This generation of kids...

[jamespowers]

Afaic, as long as such a large number of people continue to believe that things are owed to them, nothing will change. Promiscuity seems to go hand in hand with entitlement.

:amen: to both of those.

 

[John in Covina]

Promiscuity seems to go hand in hand with entitlement.

Opinion-
Many perceive there is an underlying truth in that statement. But it is not the only drive behind the current state of affairs. Women have been told that raising a family does not take a (good) husband. And yes there are women that raise a child or families with out a husband and do very well, it is not the optimal situation. Doing that is like running a marathon with a forty pound pack on your back.

Men have been taught a lot of stuff that makes them confused about how to be a man, and how to be a husband. So they decide to stay boys.

We still have a lot of people that don't accept either premise and quietly go on being a family and raising their kids. Some figure it out and move on to be that good family. The problem is that many don't see that the premise of not needing a man or not being a man as they were taught is not the viable way and cling to failed ideas. Many trade having fun or some type of (usually instant) gratification for having happiness. They don't move beyond that in a way wind up trapped in a lifestyle that in the end often creates anger, dissatisfaction and despair. Charlie Sheen are you listening?

 

[scottyrocks]

Yes, John, its all related. People, men in this case, who stay in the family framework, are generally the types, as Lizzie said, to keep noses to the grindstone.

In any case, the trick to life, afaic, is to find that combination of ingredients that keeps everyone within the family unit relatively happy. The fact that the divorce rate in the U.S. is over 65%, with so many other miserable married couple who do not get divirced, is testament to the fact that so few people are able to do this.

 

[jamespowers]

Yes, John, its all related. People, men in this case, who stay in the family framework, are generally the types, as Lizzie said, to keep noses to the grindstone.

In any case, the trick to life, afaic, is to find that combination of ingredients that keeps everyone within the family unit relatively happy. The fact that the divorce rate in the U.S. is over 65%, with so many other miserable married couple who do not get divirced, is testament to the fact that so few people are able to do this.

The divorce rate is not nearly that in the US. The data is somewhat subject to age distribution and first, second and third marriage distribution. Depending on where you get your information, the divorce rate for first marriages is between 41% and 50%. Second marriages between 60 and 67%. Third marriages around 73%.
Overall the rate is between 40 and 50%.
Age plays an important part in the sense that if you wait until you are 35-39 years old the divorce rate for that age group is just 5 to 6.5%. The highest divorce rate is among the 20 to 29 year olds. Big surprise.
This kind of says that if you fail the first time then something is not changing for the next couple of tries either. :eusa_doh: It also says that if you get married early your chances of failure are much higher.

 

[John in Covina]

The figures differ depending on where and how you look. The divorce rate also depends on the segment you look at. For 1st timers most have the figure at about 50%. The percentage climbs with those that have 2nd and 3rd times married.

 

[Tiller]

I wouldn't say "conservative," because of the political shadings that word carries, but I would say -- and hope -- that "self-discipline" is likely to make a comeback. Lack of that trait, more than anything, is the root of much of what's wrong with modern culture. It's tough to get in trouble when you've got your nose to the grindstone.

I used to term conservative in the general "to preserve" sense, not in the political sense of the word. I was originally going to say traditionalist viewpoint, but I thought that was even more political of a term.

I was trying to use the word conservative in the Edmund Burke sense, without bringing up his Reflections on the Revolution in France. This idea that family is a natural and positive aspect of society, and that it and other traditional customs have an important role to play in society. I think you are seeing it in parts, with the return of this idea of the importance of your local town/neighborhood. The return of farmer markets, craft shows, church functions, and local pub, playing a larger role in peoples lives then they have in the past few decades.

I think with the rise of websites like "The Art of Manliness" and other such places, you are beginning to see the return of this idea that their is something to "being a man". The values that are being explored are basically this general idea that you have a duty to those around you, such as taking care of your offspring, or trying to mentor a neighborhood kid, or simply teaching a nephew how to properly throw a football, or start a fire. If you watch and listen to our pop culture, manhood is usually measured by how much sex you have. I think there is a growing (although small) movement that wants a measure of a man to be something of more value then that, and this traditional idea that you have a duty to help those around you when you can seems to be coming back. Although standing in it's way right now is this "Who do you think you are..." mentality that if anyone attempts to help you out, (or makes you take responsibility for your actions) you are somehow losing your individuality.

As scotty said

Promiscuity seems to go hand in hand with entitlement.

