Slashdot Mirror


Facebook a Factor in a Third of UK Divorces

hypnosec writes with an excerpt from an IT Pro Portal article: "A recent survey conducted by a UK based divorce website disclosed that 33 percent of behavior divorce petitions filed cite Facebook as a cause for filing for divorce in 2011. In 2009 this figure was 20 per cent. 5000 people were surveyed by Divorce-Online, the UK divorce website, during 2009 and 2011 covering Facebook as a means to check behavior of spouse with the opposite sex and spouses using the social networking platform to comment about their exes post the separation. Three reasons that came out on the top for listing Facebook in divorce petition were inappropriate messages sent to the opposite sex, posting nasty comments about exes, and friends on Facebook reporting about spouse's behavior."

49 of 189 comments (clear)

  1. Facebook and divorce, it writes itself! by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Welcome, ladies and gentlemen! How many times can the same story be recycled over the course of two years?

    December 22, 2009 - Facebook's Other Top Trend of 2009: Divorce

    April 12, 2010 - Facebook to Blame for Divorce Boom

    June 28, 2010 - Facebook is divorce lawyers' new best friend

    January 19, 2011 - Divorce cases get the Facebook factor

    March 7, 2011 - Survey Shows Facebook an Increasing Factor in Divorce

    January 1, 2012 - Facebook flirting triggers divorces

    Slow news cycle? Nothing else to publish? Blame Facebook for divorce!

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
    1. Re:Facebook and divorce, it writes itself! by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      Sounds like a perfect Reality TV comedy theme to milk. I wonder if Gilbert Gottfried would like to host the show.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:Facebook and divorce, it writes itself! by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Welcome, ladies and gentlemen! How many times can the same story be recycled over the course of two years?

      Before Facebook was created... was there analysis done to see if Telephones, The postal service, Credit cards/ATMs,Cars, Prostitution, Hotels and Mobile phones were factors in divorces?

      I suspect a lot of divorces ended due to cheating; and driving to a cheap Hotel to meet with someone...

      And yes... the car is an enabling technology, but it doesn't cause the behavior that leads to divorces; it's just a channel enabling communication (including destructive communication).

    3. Re:Facebook and divorce, it writes itself! by cavePrisoner · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To be fair, Facebook makes it easier to get caught. All you have to do is stay logged in once by accident. If the cheater gets caught with any of the ones you listed, it can usually be explained with business. Getting caught on Facebook is just straightforward.

      Also, facebook just looks bad sometimes, even when you haven't done anything wrong. I have an ex that likes all my posts. I haven't spoken to her in a year, but if I were married I can imagine that still creating some tension.

    4. Re:Facebook and divorce, it writes itself! by Sir_Sri · · Score: 2

      Mobile phones certainly.

      Enabling can be a strong factor. That random hot girl I met 5 years ago and befriended on facebook... why did I befriend her? If I haven't talked to her in 4.5 years (via facebook or otherwise), why am I still 'friends' with her? (Answer, I only defriend people who are bothersome). But before facebook, would I have given her my phone number? Probably not, and even if I had, she wouldn't have my current one.

      Does a phone directory that has a section for cheating spouses simply facilitate cheating or does it outright encourage it? (And if so, is that necessarily a bad thing? A directory of doughnut shops, cigarette shops or casino's is a double edged sword here).

      If you go to the middle east it's the mobile phone that allows 'hookups'. Not being from the middle east I cannot profess to be an expert in the process, but basically you can find people in your area who are interested in a hookup for something that is probably illegal. The key here is that you didn't know the person in advance. With facebook I'm not sure you make the same argument, but my usage model might be atypical. If I'm splitting up with my current GF for that girl I've known since high school well... that happens. But if I'm randomly befriending hot girls on facebook looking for a hookup, well...that's a bit different. If facebook is helping me cheat, by 'recommending' potential hookups (which sounds more like a dating site than facebook) you're into more grainy territory. If I was getting unsolicited but legitimate suggestions sent to me for potential better partners than the current one I could sort of see a problem.

      As you indirectly convey, it's not facebook that's the problem, or the car, it's how it is being used. But if your car had a button for 'send fake location data to my spouse" it might be a bit harder to say it isn't intentionally contributing to the situation.

