Very interesting article, thanks for sharing. Reminds me of the whole ‘half of all marriages end in divorce’ quip that lots of older folks like to throw around as a sort of indictment about how...
Very interesting article, thanks for sharing.
Reminds me of the whole ‘half of all marriages end in divorce’ quip that lots of older folks like to throw around as a sort of indictment about how young people don’t have the same commitment to things that they did back in the day…
Well, good! Bad marriages SHOULD end up in divorces, and it should be easy to do so. The reason more marriages are ending in divorce now compared to years ago isn’t a societal lack of commitment, but rather that divorce laws have come a long way, as the article proves. No one should be forced to continue in a bad or even dangerous marital situation just because the laws aren’t lax enough to allow you to leave.
I also hate this quote because it's deliberately phrased in a way that makes it misleading -- only 41% of first marriages end in divorce but 60% of second marriages do. In addition to your...
Reminds me of the whole ‘half of all marriages end in divorce’ quip that lots of older folks like to throw around as a sort of indictment about how young people don’t have the same commitment to things that they did back in the day…
I also hate this quote because it's deliberately phrased in a way that makes it misleading -- only 41% of first marriages end in divorce but 60% of second marriages do. In addition to your (absolutely correct) points that bad marriages should end in divorce, people constantly throw that number around as though it means most married people will get divorced which just isn't how that works.
...the recent stabilization is the net result of two groups moving in opposite directions: younger cohorts (Gen Xers and Millennials) who are increasingly divorcing less at any given age; and older cohorts (Boomers and Silent) who are increasingly divorcing more at any given age. To cite Sheela Kennedy et al., "The shifting age pattern of divorce suggests a cohort effect. The same people who had unprecedented divorce incidence in 1980 and 1990 when they were in their 20s and 30s are now in their 40s, 50s, and 60s. The Baby Boom generation was responsible for the extraordinary rise in marital instability after 1970. They are now middle-aged, but their pattern of high marital instability continues."
In 1892, the young state of South Dakota was a refuge for divorce seekers. It had among the laxest divorce laws in the country, offering numerous grounds and, more importantly, requiring only 90 days residency to fall under the court’s jurisdiction. Meanwhile, Maggie’s home state of New York had some of the strictest laws, granting absolute divorce only for adultery; some would resort to hiring actresses to play the part of the mistress. In other states, one could sue for a divorce of room and board, which allowed for physical and economic, not marital, separation. South Carolina was stricter still, forbidding it entirely. This hodgepodge of laws created the legally debatable phenomenon of the “foreign divorce,” in which one spouse traveled to a jurisdiction with more favorable laws.
Divorce was anathema in the United States in the late 19th century. Yet demand was on the rise, especially among women, for whom the hurdles of escaping an unhappy marriage were high. Historically, the decision to end a marriage was most often the domain of the wealthy man, who had the money and influence to shape, circumvent, or simply ignore the law. Many men could walk away from their wives, secure in their fortunes, their place in society, and the legitimacy of their children. Women, who for centuries lacked economic independence and social standing outside marriage, were often hesitant to divorce. But as Maggie traveled to Sioux Falls, that dynamic was shifting.
Throughout the United States’ history, the most permissive divorce laws had existed at the edges of the settled country, before the land and the laws had been tamed. In earlier years, Maggie might have traveled to Pennsylvania, Indiana, or Illinois; each of those states was briefly a destination for divorce seekers before residency requirements were lengthened. South Dakota’s laws were not written to encourage divorce—the short residency requirement was a holdover from the peripatetic nature of pioneer life—but divorce seekers did not concern themselves with the intention of the law, only the opportunities it afforded.
Very interesting article, thanks for sharing.
Reminds me of the whole ‘half of all marriages end in divorce’ quip that lots of older folks like to throw around as a sort of indictment about how young people don’t have the same commitment to things that they did back in the day…
Well, good! Bad marriages SHOULD end up in divorces, and it should be easy to do so. The reason more marriages are ending in divorce now compared to years ago isn’t a societal lack of commitment, but rather that divorce laws have come a long way, as the article proves. No one should be forced to continue in a bad or even dangerous marital situation just because the laws aren’t lax enough to allow you to leave.
I also hate this quote because it's deliberately phrased in a way that makes it misleading -- only 41% of first marriages end in divorce but 60% of second marriages do. In addition to your (absolutely correct) points that bad marriages should end in divorce, people constantly throw that number around as though it means most married people will get divorced which just isn't how that works.
41% is still pretty high, though. Personally I think that a huge number of people get married too young.
oh yeah no disagreement there, both my sisters got married before they could legally drink.
Older folks who say this should maybe be made aware that it is older generations who drive that trend:
From the article:
It's worth mentioning that the current crop of Republican reactionaries is trying to roll back no-fault divorce. Second verse, same as the first...