chair for being a cad.
No, you're applying Victorian values here. Prior to then, marriage was almost entirely for economic reasons. Though not for actual cash, it was having a healthy wife who could do chores about the farm to bring in more crops, and breed the next generation of farmhands to work in the fields then keep you in your old age when you're no longer healthy enough to do so yourself.
Wait, wait, so plain love, passion and wanting to shag without having the girl's family after your ass after she got pregnant by your manly attention not good reasons to marry the said girl in the 15th century?
Like all families were walking calculators. Marriage was also because of social convenience. Because like today, boys and girls did fool around and do stupid things, and no one wanted to raise a bastard.
Let's not apply Roman patriarcal values here either, when parents decided which child married that child, without any consideration for their feelings, in exchange for a goat.
Just like today priority 1 was making sure you are guaranteed food and shelter. In a premodern society with very little welfare you wouldn't want to not maximize your chances. Today the difference is that we live at a material level where we essentially do not have to worry about getting food and shelter regardless of how we marry (or not). But it's still the top priority.
Quote from: Martinus on January 05, 2010, 08:02:52 AM
However, I don't see this really working that wall for marriages. Usually when people want to divorce each other, they do not do it for financial reasons, but because they can't live with each other - so how will having "pro-marital" tax benefits help this? Same with single parenting - it's not like single mothers suddenly will find fathers and foster fathers for their children, because this will get them a better taxation scheme.
:huh:
Yet you're a staunch believer in social engineering otherwise. Interesting.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 05, 2010, 12:26:12 PM
Drakken, bastardy rates in England in the 17th century were below 2% and age at first marriage was surprisingly high (27 years), there was no effective contraception available - silliness drops when a society disapproves and/or can't afford it.
Does that percentage include children who were infanticided, abandoned, given in adoption, or raised by a parent other that the biological father, like cuckolds or grandparents?
Not being cheeky here, I find that percentage surprising.
Quote from: Drakken on January 05, 2010, 12:18:42 PM
Wait, wait, so plain love, passion and wanting to shag without having the girl's family after your ass after she got pregnant by your manly attention not good reasons to marry the said girl in the 15th century?
Not in the 15th century, no. There's a great deal of interest in the sexual life of people in the Medieval period because they married a lot later than they did in the Renaissance. I believe prior to the 16/17th century the average age for a man to marry - from the records we have - was 24 and for a woman 21. Obviously there was a great deal of sexual desire prior to that. From the records we have we know that it was common for male and female unmarried servants, for example, to share rooms and beds and in the 15th century there's a movement throughout Northern Italy to clean up the sexual lives of the lower classes. There are groups of penitent monks who go around raving about sodomy both between men and between women (in effect oral and anal seem to have been a problem), in their opinion this was a very serious and very common problem.
As ever with the period we don't know a lot about it, but from what we know it's more than possible that people were sating their desires without even the slightest risk of pregnancy.
Quotethe difficulty now is why do we still have losers when so many opportunities are thrust into people's paths?
Indeed. I think there are real problems with our welfare system. I think that the economic issues also have knock-on social effects such as not getting married and the effects that has on children, but also in terms of lifestyle and health. I always find it shocking that there are estates in Glasgow that have a lower male life expectancy than the Gaza Strip; that's shameful in our society.
But I welcome that the Tories have started to at least vaguely bother about this stuff and though I disagree with him on a number of issues I really rate Iain Duncan-Smith's work that has prompted a lot of this.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 05, 2010, 12:26:12 PM
Drakken, bastardy rates in England in the 17th century were below 2% and age at first marriage was surprisingly high (27 years), there was no effective contraception available - silliness drops when a society disapproves and/or can't afford it.
Don't forget the whores. As my tutor said when lecturing on Blake, 'when marriage is expected, prostitution thrives'.
Quotethe difficulty now is why do we still have losers when so many opportunities are thrust into people's paths?