      All of this of course assumes (wrongly) that divorce is necessarily bad. If people aren't happy divorce isn't necessarily a bad thing, at least not in this day and age where it's pretty accepted. Facebook, for all of its many, many faults, lets you connect with people, if connecting with someone other than your current partner makes you happier, maybe that's for the best, but I'm sure your partners lawyer will enjoy looking through your logs, just to make sure you're punished for breaking a lifelong contract. After all, marriage is just a contract, and intentionally helping someone breach a contract comes with a messy legal framework. I don't think Facebook does that intentionally, and there are far more guilty sites out there though.

    5. Re:Facebook and divorce, it writes itself! by Chrisq · · Score: 2

      I have an ex that likes all my posts.

      Post that you don't like her liking her posts. See if she likes that. Seriously, it will reveal the motivation - she is either wanting to appear friendly or doing it to potentially cause issues in future relationships.

    6. Re:Facebook and divorce, it writes itself! by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Before Facebook was created... was there analysis done to see if Telephones, The postal service, Credit cards/ATMs,Cars, Prostitution, Hotels and Mobile phones were factors in divorces?

      Do a handful of google searches for $x factor in divorce and what you will see is a bunch of people trying to convince you that each thing is a factor, people trying to get your money. So yes, there was analysis done... to see if fearmongering was profitable. Answer, yes.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Facebook and divorce, it writes itself! by lewko · · Score: 4, Funny

      I would divorce my Wife if I found out she used MySpace.

      --
      Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
    8. Re:Facebook and divorce, it writes itself! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's not facebook, per se. It's the internet. The fact is, people are more likely to cheat if there is plenty of temptation. They always think they can get away with it and that it's worth it and it's easy to be swept away by a stranger. There's excitement. There's something new. And for the biggest part of the process, it's all in the safety of your own home. It's just "my friend online - don't get jealous". Then, eventually, it's the guy or girl you met in person. And fucked. It happend long before facebook. It happened on BBSes. The first time I got laid, I was sixteen and hooked up with a twenty one year old married chick whose husband was away at basic training. We were just friends. Then we met. And were just friends. And then we met a second time a few days later. And had sex. And it was just something we did while he was still away and justified to ourselves. And then she wanted to leave him and be with me. And months later, she left me to be with another dude she met online. And this was in the early to mid 1990s. On a BBS. Where there are only a few hundred people and they're all in local calling distance. This wasn't the only such experience I've had. And I've witnessed even more of this stuff occur since the early 90s -- friends who did the cheating. Friends who were cheated on. Friends who were the guy or girl that the cheater cheated with.

      Today, you have a billion people. Everywhere and anywhere. Not only via a dialup system in your home office, but via the phone in your pocket that you can use 24x7 when nobody even knows you are using it to communicate with people. And we have photos and video and chat.

      As far as I'm concerned, it is only in the most rarest exception that someone cheating with another person online isn't just a matter of time. Given enough exposure, enough temptation, and enough time - it'll happen. Period. And it has nothing to do with "facebook".

    9. Re:Facebook and divorce, it writes itself! by antifoidulus · · Score: 2

      Yup, it's always been my thought that humans are essentially "opportunistically non-monogomous". If you look at it from an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense. If you constantly sleep around you aren't likely to create healthy offspring(as you may wind up dead, with an STD rendering you infertile, or in the case of women with a baby with 'weak' genetics), but if you put all your eggs into one basket, you are screwed if that basket has a hole in it.

      You read stories from people who cheat and for the most part they aren't out there constantly chasing tail or willing to go to bed with the first thing that crosses their path, it's not worth risking the relationship for that. However there are people that drive them so wild that they have to have them, relationship be damned. Of course Facebook gives you a lot more opportunities to be opportunistically non-monogomaus. You don't have to spend time trawling bars(which would arouse the suspicion of your spouse), or even going out and explicitly looking for sex, opportunity comes to you in your browser.

    10. Re:Facebook and divorce, it writes itself! by coinreturn · · Score: 2

      I have an ex that likes all my posts.

      Post that you don't like her liking her posts. See if she likes that. Seriously, it will reveal the motivation - she is either wanting to appear friendly or doing it to potentially cause issues in future relationships.

      I know I'd "Like" that post just for fun.

