NEWS

So What Happens After Divorce?

February 12, 2009
Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta

Divorce statistics are not pretty reading, behind those statistics is a landscape of utter emotional devastation. Divorce is rising everywhere in the world, whether it be in China, Indonesia, Bhutan, you name it. Lets just concentrate here in the UK. Seems like the number of divorces is falling.

Each of the reported statistics have a challenge and needs further analysis

In 2007 the provisional divorce rate in England and Wales fell to 11.9 divorcing people per 1,000 married population compared with the 2006 figure of 12.2. The divorce rate is at its lowest level since 1981.For the fifth consecutive year, both men and women in their late twenties had the highest divorce rates of all five-year age groups. In 2007 there were 26.6 divorces per 1,000 married men aged 25-29 and 26.9 divorces per 1,000 married women aged 25-29.Since 1997 the average age at divorce in England and Wales has risen from 40.2 to 43.7 years for men and from 37.7 to 41.2 years for women, partly reflecting the rise in age at marriage.One in five men and women divorcing in 2007 had a previous marriage ending in divorce. This proportion has doubled in 27 years: in 1980 one in ten men and women divorcing had a previous marriage ending in divorce. Sixty-nine per cent of divorces were to couples where the marriage was the first for both parties.

The graph shows a bit of leveling out rather than increasing which, I suppose, some good news. We still have pretty young people divorcing, but seems like people don't learn, 1 in 5 already had been divorced once before and now they are divorcing again. Only 69% of marriages were for the first time for both parties. The average length of a marriage before divorcing has been 11 years. This is a bit confusing to me, does it really take that long before the marriage fails? Also, more than half divorces had a child less than 16 years of age.

While researching for this article, I came across the strangest of behaviours. For example, after divorce, one man wanted his kidney back which he had gifted to his wife. Or how about the Nigerian man who was forced to divorce his 82 wives. But that’s nothing when you consider the cost of each divorce in the UK. One estimate is that it costs up to £13,000 per divorce in the UK. And with the credit crunch, the situation has turned really bad. It has apparently increased by a gobsmacking 150% last summer. I quote:

Relationship experts say that they are not surprised with the Summer figures, blaming Summer vacation’s for a high percent of divorce, factors such as spending money they don’t really have, finally spending more than a week in their spouse’s company when they are probably more used to 3 hours maximum, bickering children and the time to reflect sitting on the beach wondering is this really the person you want to spend the rest of your life with.

But by and large, divorce is horrible for the woman, even these days after loads of improvement in the legal system. See the table below for a comparison of legal systems in the matter of divorce from the Economist.

According to recent research, and I quote:

Divorce makes men - and particularly fathers - significantly richer. When a father separates from the mother of his children, according to new research, his available income increases by around one third. Women, in contrast, suffer severe financial penalties. Regardless of whether she has children, the average woman's income falls by more than a fifth and remains low for many years.

This means that society has to carry the load for much longer and women keep on suffering for a very long time. But one crucial aspect, the differences arise for fathers and mothers, not males and females. Its the impact of managing children which impacts the women and as usual, the women usually get custody of the children.

All in all, divorce is frankly not good, not for the man, not for the woman, not for the children, not for the society but even within this, the woman usually gets hold of the short end of the stick. The tax system does not help either, and this is something that I find seriously stupid on parts of the succeeding UK governments. Why on earth do you not want to support marriage? when the downside is much worse for the economy and society? Study after study says that marriage, children, health, family, tax takes, you name it are better for married couples compared to individuals or even cohabiting couples. Not only it does not support, but it actively discourages marriage. I quote:

Experts say that couples where one partner works and the other stays at home are the worst affected, paying a far higher proportion of their incomes to the taxman than in almost any other civilised country. Britain is almost alone in failing to reward couples that stay together, according to the first international study of its kind. A one-earner couple on average earnings of £30,800 a year pays 40% more tax in Britain than in comparable members of the OECD group of developed nations. And, compared to European Union states, the average family is paying 25% more tax.