Perhaps losing or winning a game you're not interested in playing isn't a very big deal to everyone. Different people require different games.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2010, 12:33:59 PM
Don't forget the whores. As my tutor said when lecturing on Blake, 'when marriage is expected, prostitution thrives'.
A modern testimony to this would be the quite extraordinary Falkland rd. in Mumbai, which, as my sikh taxi driver told me, is where the poor men go for sex before they're married.
Quote from: Drakken on January 05, 2010, 12:29:47 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 05, 2010, 12:26:12 PM
Drakken, bastardy rates in England in the 17th century were below 2% and age at first marriage was surprisingly high (27 years), there was no effective contraception available - silliness drops when a society disapproves and/or can't afford it.
Does that percentage include children who were infanticided, abandoned, given in adoption, or raised by a parent other that the biological father, like cuckolds or grandparents?
Not being cheeky here, I find that percentage surprising.
The problem is that it is almost impossible to know what the scale of infanticides, cuckoldry etc were. Bear in mind though that the overwhelming majority lived in small villages, the possibility of concealment or privacy would be much lower than today.
I've chosen a harsh economic environment for my example, the illegitimacy rate increased in the the more benign conditions of the 18th century. Nevertheless I do believe that failed families are an immense burden on any economy, even one as wealthy as the modern West.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2010, 12:33:59 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 05, 2010, 12:26:12 PM
Drakken, bastardy rates in England in the 17th century were below 2% and age at first marriage was surprisingly high (27 years), there was no effective contraception available - silliness drops when a society disapproves and/or can't afford it.
Don't forget the whores. As my tutor said when lecturing on Blake, 'when marriage is expected, prostitution thrives'.
Yes indeed. If it wasn't for whores I think that 17th century puritanism might have gone even more OTT. The sexual frustration back then must have been incredible......
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 05, 2010, 12:39:06 PM
Quote from: Drakken on January 05, 2010, 12:29:47 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 05, 2010, 12:26:12 PM
Drakken, bastardy rates in England in the 17th century were below 2% and age at first marriage was surprisingly high (27 years), there was no effective contraception available - silliness drops when a society disapproves and/or can't afford it.
Does that percentage include children who were infanticided, abandoned, given in adoption, or raised by a parent other that the biological father, like cuckolds or grandparents?
Not being cheeky here, I find that percentage surprising.
The problem is that it is almost impossible to know what the scale of infanticides, cuckoldry etc were. Bear in mind though that the overwhelming majority lived in small villages, the possibility of concealment or privacy would be much lower than today.
I've chosen a harsh economic environment for my example, the illegitimacy rate increased in the the more benign conditions of the 18th century. Nevertheless I do believe that failed families are an immense burden on any economy, even one as wealthy as the modern West.
Didn't in 18th century Britain, especially in urban areas, the hard toil of everyday manual life, the cheap wages, and the appearance of cheaply distillated alcohols like gin in taverns and thus increased access to a cheaper alchohol, play a role as well in the rise of illegitimacy in that period?
@ Sheilbh, you said "But I welcome that the Tories have started to at least vaguely bother about this stuff and though I disagree with him on a number of issues I really rate Iain Duncan-Smith's work that has prompted a lot of this."
Agree with you about IDS, his recent efforts in this area show that he genuinely cares as well, I've been quite impressed. Of course he's not in government yet, which always seems to have an adverse effect on british politicians :(
Quote from: Brazen on January 05, 2010, 12:09:34 PM
Quote from: Drakken on January 05, 2010, 11:52:10 AM
I'm sure the average 15th century farm-working yeoman thought about economic arrangement first and foremost when marrying his wife.
99% of the time, it's because he wooed her and wanted to shag her without being casted out of the village and vilipended in chair for being a cad.
No, you're applying Victorian values here. Prior to then, marriage was almost entirely for economic reasons. Though not for actual cash, it was having a healthy wife who could do chores about the farm to bring in more crops, and breed the next generation of farmhands to work in the fields then keep you in your old age when you're no longer healthy enough to do so yourself.