    11. Re:Facebook and divorce, it writes itself! by cayenne8 · · Score: 2
      Anyway, you spell it.....these are yet other reasons NOT to join a social network like Facebook.

      And if for some reason you feel you must for God's sake use some sanity and don't post stupid shit you'd not like your wife/girlfriend to know?!?!

      At worst..use false identities on the damned things...but just best to avoid them altogether IMHO.

      I've never been on it...and I'm not missing a thing so far...plenty of friends without it.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  2. Cited in, not cited as the cause of. by Headw1nd · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wow, this is some poor reporting. At first I thought the summary was to blame, but no, the articles themselves have it wrong. Facebook is being cited in 33% of all British divorces, but not as the cause. When they say cited, they mean just that: That something from Facebook was brought up in the courtroom. That could be, and in fact seems to frequently be something from well after the couple has separated, brought up as part of custody or property hearings.

    1. Re:Cited in, not cited as the cause of. by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is supposed to be one of those dumb watercooler stories. People who don't get the internet are supposed to roll their eyes at the big, bad internet making things worse. Cheesy morning radio shows read this stories like this.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    2. Re:Cited in, not cited as the cause of. by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It doesn't even say that anything particularly interesting was cited from Facebook. Lawyers often pad these kinds of filings with just-to-be-safe evidence, and Facebook is probably an easy source of evidence for all sorts of mundane things that wouldn't necessarily even be challenged at all. "Bob is, as of our last knowledge, in possession of the couple's former Honda Civic [attach a printed out & dated Facebook photo of Bob washing his car]" and that kind of stuff.

    3. Re:Cited in, not cited as the cause of. by azalin · · Score: 2

      actually 16.5 % would do

    4. Re:Cited in, not cited as the cause of. by fastest+fascist · · Score: 2

      I think it's actually even worse than that. As per the summary, Facebook is said to be involved in 33% of behaviour divorces. As far as I can tell, these are the cases where one party petitions for divorce on the grounds of misbehaviour on the part of the other party. I don't know how big a portion of divorces that accounts for, but surely not all of them. So more accurately, in 33% of a particular subset of divorces, Facebook is brought up in the courtroom

  3. Not suprising... by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Its not that surprising. Human behavior hasn't really changed over the years however the information age has made it harder to hide affairs. 30 years ago an affair 1000 miles away while on a business trip would be incredibly easy to hide. Today? Not so much. We've gone from spouses spending little time in contact to constant 24/7 contact so it is no wonder that their spouse's flaws come to light. No longer is work an 8-9 hour void for 5 days a week with no contact to their spouse. No longer do long trips pose a problem thanks to cell phones.

    The more we are in contact with each other the more evident flaws are.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:Not suprising... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Having an affair is not a flaw. Snoring, forgetting to take out the trash, grabbing the remote too often, those are flaws. Things that you accept or overlook or compromise over. An affair, goes waaay beyond, when it comes to that, then you have nothing. No, you have less than that, you have lost years of your life to a stranger.

    2. Re:Not suprising... by adolf · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Naaah. Just occasionally: I'm only out of town for a week or so at a time once or twice per year, if that.

      And if something happens during that "week or so," then it's whatever -- not cheating. The wife and I have discussed it in general concept many times over our 8 years: She's only potentially offended by an emotional relationship developing that does not involve her. Meanwhile, I'm not interested in a secondary emotional relationship, so that's not an issue for me to contend with.

      (But am I interested in a temporary physical relationship? Sure. FFS, does the Earth have gravity? There's lots of cocks and lots of cunts, and most of them fit together pleasurably.)

      So, such as it is: Sometimes, fucking is just fucking fucking. This does not mean that simple fucking is necessarily fucking cheating, though you and/or your SO may view things differently -- which is OK, too.

      Does that clear up your confusion?

  4. Divorce App for Facebook.... hmm by bgibby9 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Shit, I'd better get into that first!

    --
    http://www.gibby.net.au
  5. Another communications medium by abelb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Claiming that Facebook caused your divorce is like claiming the telephone caused your divorce when you heard your wife using it to cheat on you. People need to take more time to fully understand the communications medium they have chosen. Not that it's particularly easy with a closed, privately held system such as Facebook.