Bit silly, no? but then, lets not hope for economic literacy from this government of idiots. But that's besides the point. No simple answers, but if I did have to draw a lesson, I would say to women, do not marry till you are absolutely sure and be financially independent under all circumstances. 

Technorati Tags: ,,

Dr. Bhaskar Dasgupta works in the city of London in various capacities in the financial sector. He has worked and travelled widely around the world. The articles in here relate to his current studies and are strictly his opinion and do not reflect the position of his past or current employer(s). If you do want to blame somebody, then blame my sister and editor, she is responsible for everything, the ideas, the writing, the quotes, the drive, the israeli-palestinian crisis, global warming, the ozone layer depletion and the argentinian debt crisis.
eXTReMe Tracker
Keep reading for comments on this article and add some feedback of your own!

Comments! Feedback! Speak and be heard!

Comment on this article or leave feedback for the author

#1
Ayan Roy
February 12, 2009
07:39 AM

Interesting statistics and facts. It proves that money and economics have a such massive role in marriage and are major factors deciding the dynamics of human relationships, and so it has been since time immemorial!

"I would say to women, do not marry till you are absolutely sure and be financially independent under all circumstances.

Quite right! I agree with you on this conclusion.

Adding to your conclusion and digressing from the core topic slightly, I personally feel that marrying slightly late (but not too late if you want children) is better for both men and women.
In my view, there are so many positives of marrying late. You become more mature and practical; you have seen a lot of the world;
you have greater career stability and financial security; you have had more time to enjoy your single status; you have had a lot of time to think about your expectations from your partner and have a clearer view; you have had time to learn and introspect from past relationships (if any); you have much better self-knowledge, which is very important in my opinion. These are recipes for more harmonious, stable relationships.

#2
Sumanth
February 12, 2009
09:23 AM

Men on a whole will gain in any situation because, men in general take more responsibilities in the world than women (except giving birth to child).

I know, feminists and anti-male agencies can not digest this, but that is what is truth.

Today, Women do not recognize that the responsibility of "protection and providing" is a huge one for husbands. They generally take it for granted. Even working women expect their husbands to "protect and provide" and keep all their earnings to themselves.

The moment a man gets freed from this huge responsibility, he does well in career and finances.

Women use husband as a Free ATM Machine.

Once that leech is out, the man naturally gets richer.

The other reason is, women are poor managers of money and they are chronic spenders. So, it wont take much time for them to blow up all the money they get in alimony.

So far as spending on children are concerned, women can always ask for shared parenting. I know most will not do it due to the huge insecurity that they have got.

In India, Men are now fighting for shared parenting and women just do not want to show the child to husband (even when he changed the diapers).

#3
Sumanth
February 12, 2009
09:38 AM

"In 2007, the provisional divorce rate in England and Wales fell to 11.9 divorcing people per 1,000 married population."

This kind of statistical representation is confusing for many and one has to be careful given the tendency of anti-male agencies to lie and distort them.

If about 12 people got divorced per 1000 married in one year, then

1) In 10 years, it has to be 120 people per 1000 married people.

2) In 50 years, it is about 600 people per 1000 all married people.

(Life expectancy - married duration = say 50years)

--------------
So, that average chance of a person in England to get divorced in lifetime is 60%. Does that mean 40% people of England never get divorced?
--------------


3) As, there are some people, who get divorced multiple times, the percentage of never divorced people can be more than 40%.

Is that data available?


#4
Aditi N
February 12, 2009
09:50 AM

Comment #2 actually makes an excellent point. I think the reasons cited in this comment provides even further support for the conclusion of BD's article. If the gross generalizations ("women are leeches etc") are ignored then it logically suggests that instead of staying with a man just because he will "protect and provide", women should seriously consider becoming financially independent.

And this does not just mean having a degree but pursuing some form of an employment, at least some time in their early (single) lives. This in my opinion gives them the inner confidence of knowing that if need be they could do it alone. Frankly those men who believe that women are leeches and don't want to be treated like ATMs should have the confidence to marry a girl who can financially contribute the household if she wants to. Maybe this will change the popular sentiment of "Oh I don't want a career woman...just a homely bride who takes care of my parents" that a lot of Indian men carry around when looking for a potential wife.