And didnt change that much in agrarian societies. My grandfather told me he looked for similar qualities before choosing his wife (my grandmother). In a postmodern society I assume people also look at potential mates with at least an eye to how well that mate will contribute to the well being of the family - which is probably why so many decide marriage isnt worth it. :D
@ Drakken - I'm not really sure how much of a feature "Gin Lane" was in the country as a whole. As opposed to 18th century London which was the first place and time in Britain that we had a large enough city for anonymity to be routine.
It does sound very likely though :)
Quote from: derspiess on January 05, 2010, 12:27:17 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 05, 2010, 08:02:52 AM
However, I don't see this really working that wall for marriages. Usually when people want to divorce each other, they do not do it for financial reasons, but because they can't live with each other - so how will having "pro-marital" tax benefits help this? Same with single parenting - it's not like single mothers suddenly will find fathers and foster fathers for their children, because this will get them a better taxation scheme.
:huh:
Yet you're a staunch believer in social engineering otherwise. Interesting.
Culture is what separates men from animals. Throughout history all cultures of value have practiced social engineering, or, rather, cultural and civilizational refinement. The problem today isn't too much social engineering, but too little, too irrational, and not good enough.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2010, 12:02:50 PM
Richard, if you are correct in your identification of the issue, why would anyone defend tax policy that gives more deductions/benefits to "single" people living together then to married people living together?
Why shouldn't they be treated equally?
The problem here is the sheer complexity of the tax and welfare systems and the way they interact. Being counted as single, married or co-habiting may or may not be a benefit depending on circumstances. So, for example, a "couple" will get far more state benefits if they run two "separate" households then admit that they are an item.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 05, 2010, 12:26:12 PM
Drakken, bastardy rates in England in the 17th century were below 2% and age at first marriage was surprisingly high (27 years), there was no effective contraception available - silliness drops when a society disapproves and/or can't afford it.
study of sexual mores in sexually repressed countries can help with that. A good start is by looking at muslim societies.
People are suprisingly inventive at getting nooky, with or without approval of society. And lets not forget the plethora of special tricks and treatments available to women of which men are not told, ever! (tricks that have receded into folklore in our liberal societies)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ancient-greece.org%2Fimages%2Fart%2Fkorai%2Fimages%2FDSC00846_jpg.jpg&hash=08f351b16f48d17322ee68b210578273c112872d)
Kore and kourus unearthed together (~ 550 BC)
"Marker of Phrasikleia
I could be called kore (maiden)
for ever instead of wedded
by the gods thus being named
[Aris]tion of Paros created me"
(Translated by Thomas Sakoulas)
"Phrasikleia holds a lotus at its breast by way of symbol of its continued and eternally unplucked state. Like the words of the inscription, the rosettes below each breast, and the additional lotuses, alternately half-open and closed, that wreathe the maiden's crown signal a blossoming into womanhood even as they affirm that this floraison has yet to occur. Together the different elements cohere in making the metonymic representation a visualization of the maiden in her social role, preserving her at the very threshold of the marriage to which she could once have aspired. ", Deborah Tarn Steiner
edit: It is not obvious from above context, but I assume this "marker of Phrasikleia" to mark Phrasikleias grave, a woman who presumably died a virgin and was celebrated for her chastity with this monument (at least the text above is listed under "Grave epigrams" in one of my books on greek literature).
Pic is NSFW.
Quote from: Malthus on January 05, 2010, 10:19:39 AMA single parent never gets a break in their day to day handling of the kids - sure they can have babysitters, daycare and grandparents, but it is not really the same thing.
That depends on what other support network the single parent may have. If grandparents, aunts or uncles are involved in raising the child then there may well be plenty of opportunities for breaks. The child-raising situation is not necessarily parent(s) + children.
Quote from: Jacob on January 05, 2010, 02:12:33 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 05, 2010, 10:19:39 AMA single parent never gets a break in their day to day handling of the kids - sure they can have babysitters, daycare and grandparents, but it is not really the same thing.