    1. Re:Another communications medium by pntkl · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I blame the whole technology of communication. It is responsible for 99% of marriages and divorces. I suppose gender identity disorder accounts for the remainder.

  6. News of the Day, Jan 2nd, 1812 by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 4, Funny

    Social sites such as bars cited as responsible for 33% of divorces,

    The top 3 reasons cited:
    Inappropriate comments to members of the opposite sex;
    Separated spouses saying nasty comments about each other;
    Friends reporting spouse’s behaviour.

    More news @ 11, or make that 12, the year, 2012, when NOTHING HAS CHANGED!

    -AI

    --
    For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
    1. Re:News of the Day, Jan 2nd, 1812 by poor_boi · · Score: 2

      I'd mod you up, but I've started browsing at +5. Sorry ;-)

  7. I think I now may go get a facebook page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If my chances of divorce are higher having Facebook, count me in.

  8. Re:People still haven't learned... by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Go read the story. You don't even have to have a Facebook account to get mentioned by third parties.
    Next thing you know your ex cites a Facebook posting by someone you dont even know.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  9. Not Facebook of course, but the publicity by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Maybe it's because I've been online for about 20 years now and I've learned my lesson, but I never got into the whole social networking thing. The notion of posting every triviality in my life on the web without regard for the privacy or embarrassment of myself or my friends boggles the mind.

    My theory is that as reality TV has become so mainstream and so many famous-for-being-famous celebs have found wealth regardless of their lack of talent and charisma, lots of regular folk are clamoring for their 15 minutes of fame that could make them the next millionaire Snookie. I created a Facebook page just for people to find me and I purposely don't stay logged in. I was embarrassed to see the rants, self-pitying pleas, flaunting, and exhibitions posted by people I barely knew. I guess like any other new technology, it'll take time for people to learn how to manage it in their lives.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  10. Re:wow, what did people do before facebook? by gmhowell · · Score: 5, Funny

    it must have been much more difficult to dig dirt when people wanted to divorce without saying they wanted out :)

    My ex dug through my slashdot comments.

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  11. Re:Completely ridiculous by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

    I read it as this.

    It enables LAWYERS to file Facebook for causes. Trust me they will anything if they can win some money in a settlement and a facebook logs gives them LOTS of information. It is a lawyers dream

  12. Divorce 'causes'? by loufoque · · Score: 2

    Didn't we get rid of the 'cause' for divorce thing, and now the only cause for divorce is wanting one?

    Saying that it is 'wrong' to sleep with someone else and that it should therefore cost everything the 'cheater' has is such a backwards idea.
    I guess the UK still lives in the past.

    Sexual conduct should have nothing to do with a marriage contract.

  13. Re:Not very accurate... by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

    I think part of the problem is a lot of people don't consider marriage "permanent" anymore so divorce becomes a bit like breaking up.

    That isn't correct. 90% of divorces are filed by women. A very high number of women get custody and maintenance. This leaves no negative incentive for a woman to file for divorce, hence the high divorce rate. If the children had a 50/50 chance of going to either parent and maintenance was something reasonable, you can be assured the divorce rate would drop.

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  14. Kinda... but not really by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There are cases like mine where my FaceBook is never logged off and my wife can read it any time she wants. The reason is, there's nothing to hide. I've classically been "The Safe Guy" on FaceBook and at the office and elsewhere. Women will hang around me and even flirt a bit with me because they know that not only do I enjoy the attention, but that there's just no way that I'm going to be a risk to them. I'm also the guy who will bring them safely home at the end of the night if they drink to much.

    You make the presumption that it's an issue that it's easier for people to get caught. And yet, men acting inappropriately or stupidly probably only accounts for about half of the cases. Some guy adding his ex from high school or someone else that his wife is jealous of (and it works reversing the genders as well) probably accounts for a lot also. People are extremely insecure at times. All my ex-girlfriends which didn't turn out to be nut jobs (and even one or two that did) are on my friends list. I also have the captain of the high school cheer leading team and others which my wife could easily get jealous of if she didn't understand me well enough to know that friends are friends... wife is wife. You do some things with friends, you do some more things with wife :)

    Now, there's another big reason for it. Women or men who got married too quickly, found out that they screwed up... maybe getting married too young, got married for the money, got married just to throw a wedding (watch TLC sometime, Bridezilla, Left at the Alter, etc...) and once the dream wedding was over, there was no point to the marriage. All kinds of reasons people get married when they really shouldn't have and then FaceBook is a great way to come up with "evidence" against their spouse so they can get out of it without getting too burned.