A marriage ideally should not be based out of financial necessity...that would a be even worse than a divorce. Children can tell if their parents are just co-habbiting without wanting to. People who stay in an unhappy marriage think they are doing their children a favor but they may actually be damaging their kids. Constant fights and stress in the household affects children too, not just a divorce. Unfortunately the statistics is available only for the effects of broken homes. Maybe someone will consider doing a study that will evaluate children and adults whose parents just decided to stick it out in spite of knowing that the marriage was not working.

Some women could stay in an abusive marriage too just because the husband "protects and provides". That would be terribly unfortunate for both the woman and her children who have to witness this abuse.

I would like to believe that the social stigma associated with divorce is slowly dwindling. But maybe its because I haven't lived in India in a very long time. But I do think that in this case the change in mindset will have to come before the system itself changes to accommodate divorcees.

#5
bharati
URL
February 12, 2009
10:36 AM

MEn stay in Abusive marriage because unfortunaltey they know that there is no support either from society or from law to them. 93 % of the men are forced to not meet their child. 94% of men are forced to support a person who does not love them. frankly women do not face that problem .
The only reason for women to want to have continue of marriage is becuase they love the abuse that they can heap on the husband using the entire system

#6
kerty
February 12, 2009
10:51 AM

"the change in mindset will have to come before the system itself changes to accommodate divorcees"

The arguments raised by the post of BD and Sumnath will be lost on feminists who view divorce on demand, independence from male and marriage, liberation from family and motherhood, pursuit of financial independence and career as ultimate empowerment of women.

Emphasis on women's career lead to two-income families. Cost of living eventually adjusts to two-incomes per families. One-income families eventually become economically non-viable pushing them bellow poverty line. As divorce pushes women into single-income families, it creates new poverty class out of them. Feminists tried to correct that by championing alimony and child support, and government welfare programs aimed at single parents. But as the recession hits the economy hard, the people who is going to feel the most pinch is this group - single-parent families. So the financial independence promised by feminism has proven to be a mirage. Even independence from males has proven to be a mirage as their welfare becomes dependent on timely alimony and child-support payments from persons whom they hate the most.

So the whole divorce paradigm has fallen flat on its face. Its cost to the women, men, children, elderly, families, society are tremendous. May be rich and powerful can afford it - but for society like India where majority of people are neither powerful nor rich, for whom family remains the sole lifeline, divorce culture would be one more ideological victimization imported from the west they will have to endure.

It is telling that we are discussing divorce culture on the heels of pub culture and valentine culture, on the eve of valentine day. When celebration of love has nothing to do with love or commitment but rather independence from it, than all the relationship dysfunctions can't be that far behind. Dating culture and break-up culture go hand and hand. Valentine culture and divorce culture are two sides of the same coin - its about celebrating the divorce culture for remainder of 364 days. How do you think catholic church was able to decimate the native pagan cultures?

#7
Aditi N
February 12, 2009
11:06 AM

What divorce "culture" are we talking about? This has nothing to do with culture. Its about 2 people in a relationship.

If two individuals are in an unhappy marriage and do not want to stay unhappy in this one precious lifetime they shouldn't have to sit down and think about social implications and statistics before splitting. Thats bull shit.

If you are asked to sit on a hot frying pan because society and community deems it right and beneficial for everybody, will you think of social norm or your scalding butt?


"May be rich and powerful can afford it - but for society like India where majority of people are neither powerful nor rich, for whom family remains the sole lifeline, divorce culture would be one more ideological victimization imported from the west they will have to endure"


OMG...the West is forcibly getting Indians divorced! What travesty! What terrible victims, we Indians make. We just sit around and let this "West" monster wreak havoc into our dear dear cultured lives!

You guys are such a trip. I dunno what world you live in really...and what pot you smoke...or should and don't.