We have a very entitlement driven culture today, but I do think it weaning and on the way out. If for no other reason that uncertainty is on the rise, and there are many people today who wonder if their children will have a better life then they had, as every parent hopes. When that happens people either give up entirely, or they look towards the more permanent things in life. Those things that have stood the test of time. Family, community, an overall sense of helping thy neighbor for example. The Waltons, the Cosby Show, and over family oriented shows appealed to people who didn't understand (or didn't approve of) the counter culture and all it's excess. They are the same people who in their childhood admired Marshal Dillon, Festus, and Miss Kitty. It appealed to people who feared that their could be a third world war, and that the culture at large didn't reflect the things that to them were important. I believe you are going to see the return of such programing in the pop culture again, and shows like Justified (Although without a doubt more realistic and less romanticized, and not family friendly. You still see a general "stand" being taken even if it isn't completely traditional. Very much in the vein of the earlier Gunsmoke radio serials.) are a precursor to that.

Maybe I am naive, but I do honestly believe that people are going to want more then Paris Hilton, Charlie Sheen and Lady Gaga, when times become harder, and the entitlements you receive because you exist become less uncertain.

 

[LizzieMaine]

My objection to the term "conservative" is basically that most people today have no idea who Edmund Burke was -- and that therefore the word carries a certain political odor that I don't think helps the very valid arugments being made.

There's an assumption today -- promulgated especially since the 1960s, and exhaustively since the 1980s -- that you have to be politically-conservative to carry traditional views about the work ethic, the importance of self-discipline, and the value of personal modesty. I'm living proof that this is not the case -- and I think it's important that the distinction is made, because I think that image will only put off young people who have no use for the political aspects but might very well understand the importance of the general values under discussion. Indeed, I think the politicization of values has been perhaps *the* most destructive phenomenon to wrack American culture in the last fifty years, and unless we get away from it, we'll never see any real improvement.

I'm a product of, basically, pre-boomer working class culture, and very proud of it. Traditional views on work and self-discipline were necessary for survival in that culture -- and I think they're just as necessary today. In modern culture's haste to abandon anything that smacks of "working class", we've thrown out the bathwater without even bothering to think of the baby.

 

[sheeplady]

In the US, the divorce rates are difficult to calculate. All we tend to have information on is marriage rates, divorce rates, and the number of the marriage (first, second, third), with information on how long the marriage has lasted. We don't have much data that tracks individual marriages.

The New York Times had an interesting article on divorce a while back:

"Women without undergraduate degrees have remained at about the same rate, their risk of divorce or separation within the first 10 years of marriage hovering at around 35 percent. But for college graduates, the divorce rate in the first 10 years of marriage has plummeted to just over 16 percent of those married between 1990 and 1994 from 27 percent of those married between 1975 and 1979.

About 60 percent of all marriages that eventually end in divorce do so within the first 10 years, researchers say. If that continues to hold true, the divorce rate for college graduates who married between 1990 and 1994 would end up at only about 25 percent, compared to well over 50 percent for those without a four-year college degree."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/health/19divo.html?pagewanted=print&position=

So, statistically speaking, IF this trend continues to the Millenials, less of them will get divorced than the Boomers, however, the divergence is worrisome. The good news is that a 4-year degree seems to have a protective impact on a marriage trajectory, enough to prevent a quarter of those marriages from ending in divorce.

 

[rue]

Are you saying that divorce is less likely if you graduate from college?

 

[JimWagner]

One of the biggest factors I've seen over the years contributing to a lot of the discussed behavior has to do with real or perceived "safety nets". If you were raised during times where you'd starve if you didn't work and you knew it was up to you then you tended towards keeping your nose to the grindstone. Same in school. If you knew with a certainty that you'd "be left behind" and success or failure was up to you then you tended to knuckle down and study.

But society here has swung in the direction of the "nanny state" and Nanny will look out for you if you can't be bothered to. Can't or won't do the school work? No problems - you won't be left behind. Won't work? No problems - you can keep living in your bedroom at Mom and Dad's house. The nanny state will even give you an allowance.

Don't feel like doing what the boss says? Just get classified into a "protected" category and file a grievance. Nothing is your fault and you won't be held accountable for the most part.

As long as you feel good about yourself and have high self esteem then it's all good, right? For a while just trying was enough. Whether you succeeded or not. Now you don't even have to try.

