this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2024
601 points (100.0% liked)
Greentext
6232 readers
1730 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What an odd take.
10 years for the children to be able to fend for themselves? Assuming you are married before the first pregnancy, then have a full term birth at 40 weeks, then wait 12 months before the second birth that would put the first child around ... 8 when this hypothetical "ideal" marriage dissolved, and subsequent children even younger.
Which wouldn't make sense at all from an evolutionary standpoint, finding another man to step in as a father is not easy, so much so that there were laws around the care of widows in most societies.
The average marriage duration is only 7 years? Seems its nearly double that here in Australia. I also have two 18 year olds living at home who say they desperately want independence but also don't want to get a job or do dishes, and have the sexual maturity of a potato.
I don't think we are "meant to" have any particular relationship type or length, humans are far too diverse for that.
Edit: Some interesting replies, notably both touch on the concept of "it takes a village" which I agree is something we have sadly lost in most of Western society. I however do not think it is a stand in for long term family units. Instead I think a "village" type of setup takes the pressure off parents and allows for a stronger partnership. The countries with longest marriages are all either countries with multi-generational housing as the norm, or with higher incomes per capita.
I think you're confusing human/evolutionary nature with things that are a product of our, very recent, hyper-individualist societies. You ever heard the phrase, "it takes a village"? Early humans, heck even 50 years ago humans, lived much more communally than we do today. Especially if you read about native american societies.
It's reasonable that a child could rely less on the parents in their home being in any specific arrangement if there is a robust and wholesome community/found family for them to fall back on, which teaches them how to be a productive member and compels them to do so. Look at boys and girls clubs of america, as just one very modern example.
I concur.