#8
kerty
February 12, 2009
11:34 AM

"What divorce "culture" are we talking about? This has nothing to do with culture. Its about 2 people in a relationship. "

When 1 in 2 marriages end up in divorce, when majority of people marry and divorce 3-4 times during their life time, we know it is not longer about 2 people in a relationship, but a culture fitting the people in. When it is promoted in media as a manna from heaven, next best thing after sliced bread, we know we have a culture on hand. When it is facilitated by elaborate social and state-sponsored infra-structure, when it is championed by feminists as liberation and empowerment, when media packages it as celebration of love, freedom, independence, we know we have a culture on hand.

"We just sit around and let this "West" monster wreak havoc into our dear dear cultured lives!"

People do resist sleekly packaged destructive ideas imported from west - but it is always a battle to expose these ideas and educate masses. When battle lines are drawn, we know which side of the fence the feminists, self-professed welfarians of women, fall.

#9
Slime_id
February 12, 2009
11:48 AM

Since when did divorce become a culture subject?

I mean divorce is so hard to come by. Ask me, my wife wont let me divorce her, dont ask me as what good am I.

I see no divorce culture, only dont let live culture propagated by feminists!

#10
anon
February 12, 2009
12:01 PM

"A marriage ideally should not be based out of financial necessity...that would a be even worse than a divorce.'

If this was the case half the marriages in India shouldn't be happening.

#11
SD
February 12, 2009
12:03 PM

on one hand you don't want women to be leeching off men and on the other hand you don't want feminism which would promote them being independent.

make up your minds already.

i would think that the average person would not get divorced because it is trendy to do so. social atmosphere just makes it easy or hard for the divorcee. that's all. that is the only reasonable place where i see a place for culture in any of this.

are indians so impressionable that they would divorce a person they love and get along with just because western culture makes it so cool :) that is hard to digest.

#12
kerty
February 12, 2009
12:08 PM

Slime

You don't see divorce culture in India. That is not because of lack of trying by its champions, but it is because it has been a hard sell in India - its been a hard sell to middle India and poor, for whom, family has remained the only backbone. So, divorce culture remains confined to urban elites, media celebrities, the alienated dropouts, the social fringe. By pushing valentine culture to the middle India, divorce culture is sought to be pushed into the middle India. That is why sharp battle lines are drawn on both sides. There will be many more Sena as divorce culture makes inroads.

#13
annamma
February 12, 2009
12:09 PM

It would be interesting and amusing to see exactly how many threads on DC are hijacked by often unconnected, meaningless, hostile and utterly boring rants about "feminists".

Its a shame, though, because it lowers the standards of DC, and I suspect makes a lot of people look elsewhere for interesting conversation online. Thats a pity, since Dc is an interesting place, with some great people, and good articles. But after all, who would choose to walk down a narrow one-way lane where spoilt brats are driving their dads' Hondas too fast, down the wrong way, without control and without a license...;-)

Editors, you amy want to do something about it?

#14
annamma
February 12, 2009
12:10 PM

It would be interesting and amusing to see exactly how many threads on DC are hijacked by often unconnected, meaningless, hostile and utterly boring rants about "feminists".

Its a shame, though, because it lowers the standards of DC, and I suspect makes a lot of people look elsewhere for interesting conversation online. Thats a pity, since Dc is an interesting place, with some great people, and good articles. But after all, who would choose to walk down a narrow one-way lane where spoilt brats are driving their dads' Hondas too fast, down the wrong way, without control and without a license...;-)

Editors, you may want to do something about it?

#15
Slime_id
February 12, 2009
12:10 PM

I will fuck the sena..
I will fuck the feminists..

dare em, its my life..

#16
Aditi N
February 12, 2009
12:23 PM

annamma: Eliminating them is impossible. Controlling them is difficult. Ignoring them is easier. Enduring their B.S is exasperating. Teasing the monster among them is dangerous fun. Thanking the creator for making some of us more open-minded and rational is spiritual.