That depends on what other support network the single parent may have. If grandparents, aunts or uncles are involved in raising the child then there may well be plenty of opportunities for breaks. The child-raising situation is not necessarily parent(s) + children.
Talking of the average person here.
Most folks here in the West do not live in true 'extended-family' situations (that is, different generations of the same family/siblings living together permanently). Those that do are more likely to be particularly traditional in any event (extended type families being more common in traditional non-Westen backgrounds) and frown on single-parentdom.
Having the ability to park the kids at granny's house, or or with Uncle, is not the same as having granny or uncle actually
living in your house and tending them. The reality for the vast majority of single folks is that being single increases hardship when it comes to raising kids, for lack of two full-time committed adult caretakers able to spell each other on a day-in, day-out basis.
Very young children can't be left alone for extended periods, not ever. This makes doing even the most mundane of daily tasks a complex chore for new parents, even when there are two. I shudder to think of how tough it would be for just one.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 05, 2010, 01:50:11 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2010, 12:02:50 PM
Richard, if you are correct in your identification of the issue, why would anyone defend tax policy that gives more deductions/benefits to "single" people living together then to married people living together?
Why shouldn't they be treated equally?
The problem here is the sheer complexity of the tax and welfare systems and the way they interact. Being counted as single, married or co-habiting may or may not be a benefit depending on circumstances. So, for example, a "couple" will get far more state benefits if they run two "separate" households then admit that they are an item.
That is my point. Tax returns should make people declare whether they are cohabitating or not and treat all such couples the same. Saying that people wont answer honestly is no answer to that being the correct policy. It is a matter of enforcement. Surely in this age of information accessability it should be a simple matter to determine if someone is giving a false address.
The address may not be false though. The man (for example) could move back and forth according to the family's situation in order to maximise benefits or minimise tax losses. Which is why I think that marriages/civil unions should be the determinant in these matters. As it stands the situation favours instability in cohabitation which is detrimental to the well-being of any children involved.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 05, 2010, 04:14:54 PM
The address may not be false though. The man (for example) could move back and forth according to the family's situation in order to maximise benefits or minimise tax losses. Which is why I think that marriages/civil unions should be the determinant in these matters. As it stands the situation favours instability in cohabitation which is detrimental to the well-being of any children involved.
Move back and forth to where? Generally when people live together they have one place of residence. I am not talking about people who sleep over once in a while.
Quote from: Brazen on January 05, 2010, 12:09:34 PM
Quote from: Drakken on January 05, 2010, 11:52:10 AM
I'm sure the average 15th century farm-working yeoman thought about economic arrangement first and foremost when marrying his wife.
99% of the time, it's because he wooed her and wanted to shag her without being casted out of the village and vilipended in chair for being a cad.
No, you're applying Victorian values here. Prior to then, marriage was almost entirely for economic reasons. Though not for actual cash, it was having a healthy wife who could do chores about the farm to bring in more crops, and breed the next generation of farmhands to work in the fields then keep you in your old age when you're no longer healthy enough to do so yourself.
Pretty much. If you want people to have kids, abolish pension schemes. :P
Quote from: Drakken on January 05, 2010, 12:18:42 PM
Quote from: Brazen on January 05, 2010, 12:09:34 PM
Quote from: Drakken on January 05, 2010, 11:52:10 AM
I'm sure the average 15th century farm-working yeoman thought about economic arrangement first and foremost when marrying his wife.
99% of the time, it's because he wooed her and wanted to shag her without being casted out of the village and vilipended in chair for being a cad.
No, you're applying Victorian values here. Prior to then, marriage was almost entirely for economic reasons. Though not for actual cash, it was having a healthy wife who could do chores about the farm to bring in more crops, and breed the next generation of farmhands to work in the fields then keep you in your old age when you're no longer healthy enough to do so yourself.
Wait, wait, so plain love, passion and wanting to shag without having the girl's family after your ass after she got pregnant by your manly attention not good reasons to marry the said girl in the 15th century?