    So, FaceBook is probably just something that magnifies problems for some people. Jealous and insecure people were able to lie to themselves beforehand and pretend like it's just their imagination and now they got some confirmation it wasn't. Guys who act like assholes behind their wive's backs get talked about. People who were looking for a way out to begin with can find things more easily. In short, Facebook is really nothing more than a tool.

    Now, for the real solution to this problem.
    DON'T GET MARRIED. Marriage is a religious commitment between two people before an audience and some god of some type. In most religions, it's expected to be for life. If you and your girl are two people who are the types to not "stick together through thick and thin" then getting married in the first place is a lie. In modern times where a woman is able to put food on her own table, buy her own cloths and if necessary put a roof over her own head, there's absolutely no good reason for marriage other than religious belief. If you have kids together and are worried about the issue of custody if one of the parent die, there are civil unions and contractual agreements for that. You don't have to get legally married to have a wedding party. You don't have to get legally married to get some guy in a funny costume or hat ask you if you love each other. Legal marriage is an institution which says "I'll make a promise to this lady because I love her and I don't want her to ever worry about where her next meal is coming from. I legally take the responsibility of this woman and promise that since she is incapable of taking care of herself if need be, this will take care of that." and to a woman it says "I'm too weak to care for myself and I need some legal protection that makes it so he can't just run off to be with someone else without some form of legal and financial repercussion. So even if he does ditch me for someone who's willing to do things I'm not, he'll owe me for life". Civil union allows all the things like "If the decision comes whether to take me off of life support, I want this person to choose", but so does a living will.

    Just remember, marriage is designed to protect the weaker gender. Oh... marriage is also the core of the entire divorce attorney business.

    1. Re:Kinda... but not really by neyla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Almost agree. Minor nitpick: The religious angle isn't of importance. There's been long-term formalised bonds between husband and wife across a wide spectrum of different religions and cultures, enough so that I'd argue that the concept of "marriage", along with "funeral", "name-giving-ceremony" and "coming-of-age-ceremony" are near-universal in human culture.

      Marriage is a formal announcement of a couples intention to stay together long-term. With this announcement comes certain duties, and certain priviledges. If you're cynical about it, you could say that you should marry if the benefits outweigh the drawbacks - I did, but religion wasn't a relevant part of that question (we're both atheists)

    2. Re:Kinda... but not really by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm an atheist and I really am not sure about my wife. I think she wants to believe, but I don't make it very easy to hehe.

      To me, the marriage itself is irrelevant. Actually, not entirely, I live in a country other than my own and the marriage initially made that possible. But that's not the reason we got married. Marriage was very important to her and her family... who are Christians.

      There are no duties or privileges that are not applicable within a responsible relationship that requires marriage to make so. Also, a formal announcement and a legal binding are two entirely different things. In fact, I'm a strong believer that people should be able to get legally bound in every way that marriage suggests no matter what their sex, religion or even how many there are. I think if four old ladies are living in a house together and they are all that each other has in the world, they should be able to get "legally married" so that from every perspective which the government is concerned, they are as codependent as a married couple. If one decides to leave, they can choose to hire a lawyer or sit before a mediator to decide what that person should take away from the relationship.

      It's so sad and pathetic that we live in a world where marriage and divorce is a concern of the government. What's even more humorous is that the people who are most adamant regarding marriage and the government are the ones who are also most vocal about wanting the government to be smaller and have a lesser impact on their lives.

    3. Re:Kinda... but not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, anthropologists have posted here before. The human race as we now know it never started being in lifelong monogamous relationships until the same time as modern agriculture started. Before that it was serial monogamy ~5 years together, just long enough for kids to fend for themselves, then off to a new relationship. Once there was something to tax, the governing bodies of the world stepped in and encouraged people to stay in relationships and have lots of kids so there would be more people to tax. Tax benefits to marriage in every society... Religions just like to incorporate everything into themselves so they can act like they are in charge.