See, with DC you get the whole package. So stick with us for the ride. Coz together we can dodge them crazy Hondas. :)

#17
Slime_id
February 12, 2009
12:29 PM

Fine Aditi & annamma, if this makes u happy not for me to comment and listen to my B.S... so be it

Lovely final valentine to all

god bless u..

#18
kerty
February 12, 2009
12:34 PM

Annamma

Feminism gets discussed when issues and ideas under discussion are closely tied to feminism or opposition to feminism. Some of the contributors do profess to be feminists and arguments raised by them take the discussion to the feminism zone. You can't be a good progressive without being a feminist, and you can't be a good Hindu 'Desi' without being an anti-feminist. Either way, focus on feminism comes with the territory. Boring and repetitive though it may sound to the disinterested, it gives both pro and con side of the issue from both perspective. If there is any other perspective missing on any issue, people who feel free to make their points.

#19
kerty
February 12, 2009
12:35 PM

Annamma

Feminism gets discussed when issues and ideas under discussion are closely tied to feminism or opposition to feminism. Some of the contributors do profess to be feminists and arguments raised by them take the discussion to the feminism zone. You can't be a good progressive without being a feminist, and you can't be a good Hindu 'Desi' without being an anti-feminist. Either way, focus on feminism comes with the territory. Boring and repetitive though it may sound to the disinterested, it gives both pro and con side of the issue from both perspective. If there is any other perspective missing on any issue, people who feel so should feel free to make their points.

#20
Ledzius
February 12, 2009
12:37 PM

#11 SD "are indians so impressionable that they would divorce a person they love and get along with just because western culture makes it so cool :) that is hard to digest."

I know more than one couple personally who have exactly done this.

#21
SD
February 12, 2009
12:47 PM

Ledzius: i'm sure that is what they told you because they did not want u to know the real personal details of their split (i mean from your comments you do sound like someone who i wouldn't want to confide in).

either that or you have really dumb acquaintances. if you expect me to believe that two happily married people just went: "hey look westerners are doing it...lets divorce too. just for fun and coz its in fashion!", I won't buy it.

how dumb. maybe it is a good thing they split. they wudve ultimately procreated and the dumb gene wud've been passed on. so thank god for small mercies.

#22
kerty
February 12, 2009
01:18 PM

SD

What western valentine and feminist culture gives you is an antithetical orientation that makes people incompatible with certain values, outlook, institutions - it makes them feel suffocated, bitter, frustrated, angry, unhappy within those values and institutions. So they fall out of them.

Such an orientation can produce a whole gamut of fall out among people - people shunning commitment, people getting allergic to marriage, people seeking casual/NSA relationships and casually dropping out of them, people preferring hookups or one night stands rather than relationships, people abusing each other within relationships, people violently dropping out of relationships, ever small number of lucky people probably making it. How a person or a relationship would work out or end up would be a russian roulette - it would be anybody's wild guess.

#23
kerty
February 12, 2009
01:20 PM

SD

What western valentine and feminist culture gives you is an antithetical orientation that makes people incompatible with certain values, outlook, institutions - it makes them feel suffocated, bitter, frustrated, angry, unhappy within those values and institutions. So they fall out of them. How and why and under what circumstances they would fall out would vary from person to person.

Such an orientation can produce a whole gamut of fall out among people - people shunning commitment, people getting allergic to marriage, people seeking casual/NSA relationships and casually dropping out of them, people preferring hookups or one night stands rather than relationships, people abusing each other within relationships, people violently dropping out of relationships, ever small number of lucky people probably making it. How a person or a relationship would work out or end up would be a russian roulette - it would be anybody's wild guess.

#24
SD
February 12, 2009
01:56 PM

kerty: for every unhappy being...the lord has made beer...and pot. share your stash with these angry unhappy frustrated people and maybe you can keep them married longer.

#25
blokesablogin
February 12, 2009
03:45 PM

BD- one better than marrying late and having own career, do not have kids. Two of my cousins went through divorce. One with a kid and one without. It is so much easier on everyone around when children are not involved.