Like all families were walking calculators. Marriage was also because of social convenience. Because like today, boys and girls did fool around and do stupid things, and no one wanted to raise a bastard grandchild. Hell, this reason was enough here for weddings in Quebec as far as the seventies.
And yes, cynical as I am, some boys and girls got married because they loved each other and wanted to have babies together, and their parents consented. If Shakespeare wrote about in the 16th century, it was because he didn't invent it.
Let's not apply Roman patriarcal values here either, where every parent coldly decided which child married whose child, without any consideration for their opinion, in exchange for a goat or other property. In the 15th century most boys, at least, were individuals enough to court their own chicks by themselves - and sometimes have fun with her without the parents knowing. :contract:
Don't forget most marriages had significant age difference between the man and the woman, even in living memory, not to mention times like the 16th century. The modern day concept of two star-struck youths marrying each other was pretty alien to the renaissance mindset - that's why it was so scandalous and featured mainly in poetry and ballads.
A typical man married his first wife when he was in late 20s/early 30s, and the wife was usually in her mid-to-late teens at the time - and don't forget that most men remarried since child birth mortality of women was pretty high. I'm fairly sure most of them didn't marry out of love.
Quote from: derspiess on January 05, 2010, 12:27:17 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 05, 2010, 08:02:52 AM
However, I don't see this really working that wall for marriages. Usually when people want to divorce each other, they do not do it for financial reasons, but because they can't live with each other - so how will having "pro-marital" tax benefits help this? Same with single parenting - it's not like single mothers suddenly will find fathers and foster fathers for their children, because this will get them a better taxation scheme.
:huh:
Yet you're a staunch believer in social engineering otherwise. Interesting.
What the fuck are you talking about? I am asking how is this particular bit of social engineering supposed to work - because I don't see the causal link. How does that have anything to do with believing in social engineering or not?
What's interesting is that your only "contribution" to this thread is that of a retard unable to read.
Quote from: Martinus on January 06, 2010, 08:40:03 AM
A typical man married his first wife when he was in late 20s/early 30s, and the wife was usually in her mid-to-late teens at the time - and don't forget that most men remarried since child birth mortality of women was pretty high. I'm fairly sure most of them didn't marry out of love.
Interestingly, Princesca's grandparents got married when he was about 29 and she was 17. She had her first child (Princesca's mom) less than six months after they were married. :o
Quote from: Caliga on January 06, 2010, 08:49:21 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 06, 2010, 08:40:03 AM
A typical man married his first wife when he was in late 20s/early 30s, and the wife was usually in her mid-to-late teens at the time - and don't forget that most men remarried since child birth mortality of women was pretty high. I'm fairly sure most of them didn't marry out of love.
Interestingly, Princesca's grandparents got married when he was about 29 and she was 17. She had her first child (Princesca's mom) less than six months after they were married. :o
There is a 10 year difference between my parents, even though they married relatively late in life. There was more than that between my grandparents, too. The little-age-difference marriages are a relatively recent phenomenon.
Princesca is 19 months older than I am. Did I: screw up.
Quote from: Caliga on January 06, 2010, 08:53:20 AM
Princesca is 19 months older than I am. Did I: screw up.
My swain is six years younger than me. It give Princesca and I the option of having a partner till the fields to keep us in our old age :P
Actually since the average life expectancy of men is now lower than that of women, it makes sense for women to find younger partners. ;)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 05, 2010, 12:01:20 PM
Quote from: Drakken on January 05, 2010, 11:44:56 AM
Also, believing in ever-lasting love made sense when life expectancy was lower than 50 years. Believing in eternal love now, when life expectancy for both males and females is nigh-on 80 years old, is plain kooky.
:lol:
I love how this place makes me realize how cynical I'm not.
You'd be more cynical if you joined the seduction community.
My dad married my mum when she was 20 and he was 41. Age differences don't matter.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 06, 2010, 09:53:04 AM
My dad married my mum when she was 20 and he was 41. Age differences don't matter.