    4. Re:Kinda... but not really by JosKarith · · Score: 2

      "You do some things with friends, you do some more things with wife :)"
      You obviously don't have the kinds of friends that we do... ;->

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    5. Re:Kinda... but not really by Asic+Eng · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you have kids together and are worried about the issue of custody if one of the parent die, there are civil unions and contractual agreements for that.

      I'm sure you could build a series of contractual agreements which would give you similar protections to marriage, but it would be an administrative nightmare. There is a lot to consider - visitation rights in the hospital for spouse and children, signing stuff for school, inheritance rights etc. In any case - the commitment to raise children together is a far greater one than the one to get married. If you are making it, then you might as well save yourself a lot of hassle and get married, too.

    6. Re:Kinda... but not really by marga · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I find your comment completely misogynist and dumb.

      Even if marriage WAS designed to protect women in the past, it doesn't mean that it cannot get a new significance with new times.

      I agree that a lot of people get married for the wrong reasons. And that it'd be better if they didn't. I feel that you are mistaken in almost everything else you say, though.

      Your statements are suprisingly dumb for a +5 comment... "I'll make a promise to this lady because I love her and I don't want her to ever worry about where her next meal is coming from" ... "I'm too weak to care for myself and I need some legal protection that makes it so he can't just run off to be with someone else without some form of legal and financial repercussion." ...

      Marriage goes both ways. You fail to see that a man can also need the support of a woman. If a man is disabled for any reason (be it physical or psychological) then having a wife will mean having a person by his side to support him no matter what.

      For me, marriage means: "I'm committed to you, I'll stand by your side, in the good times and the bad times, I'll respect you and care for you until death do us apart".

      [I'm a married woman, I earn the same as my husband, I didn't marry him so he wouldn't run off, nor did I marry him so he would support me economically]

      --
      Margarita Manterola.
    7. Re:Kinda... but not really by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even in many countries today a man caught being unfaithful is punished with a fine while a woman being unfaithful is punished with death. This isn't mysogynistic, this is reality.

      That's a really, really disturbing thing to read from someone 'civilized' enough to sit and a keyboard and type.

      Can't it be reality AND mysogynistic? Must you be 'culturally sensitive' to the people stoning the woman to death? Really?

    8. Re:Kinda... but not really by marga · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think most women truly understand that the concept of a woman being able to take care of herself and her children without resorting to prostitution as a relatively recent societal construct.

      I disagree. I think most women do understand it. The fact that it's a new possibility doesn't mean that we should still live like it isn't possible.

      It has only been in the past 75 years (generously) that women could arguably do fine without a man.

      [citation needed].

      Just of the top of my head I can think of books like "Little Women" or "Jane Eyre" that happen about 150 years ago, where women are already able to work and support themselves, even if society is still not accepting it as "normal".

      130 years ago, women were already accepted as university graduate students in the US.

      100 years ago, Marie Curie earned her SECOND Nobel prize (1903 and 1911).

      Yes, it's still fairly recent, but it's NOT 75 years. At least for some countries, I'd say women have been able to support themselves for 150 to 200 years. There are of course places where women still do not have this possibility.

      It is actually only a fairly recent concept that marriage occurred with common folk

      [citation needed], again. You describe how marriage was handled among nobility in Europe. That DOESN'T mean that marriage was handled the same way everywhere, for the "common folk", as you say. Maybe you are referring only to big weddings, and you are most probably forgetting what is called "Common law Marriage".

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law_marriage

      Note that sexual monogomy was originally only a constraint imposed on women, and that was to ensure the sire of any offspring the woman produces. Men had no such constraints.

      Yet another [citation needed]. "Originally" where? when? under which laws?

      Even in many countries today a man caught being unfaithful is punished with a fine while a woman being unfaithful is punished with death. This isn't mysogynistic, this is reality.

      As already stated in another comment, reality can be misogynistic, and in many places in the world it is. This doesn't mean that you should accept it as valid, and that you shouldn't take a stand against it.

      --
      Margarita Manterola.
    9. Re:Kinda... but not really by maple_shaft · · Score: 2

      I apologize if my post came off as me being apologetic to people and cultures that abuse women. That was not my intent. I was merely trying to point out that the parents claims of the grandparents mysogyny were unfounded. My impression from LostMyBeaver is that he was just stating the way marriages and life for a woman and man really was barely a hundred years ago. My intent was to point out just how brief womens liberation has really been compared to the thousands of years of known human civilization.