#26
Kerty
February 12, 2009
04:49 PM

BB

Disadvantages of marrying late or having children late are:

- Your kids would be going to college just when you are planning to retire from major responsibilities.

- You might not be alive when your kids need you the most - when they are having their own kids and need help with child raising.

- You might never see 3 generations of your own family as your parents and grand parents once did. It is a rich and fulfilling life to be able to see and contribute to the well-being of 3-4 generations. It makes you feel like a king or queen of your private empire, rather than dying in an orphan house - what a way to leave this world.

- When you need your kids the most, when you are in 60s and 70's, when you are old and sick, your kids are more likely to be going thru their anti-parent rebellious phase which typically starts in their late teens and can last upto early 30s - they usually come around when they have their own kids and begin to discover new-found appreciation for parenthood. But by that tine, it is too late for you, as you might have your one led in your grave. If you can't have your own kids around to look after you in your old age, you will need tax payers to look after you. God forbid if you suffer from any serious illness, you can't count on anybody to look after you. You reap as you sow. Tax payers might bail you out. More than your kids, you got to love taxation and taxpayers like your life depends on them.

-Availability of vast pool of hormone charged, impressionable youth encourages all kinds of morally bankrupt ideologies to recruit them in the name of youth culture and freedom. The social and moral cost of such vice culture can be hefty for the society, especially the vulnerable sections of society. In earlier times, to preempt all that, societies used to resort to early marriages and childhood marriages. It helped preempt romance and sex rackets that youth otherwise would end up chasing for the remainder of their youth without committing to settle down.

#27
blokesablogin
February 12, 2009
05:55 PM

kerty- I recommended NO kids- not kids "late! if u have a solid career and no kids, u save so much by not having to put them thru school that u will have enough money saved (with inflation factored in!) to pay your own medical bills. Also, if you don't have kids, u dont have the worries that come with them making u live a healthier life!LOL! take life lightly!

#28
kerty
February 12, 2009
06:48 PM

BB

Having no kids can not work for number of reasons

-it might be ok for few individuals, but it can't be for the whole society or for everybody. Society can't fall off the cliff after one generation has passed away. Society needs alternatives that are viable for the whole society and everybody.

-It might work when you are young, independent, resourceful. But when you enter 50's, 60's, 70's, that is when existential crisis begin, when you suddenly realize the value of family, your own extended family. Old age is merciless, it can make you feel purpose-less, like a useless rag, and wasted. Why do elders suffer so much depression? Family gives one a purpose in life, somebody to lean on, somebody to care for and be cared for. Sure husband and wife can do it for each other. But as years go by, that is not enough. What happens when one of the spouse passes away? What happens when you can not longer care for yourself? What happens when taxpayers, neighbors, friends, spouse are not there to take care of you? Having kids is no guarantee that kids will take care of you - but just having them around gives one hope and courage and purpose. In the end, what kind of social investments you have made in your life will determine the rewards you would be able to reap. If you have invested nothing on building your family and social infra-structure, it won't magically appear when you need it.

Fear of divorce puts lots of insecurities in the marriage. People begin to build fences as soon as they embark on a relationship, even before they have arrive at reasons to split. Relationships are plagued by fear and insecurities that often create self-fulfilling prophesy. Many couples keep their own separate bank accounts, have pre-nuptial agreements, delay having kids, share everything 50-50 and their worst fears always come true - and most of them are supposed to be love marriages where couples felt confident to make it after trial drive of years of dating and live-ins. It makes people fearful of commitment and relationship and responsibilities and sacrifices. That is the end game of divorce culture.

#29
Suresh Ram
February 12, 2009
07:21 PM

[spam]

#30
Kaiser_Soze
February 12, 2009
08:56 PM

As per this article, France is a good place to get married! One can become the President even if he has mistresses. Divorce is cheap(relatvely), as money is taken out of the equation(again, relatively).

Infact, you would be considered abnormal if your social standing improves and you don't keep mistresses.

London and NY are the prostitute-wife towns. Never get married there. Marriage is primarily tied to economics ie. economics of wife.

