Hacker News Reader

Comment by ajju | Hacker News Reader

I understand his critique of the stats, but I wonder if Mr. Bruenig disagrees with the author’s points of view.

In particular I wonder what he thinks would be best for his own kids. He seems to be, per wikipedia, married to a high-school friend (sweetheart?) for almost a decade with two kids.

While I do not think his personal actions have any bearing on the accuracy of his statistical critiques of the author, it does seem like his revealed preferences support the author’s points of view. I would be shocked if he believes the health of his marriage has no bearing on the overall wellbeing of his kids.

Regardless, I wish him and his wife a long and happy marriage, because I believe that would be the best outcome for both of them and their kids.

View on HN

You’ve got the causality backwards.

The healthy home environment causes the lack of divorce, not the other way around.

Causality, in all my experience of human relationships in real life, in books, even in movies, is rarely single factor, and often goes in both directions :)

A marriage certificate is not a 100% vaccine against what imho are the shared root causes of divorce and unhealthy home environments - like mutually incompatible or self-centered human beings (absence of love as a noun), lack of commitment (absence of love as a verb).

With or without marriage - partners with a shared world view do well if (a) both partners want happiness for the other as much as they want it for themselves and (b) both openly expect to be a good partners to each other for life, even as both partners inevitably change, grow, fall short, succeed, fail etc.

We don’t have to call (a) “love” and (b) “marriage”, but these remain the most common shared names for these concepts in many societies.*

IMHO though, since we are very much imperfect animals and social animals, society having a shared expectation that couples strive for (a) and (b) matters - and I would be willing to consider all the ways in which this can be done.

* - We also face the separate and important problem that we have harmful definitions of these words in some sub-sections of human society -

Like Matt, I am a supporter of the state providing a solid safety net on basic needs (food, health care, self-improvement, safety) to ALL its and pay for it by taxing the well-off citizens more than the average although unlike him, I would not describe myself as a socialist.

Marriage is many things, but amongst them, it is also a safety net for the children of that marriage. At its best, it brings the resources of two extended families and friend networks together to support the couple and the children. I wonder if Matt would agree with the view that Marriage is the most “atomic” form of socialism (which he seems to support)

> Marriage is many things, but amongst them, it is also a safety net for the children of that marriage. At its best, it brings the resources of two extended families and friend networks together to support the couple and the children

At its best, it is exactly the same in that regard as coparenting without marriage is at its best. Having had both married and unmarried parents in committed (also, in other cases, failed—both married and unmarried) relationships in my extended friends and family network, the degree of support I’ve seen them get doesn’t seem to be very different.

Where we probably agree:

I would agree that it is the commitment that matters.

Where we may agree:

Social norms really do impact human behavior. Marriage is a social norm supporting long term commitment. In communities where it has been replaced with another social norm supporting commitment (eg my well-off friends in Europe), it has become less relevant.

I also posit that adults in committed coparenting relationships constitute a small minority of unmarried adults in America (vs. France for example where a majority of my friends with kids match your description).

Where we probably disagree:

In my observations of close friends in loving relationships with children, previously in loving marriages, are now divorced and in respectful and functional coparenting but not cohabitating relationships.

For a considerable amount of time, they are functionally single parents. In most cases parents and siblings of one ex-spouse are unlikely to want to support the other ex-spouse with in-person child support.

The bright exception to this rule seems to be divorced co-parents who live in close proximity or in one instance in the same duplex and are good friends.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com