That's hot.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 06, 2010, 09:53:04 AM
My dad married my mum when she was 20 and he was 41. Age differences don't matter.
They didn't have internet jackasses throwing the 1/2 +7 rule in their faces.
Quote from: Martinus on January 06, 2010, 09:00:11 AM
Actually since the average life expectancy of men is now lower than that of women, it makes sense for women to find younger partners. ;)
Yet they don't. I am always amazed how women will jump at a guy 15 years older than they are with two kids...I mean seriously ladies surely you can do better than that.
Quote from: Valmy on January 06, 2010, 11:21:50 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 06, 2010, 09:00:11 AM
Actually since the average life expectancy of men is now lower than that of women, it makes sense for women to find younger partners. ;)
Yet they don't. I am always amazed how women will jump at a guy 15 years older than they are with two kids...I mean seriously ladies surely you can do better than that.
Maybe they prefer inheritance/life insurance to companionship. ;)
Quote from: Martinus on January 06, 2010, 11:26:43 AM
Maybe they prefer inheritance/life insurance to companionship. ;)
If they were rich and older it would make sense but 40 year olds with meager incomes and kids to support strike me as poor gold digging prospects. They are not even likely to die soon either.
Quote from: Valmy on January 06, 2010, 11:21:50 AM
Yet they don't. I am always amazed how women will jump at a guy 15 years older than they are with two kids...I mean seriously ladies surely you can do better than that.
For some reason people perceive younger guys as being immature. I'd argue almost all guys are immature, at heart.
Also generally speaking when you're elderly if the husband dies the wife can soldier on for years. If the wife dies very often the husband falls apart and, unfortunately, just doesn't last. It's happened with a few men in my family and our old next door neighbour. The only exception of people I know is my uncle who was a lot older than his wife but cared for her for five years before she died. He's still going strong.
Quote from: Martinus on January 06, 2010, 08:45:35 AM
What the fuck are you talking about? I am asking how is this particular bit of social engineering supposed to work - because I don't see the causal link. How does that have anything to do with believing in social engineering or not?
What's interesting is that your only "contribution" to this thread is that of a retard unable to read.
And a good day to you, sir. I'm generally skeptical about social engineering in the first place, including what you in past threads have naively championed.
I suppose my point was given how you favored dubious social engineering schemes (like how allowing gay marriage will magically make gays more monogamous), why would you bother to question the logic behind this one.
Quote from: derspiess on January 06, 2010, 11:49:51 AM
I suppose my point was given how you favored dubious social engineering schemes (like how allowing gay marriage will magically make gays more monogamous), why would you bother to question the logic behind this one.
I don't think Marty supports gay marriage to make gays monogamous or for any social engineering purpose.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 06, 2010, 10:34:31 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 06, 2010, 09:53:04 AM
My dad married my mum when she was 20 and he was 41. Age differences don't matter.
They didn't have internet jackasses throwing the 1/2 +7 rule in their faces.
I wonder if women have a corresponding -7 x2 rule.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2010, 04:03:56 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 05, 2010, 01:50:11 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2010, 12:02:50 PM
Richard, if you are correct in your identification of the issue, why would anyone defend tax policy that gives more deductions/benefits to "single" people living together then to married people living together?
Why shouldn't they be treated equally?
The problem here is the sheer complexity of the tax and welfare systems and the way they interact. Being counted as single, married or co-habiting may or may not be a benefit depending on circumstances. So, for example, a "couple" will get far more state benefits if they run two "separate" households then admit that they are an item.
That is my point. Tax returns should make people declare whether they are cohabitating or not and treat all such couples the same. Saying that people wont answer honestly is no answer to that being the correct policy. It is a matter of enforcement. Surely in this age of information accessability it should be a simple matter to determine if someone is giving a false address.
Not so simple. The most common form of welfare fraud going is for two people to claim separate residences, when in fact they are cohabitating.
Quote from: Barrister on January 06, 2010, 12:07:00 PM
Not so simple. The most common form of welfare fraud going is for two people to claim separate residences, when in fact they are cohabitating.