Marriage is on its way out in west, inspite of the best efforts to keep it going. Worried lawyers and other predators are now devising new ways to screw people, but its not working as before.

Expect many Sodoms and Gomorrahs in the west, where in the name of science and modernity boundaries between relationships will be tested.

#31
Kerty
February 12, 2009
09:10 PM

Kaiser

In the big American metros, the youth have taken in a big way to hookups, friendships with benefits, NSA weekend outings. Anything more is scoffed as high-maintenance and shunned. They are not willing to be in love or commit to bf/gf relationships. The rationale is that students and career-minded youth have no time to maintain serious relationships due to their busy weekday schedules, so they opt for low-maintenance outings for weekend fun. Recently, NYT did an article on this.

#32
smallsquirrel
February 12, 2009
09:15 PM

kerty, that is a GIANT load of unsubstantiated, frothing shit.

#33
ajay
February 12, 2009
10:05 PM

One wonders, would it be better living in a society with high divorce rates but with equal empowerment and freedom to men and women, than in one where divorce rates are small but the rights of women are completely negated.

Though divorce is not a good thing, it is definitely not to be blamed or used as an excuse to curb empowerment.

#34
kerty
February 12, 2009
10:30 PM

The Demise of Dating
By CHARLES M. BLOW, Op-Ed Columnist
Published: December 13, 2008

"The paradigm has shifted. Dating is dated. Hooking up is here to stay."

"When I first heard about hooking up years ago, I figured that it was a fad that would soon fizzle. I was wrong. It seems to be becoming the norm."

Read full article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/13/opinion/13blow.html

#35
kerty
February 12, 2009
10:47 PM

Ajay

"would it be better living in a society with high divorce rates but with equal empowerment and freedom to men and women"

How does high divorce rate create 'equal' empowerment for men or freedom to men? Most divorced men would tell you just the opposite - that they always get raw end of the stick in the divorce, that feels more like somebody robbed them dry.

"where divorce rates are small but the rights of women are completely negated."

Marriage and family are not built on the foundation of 'rights', but on the foundation of love, sacrifices and duties. When you subject them to rights, they would fall apart.

"Though divorce is not a good thing, it is definitely not to be blamed or used as an excuse to curb empowerment. "

How can you have empowerment out of divorce culture that victimizes whole society?

#36
Kaiser_Soze
February 12, 2009
10:53 PM

@ajay---------#33


Single parent families in west(especially those headed by women) have higher levels of poverty and social problems(drugs, gangs, shcool dropouts etc) than those which aren't. Ghettos in the US are a good example. Europe has its own pockets as well.

These countries are rich, so the State can cushion the consequences by throwing money at these problems(nominal solution but without any successful resolution).

Divorces break up family structures as well and all the extended family benefits that come with it. Imagine family as a social structure disappearing from poorer regions like Latin America, India and other places. It would wreck havoc these places.

The State, as a functioning entity, is already stretched in these places and cannot support anymore burdens placed on it. So all the fantasies about successful single family households without male figures are pipe dreams.

Rampant divorces would breakup extended support structure that poor families in India take for granted. What is the number one expenditure for western economies? It is Social Security.

In India, for a vast majority of people retirement benefits are provided by their families, own or extended. Imagine what family breakups would do to such arrangements. Would you prefer the western model(outsource family functions to the state) or the Indian model(keep family functions with in the family or extended family)?

Besides the already burdened tax regime, would you like majority of Indians to shell out more money to thugs in the Parliament, all in the name of welfare for single mothers or pensions? Good luck with that, western economies can provide inspiration to them in prudent management.


#37
ajay
February 12, 2009
11:25 PM

Kerty, "How does high divorce rate create 'equal' empowerment for men or freedom to men?"

You misunderstand, I am not saying divorce creates equal empowerment. As a consequence of equal empowerment if divorce rates increase then it does not mean that empowerment should be curbed.