The only thing that will reverse all that is a slap in the face from reality that disconnects enough people from their iPods, cell phones, televisions, blogs, video games, dance clubs and their nanny so that they have to deal with basic survival again.

 

[sheeplady]

Essentially, for those that are married from 1990-1994, it appears that for couples where the female is college-educated, the divorce rate will be half of what it is for couples where the female is not college educated.

Not that college necessarily prevents divorce, but if I am interperting this person correctly, a college education does seem to be the most important emerging factor that protects against it. (I shouldn't have used the term prevent. It is kind of like how a healthy diet can protect against cancer, but won't necessarily prevent it).

I imagine that this factor emerged from this person's analysis as being the single most important correlating factor, but there are probably other factors that are important too. There could be other factors that correlate with a college degree too. The good news is that overall the divorce rate is down. But researchers need to figure out why they are seeing these differences based upon education level. This divergence wasn't seen in the marriages studied that started in the 70s.

(I think it is important to always remember that these are general statistics and not personal figures. I know plenty of people who are happily married where neither person has a college education and/or are on their second or third marriage). Preventing divorce isn't always the right answer for me, sometimes I think divorce is the best choice for a couple.

 

[John in Covina]

Opinion
I think that there are some factors that make increases the likely hood of getting a divorce.

One is when couples can't put their marriage before self. In some views marriage is described as the "two become one" and it is the oneness of the marriage as opposed to "what do I get out of this arrangement" view that has a bearing on the cohesiveness of the relationship.

Part of that is when people come together with a pre-nuptual agreement which usually spells out this is mine, that's yours and these are ours. The focus is on separation instead of togetherness oneness. I have heard it described as laying the ground work for divorce or as the road map for divorce.

Honor as in love and honor. Many come into getting married based only on love. Love is wonderful but what happens the day you're really angry at your spouse and don't love them? This is where the honor keeps the thing from flying apart.

That ought to get some interesting responses.

 

[jamespowers]

One of the biggest factors I've seen over the years contributing to a lot of the discussed behavior has to do with real or perceived "safety nets". If you were raised during times where you'd starve if you didn't work and you knew it was up to you then you tended towards keeping your nose to the grindstone. Same in school. If you knew with a certainty that you'd "be left behind" and success or failure was up to you then you tended to knuckle down and study.

But society here has swung in the direction of the "nanny state" and Nanny will look out for you if you can't be bothered to. Can't or won't do the school work? No problems - you won't be left behind. Won't work? No problems - you can keep living in your bedroom at Mom and Dad's house. The nanny state will even give you an allowance.

Don't feel like doing what the boss says? Just get classified into a "protected" category and file a grievance. Nothing is your fault and you won't be held accountable for the most part.

As long as you feel good about yourself and have high self esteem then it's all good, right? For a while just trying was enough. Whether you succeeded or not. Now you don't even have to try.

The only thing that will reverse all that is a slap in the face from reality that disconnects enough people from their iPods, cell phones, televisions, blogs, video games, dance clubs and their nanny so that they have to deal with basic survival again.

:amen:

 

[Tiller]

I'm a product of, basically, 1940s working class culture, and very proud of it. Traditional views on work and self-discipline were necessary for survival in that culture -- and I think they're just as necessary today. In modern culture's haste to abandon anything that smacks of "working class", we've thrown out the bathwater without even bothering to think of the baby.

I'm the product of late 80's early 90's working class, although my Grandfather on my mother side was a successful man. He was a self made man and very traditional. My Grandfather was born in 1920, his father died when he was 12 in 1932, and his Grandfather did a lot to raise him threw his formative years. Now my Great Great Grandfather was born in the 1860's and died sometime in the 50's, and passed on many of his sensibilities to to my Grandfather.

My Grandfather has had a huge influence on my life. He was a man who remembered what it was like to put his hand into his pocket and feel nothing but his thigh, he knew what it meant to worry about money and having to rely on your friends and family. Throughout his life he attempted to keep the values that his Grandfather taught him into practice, and in the end it made him a vary well liked man, because people knew they could go to him for help and he wouldn't make them feel like they were weak for asking for help. He also made it known that all of his children would be working for their lives, and not living on him. Not because he didn't love his children, but because he did love them, he understood the value of work and community.