    10. Re:Kinda... but not really by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2

      I am not ware of any coming of age ceremony in modern day cultures.

      You've never heard of a Bar Mitzvah? I'm not even Jewish, but that's just one that should come to mind for even a halfway educated person.

    11. Re:Kinda... but not really by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Just of the top of my head I can think of books like "Little Women" or "Jane Eyre" that happen about 150 years ago, where women are already able to work and support themselves, even if society is still not accepting it as "normal".

      It's worth noting that most of these books were written by and about people at the top end of society. Being in trade was also unacceptable for men of this social rank. Having a profession was just about acceptable, but it was a sign of being a younger son (i.e. poor, relatively speaking). Among the rest of the population, women needed to work - even if it only meant helping their husband or father in his job - in between running the house, caring for children, and so on. Lots of servants were women, as were pretty much all teachers (that were not members of the clergy).

      It was only the upper classes, where this was not true. For a long time, a big part of being a gentleman meant deriving your income through rents on land. If a man needed to work for a living, then he was not a member of this class. If a woman needed to work for a living then it meant that her father was not, or that he'd either mismanaged his holdings to the extent that he'd failed to care for her - neither was a good thing. Worse, it might mean that she'd married someone who wasn't a gentleman, and was so far from the station that not even his income from working in a profession was enough...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    12. Re:Kinda... but not really by neyla · · Score: 2

      There's plenty of duties and privileges that you get automatically with marriage, and that are difficult or impossible to get without:

      The right for your wife/husband to live with you, even if she's from a country from which immigration would normally be restricted. The right to inherit from the one who dies first. The right to be recognized as next-of-kin. Shared parental rights for any children born by default. (the "pater est" rule) Adjustments of tax-brackets if your partner earns substantially less than you. The duty to support eachother. Simplification of owning joint property. Waving of certain legal fees. The right to refuse to witness against your spouse in a court of law. In some jurisdictions part of the shortest-livings pension-benefits are transfered to the longest-living.

      The details vary by jurisdiction, but generally speaking marriage is a "package deal" that considers many of the topics relevant to a long-lasting partnership. Some fraction of it can be gotten in other ways (i.e. by contracts), and other parts cannot.

  15. Biased by atari2600a · · Score: 2

    Online petition means you don't get the >45 age-range, & something tells me ye olde people divorce too.

  16. Guns don't. Facebook doesn't. by louzer · · Score: 2

    Facebook doesn't cause divorces. People cause divorces. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Both guns and Facebook are inanimate tools, that are initiated by volition. These tools just make it easy to shoot ourselves in the feet and rightfully so. We must exercise caution when using any tool. Personal responsibility lies with us until the tools malfunction.

    --
    Heroes die once, cowards live longer.
    1. Re:Guns don't. Facebook doesn't. by Sqr(twg) · · Score: 2

      To continue the analogy: It really doesn't matter how careful you are. Having a gun, or a facebook account, greatly increases the risk that others will shoot you (unintentionally or otherwise).

      They seem like fun toys, but smart people stay away from them.

  17. People are so fucking stupid by daem0n1x · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Before, the guys would go to the pub, or hunt, or fish, or play soccer, whatever, with their friends, complaint about their wives to each other, harmlessly flirt with a girl or two. Girls would go shopping or have a drink, or go to the gym, whatever, with their friend girls, complaint about their husbands, check out some good looking dudes, no problem.

    Everybody needs to blow some steam once in a while. It's really, really hard to keep a marriage. It takes lots of patience and you need to go out and decompress or else looking at your spouse's face every fucking day will become unbearable. People used to talk to friends and have a few drinks, words would be forgotten overnight. Now, every little fucking detail of what you do or say gets recorded forever. This is not the way normal life is meant to be.

    I don't know who is more stupid. People having behaviours online that can put them in trouble, knowing they'll be publicly available forever, or their spouses, spying on them and them overreacting to things that would be perfectly normal if they hadn't happened online.

    Divorces are painful and destructive. You basically have to turn all your life inside out. You destroy your children's world. Is it worth it because of pesky things like Facebook blabbering? If you don't have the stomach to put up with a lot of stuff you should never have gotten married and had kids in the first place.