#38
Ledzius
February 12, 2009
11:43 PM

"Divorce cases on the rise in Chennai"
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Chennai/Divorce_cases_on_the_rise_in_Chennai/articleshow/4116831.cms

From the article - "Collapse of joint family system, economic independence, fast paced lifestyle and ego wars coupled with lack of conflict management skills were often the reasons behind divorces, they say, adding even a wrong choice of shirt or colour of saree can now tear asunder the matrimonial ties. "

#39
Ledzius
February 13, 2009
12:00 AM

The rise in divorce rates doesn't have to do with "empowerment" as much as immaturity (both sides to be blamed here).

In my own experience, I have come across many cases of divorces taking place among couples who had "love marriages".

In many cases, the couples got married in haste, when they are young and immature (maybe V-day to blame here?) Once they were married, they realized life is not a bed of roses or chocolates, but about paying bills, cleaning the bathroom, etc. The inability to handle monotony (unlike our parents' generation) led to the break-up of many of the marriages.

Normally the second time around, their marriages have worked better, not because their second partner was necessarily better than the first, but because they themselves had matured and toned down their own expectations.

#40
Kerty
February 13, 2009
01:41 AM

Ajay

"As a consequence of equal empowerment if divorce rates increase then it does not mean that empowerment should be curbed."

That means men and society must sacrifice and rather bear all the consequences of divorce culture, so that interests of women's empowerment can be served.

What if men and society were to turn around and demand that women and their empowerment should sacrifice and rather bear the consequences for the sake of empowerment of men and society?

Is there a way where neither men, women or society are asked to sacrifice or bear the consequences for empowerment, where empowerment of men, women and society are not mutually exclusive or zero-sum game, Where there is a common empowerment that has equal stakes for men, women and society, where shared empowerment binds men, women and society in the spirit of duties towards each other and sacrifices for each other?

#41
bd
URL
February 13, 2009
04:28 AM

now the number of marriages have crashed..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/12/marriage-wedding-rates-fall

#42
ajay
February 13, 2009
11:15 AM

Kerty, "Where there is a common empowerment that has equal stakes for men, women and society, where shared empowerment binds men, women and society in the spirit of duties towards each other and sacrifices for each other?"

Agree with that idea, but you should realize that it is not a zero sum game, empowerment of one section does not mean a sacrifice from another.

#43
kerty
February 13, 2009
03:28 PM

Ajay

"it is not a zero sum game, empowerment of one section does not mean a sacrifice from another."

One can engineer the empowerment to a win-win paradigm, or to any number of lose-lose, win-lose, lose-win combinations. It does not have to be a zero-sum game, but it can be if wrong paradigm is engineered. A win-win empowerment paradigm has to be engineered such that empowerment or sacrifices do not come at each other's expense.

#44
SD
February 13, 2009
03:46 PM

if you can't convince them confuse them. :)

#45
Anon
February 13, 2009
06:32 PM

"I would say to women, do not marry till you are absolutely sure and be financially independent under all circumstances."

I agree. Especially in India, this must be emphasized a lot. Women in India, who are not absolutely sure, tend to feel abused even where there is no abuse. And that mere "feeling" is enough to lodge false complaints of abuse, which will initially cause lot of pain to the husband and his family, but in the end, even the woman loses. So, being sure before entering matrimony is always better.

Women being financially independent is a good thing for themselves and their families. In India it is usually optional for the woman to financially contribute to the family unless the family is poor. Financial responsibility is not an option for men no matter which economic class they belong to. When a marriage breaks down, a man's financial responsibility does not end. At least, if a woman is earning, one would think that the divorced individuals would be able to lead their own lives. Unfortunately in India, even women who earn and are relatively well-off claim exorbitant amounts of maintenance under three different laws because the bitterness of divorce makes them feel that if they can't have the marriage, they might as well get as much money as possible from the husband. Such women, even if they manage to gain financially from divorce, tend to become emotionally bankrupt and psychologically damaged. Women need to understand that living parasitic lives by unjustly siphoning away the husband's money is not a sign of empowerment. Only when earning women take pride in being truly financially independent can it be called real empowerment.

Add your comment

(Or ping: http://desicritics.org/tb/8792)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.






Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!