Now I am a Republican and a conservative in the political sense largely because of him, but that is a trivial matter to my larger point. In you Lizzie and many others on this board I see the same values that he expressed. They are in the Edmund Burke sense of the term conservative, this idea that their are values and institutions in society that are almost permanent and are positive. The problem is with using any term of course is that it can be taken to mean something else. I'm not saying what we need is more people voting for political parties on the right of course. I just think we are headed for a time where the culture at large is going to put more value in the permanent things.

I understand your concern, I'm just not sure how to describe it. I wouldn't call it a more "closed" society, compared to the "open" one we have now. Some see self reliance as meaning you refuse to accept help or help others, which isn't what I'm talking about either. Same thing with such terms as rugged individualism. Traditionalist is also a politically charged term now. Perhaps preservationist, could be used?

Indeed, I think the politicization of values has been perhaps *the* most destructive phenomenon to wrack American culture in the last fifty years, and unless we get away from it, we'll never see any real improvement.

The culture wars are very much a product that the Boomers created. One of the reasons it became so political was the fact that many leaders of the counter culture joined the Democratic Party, well those who opposed them joined the Republican. That said though I think it's outdated. Their are many people on each side of the aisle now who see the importance of local community, family, and a strong work ethic.

Indeed the entitlements I'm talking about aren't the economic ones (although surely they could be included to an extent). Here is the kind of example I am talking about. Today it is almost expected that you will know a man who will not take any responsibility for his actions. He may have a child, but the only connection he has with said child is that a certain amount of his pay is subtracted from his pay check every week. Know in the past the cultural standing was that that was shameful behavior, and that a man should be a part of the child's life, unless he is somehow a threat to the child. Today it is seen as simply a "product of the age", and how dare anybody judge him! We are not standing in his shoes! No one is expected to have any duties, because the very idea that you have an obligation on principle means that your individuality is being attacked. Which I personally believe is hogwash.

I see the fact that many young men today are feeling that this "right" that we have to do as we please no matter the consequences is wanting is a positive for the culture at large. In many ways the return of shame would make a big difference in the way many people perceive the world.

Part of that is when people come together with a pre-nuptual agreement which usually spells out this is mine, that's yours and these are ours. The focus is on separation instead of togetherness oneness. I have heard it described as laying the ground work for divorce or as the road map for divorce.

The only reason anyone should get a pre-nup in my opinion is if you are very wealthy, because quite honestly people can become very strange when money is involved.

 

[John in Covina]

One thing that seems to have changed over the last 90 years is the concept that charity was something one did on their own or as a family as a a good thing to do but it was a personal decision and a gift of help.

Now the recipients have moved from being grateful for the help as a gift to expecting it and then demanding it.

What was once a personal decision and a gift is now no longer a choice but institutionalized, coerced under the threat of lawsuits and violence.

 

[Tiller]

One thing that seems to have changed over the last 90 years is the concept that charity was something one did on their own or as a family as a a good thing to do but it was a personal decision and a gift of help.

Now the recipients have moved from being grateful for the help as a gift to expecting it and then demanding it.

What was once a personal decision and a gift is now no longer a choice but institutionalized, coerced under the threat of lawsuits and violence.

Going back to my Grandfather, a lot of people that he helped tried returning the favor in whatever way they could. Some cooked him cookies and cakes, overs quilted blankets for him, some would clip his hedges when he couldn't any longer. It wasn't a tidal for tattle thing, it was a "He helped me so I should try to do something in return" idea.

It's just the difference between feeling entitled or not. When you see that someone is doing you a favor, for no other reason that they want to help, you react in a different way towards them. Even if you choose not to accept their help the very notion that they would if you asked makes you see people differently. One thing my Grandfather never forgot was when his father died, the local bank whipped clean the mortgage on their house and gave the home to my Great Grandmother. That's something that would never happen today.

I think people often never think about "the forgotten man". Who is the forgotten man? He is the one who pays the bills, and it makes a big difference when you know who that person is, and also realize that he didn't have to do it. Of course now it's expected of someone by using coercion of some kind.

 

[LizzieMaine]

There's a lot I could say about the political aspects, but I have the self-discipline not to.

 

[rue]

I'm leaving the divorce topic alone as well.

 

[Feraud]

There's a lot I could say about the political aspects, but I have the self-discipline not to.

Touche!

 

[Tiller]

Touche!

Indeed, I think some of us (myself including ) have rambled on long enough. I think we are suppose to be talking about the damn kids these days and their backward hats and ill fitting trousers anyways aren't we? Damn kids with their horrible music, and sleeping in *grumble grumble* ;-)