That was very common among Russian immigrants back when we first arrived. It wasn't really fraud, so, it was just being smart. The people doing it and the people advocating doing it told us so.
Quote from: Barrister on January 06, 2010, 12:07:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2010, 04:03:56 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 05, 2010, 01:50:11 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2010, 12:02:50 PM
Richard, if you are correct in your identification of the issue, why would anyone defend tax policy that gives more deductions/benefits to "single" people living together then to married people living together?
Why shouldn't they be treated equally?
The problem here is the sheer complexity of the tax and welfare systems and the way they interact. Being counted as single, married or co-habiting may or may not be a benefit depending on circumstances. So, for example, a "couple" will get far more state benefits if they run two "separate" households then admit that they are an item.
That is my point. Tax returns should make people declare whether they are cohabitating or not and treat all such couples the same. Saying that people wont answer honestly is no answer to that being the correct policy. It is a matter of enforcement. Surely in this age of information accessability it should be a simple matter to determine if someone is giving a false address.
Not so simple. The most common form of welfare fraud going is for two people to claim separate residences, when in fact they are cohabitating.
But it is still fraud and people do still get caught.
As a matter of policy I see no problem calling it fraud.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 06, 2010, 11:56:31 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 06, 2010, 11:49:51 AM
I suppose my point was given how you favored dubious social engineering schemes (like how allowing gay marriage will magically make gays more monogamous), why would you bother to question the logic behind this one.
I don't think Marty supports gay marriage to make gays monogamous or for any social engineering purpose.
He said as much on more than one occasion. Not that it's his only reason, of course.
Quote from: derspiess on January 06, 2010, 01:02:11 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 06, 2010, 11:56:31 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 06, 2010, 11:49:51 AM
I suppose my point was given how you favored dubious social engineering schemes (like how allowing gay marriage will magically make gays more monogamous), why would you bother to question the logic behind this one.
I don't think Marty supports gay marriage to make gays monogamous or for any social engineering purpose.
He said as much on more than one occasion. Not that it's his only reason, of course.
Not really. I think it is a matter of civil rights. Pure and simple.
I have supported other social engineering causes (political correctness/anti-hate-speech, or anti-hate-crime legislation, for example) but gay marriage is not one of them. As far as gay marriage is concerned, I just thought that this was a good reason for a conservative to support it (and which is a reason the tories support it, by the way).
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 06, 2010, 11:58:47 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 06, 2010, 10:34:31 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 06, 2010, 09:53:04 AM
My dad married my mum when she was 20 and he was 41. Age differences don't matter.
They didn't have internet jackasses throwing the 1/2 +7 rule in their faces.
I wonder if women have a corresponding -7 x2 rule.
math is hard
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 06, 2010, 10:34:31 AM
They didn't have internet jackasses throwing the 1/2 +7 rule in their faces.
Touchy touchy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 06, 2010, 03:18:37 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 06, 2010, 10:34:31 AM
They didn't have internet jackasses throwing the 1/2 +7 rule in their faces.
Touchy touchy.
I was rubed the wrong way.
Damn the Internet connection at work. Got beaten by Malthus while the page loaded oh so slowly.
Quote from: Neil on January 06, 2010, 09:11:03 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 05, 2010, 12:01:20 PM
Quote from: Drakken on January 05, 2010, 11:44:56 AM
Also, believing in ever-lasting love made sense when life expectancy was lower than 50 years. Believing in eternal love now, when life expectancy for both males and females is nigh-on 80 years old, is plain kooky.
:lol:
I love how this place makes me realize how cynical I'm not.
You'd be more cynical if you joined the seduction community.
As much as I'd want to disagree, I can only QFT. :yes:
Not that being cynical is a bad thing.
Quote from: Neil on January 06, 2010, 09:11:03 AMYou'd be more cynical if you joined the seduction community.
I think that's properly spelled with quotation marks. Like this: the "seduction community."
I like being cyclical.
I'm rather fond of being cylindrical myself.