Amy Wax on Family

I just started watching this video. I didn’ realize that the rate of men getting married has been going down about 1% per year by age 34 since 2000. (Around 3:00 mark)

I have been thinking about the consequences of going away from traditions. It has hurt families but I don’t know the statistics. Hopefully this video will explain the loss of family.

5+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

12 thoughts on “Amy Wax on Family”

  1. In the talk, women are getting less of what they want, stable relationships, and men are getting more of what they want, more sex, due changes in society. This coincides with my belief that feminism is misogynistic. (Not all forms.)

    3+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  2. 10 Cents:
    In the talk, women are getting less of what they want, stable relationships, and men are getting more of what they want, more sex, due changes in society. This coincides with my belief that feminism is misogynistic. (Not all forms.)

    Snooks snorted when she got to naming the “Crummy Boyfriend Problem.”

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  3. 10 Cents:
    I see this video has been removed by user.

    Probably got a community strike on YouTube. AfD member Gottfried Curio is complaining at the Bundestag about illegal immigration from Islamic and African countries, where the people are poorly socialized and statistically overrepresented among criminals. They’re coming from Turkey, through other countries, to Germany. These illegal migrants are coming for economic reasons; they are economic refugees, not “climate refugees.” They’re attacking women, etc. The usual litany of hate facts.

    The video I posted above had English subtitles; this one does not. I can’t seem to find any with subtitles. Funny how that works.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  4. I finally got time to watch this.  She’s saying one of the same things I said in my July 18 post here, When the Troth Could Set You Free.    Marriage is now regarded as something you do only after  you have “arrived”, as she said.  Whereas the teenagers I used to represent pro bono  back in the 80s saw it as a step to independence, to adulthood.

    The other asinine thing is that the conventional wisdom now is that getting married at a young age is such a rash, irrevocable, irreversible step! (As I pointed out, no one,  now, seems to assume that a young girl who has been knocked up should marry the baby-daddy..) The reality is,  if you marry when you’ve got nuthin’, you can get divorced in about 12 weeks, for under $500, if it doesn’t work out; it’s if you marry  later, when you are propertied and making a high income,  that you’re really gettin’ into the mire.

    But in one way: so what?  Amy is very clear-eyed about the situation, but—can it be changed, reversed?

    If it was deliberately socially engineered, those engineers, whoever they are, are a formidable foe judging by their success!  If it was just a cultural drift, well, we can observe it, but can it be stopped, any more than, say,  coastal  erosion?

    Last night I had dinner with a very good friend who is, he says, personally depressed about climate change.  I mentioned the Medieval Warm period, the Roman warm period, the great die-off 2 billion years ago, the fact that everybody who has predicted dire consequences of global population growth, (which has now far outstripped their projections), such as mass starvation, cannibalism! from Malthus to Ehrlich, has been ludicrously wrong. He is an environmental lawyer; he knew and admitted all this, and even brought up the possible global winterizing effects of volcanic activity (like the Yellowstone Caldera, long overdue to  blow.)  He agreed that the “green” schemes here  and abroad are merely ruses to redistribute wealth.  He is, in general, rightly-guided.

    So then, I said, given all this,   What do you think we humans can possibly do about it?  And further, what makes you think any particular outcome is a certainty?   And since no particular outcome,  except change itself, is certain,

    isn’t it likely we may do exactly the wrong thing?  

    (I didn’t get an answer; at that interesting moment,  the main courses of my birthday dinner were set before us, and we fell to as if..well, as if there were no tomorrow.)

    5+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  5. 10 Cents:
    Hyppy Hyppy Birthday, Hyp! May the troth set  you feed!

    Soxy, you’re probably  the  only one who’ll  appreciate this: My latest legal journalism article, to be published in a few months, is about common-law marriage,  and is called Nothing But The Troth. 

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  6. Hypatia:

    10 Cents:
    Hyppy Hyppy Birthday, Hyp! May the troth set  you feed!

    Soxy, you’re probably  the  only one who’ll  appreciate this: My latest legal journalism article, to be published in a few months, is about common-law marriage,  and is called Nothing But The Troth. 

    I think many Ratburghers would find that to be interesting.   Could you post it here, after publication?   Or give us the digest version?

    0

  7. MJBubba:

    Hypatia:

    10 Cents:
    Hyppy Hyppy Birthday, Hyp! May the troth set  you feed!

    Soxy, you’re probably  the  only one who’ll  appreciate this: My latest legal journalism article, to be published in a few months, is about common-law marriage,  and is called Nothing But The Troth. 

    I think many Ratburghers would find that to be interesting.   Could you post it here, after publication?   Or give us the digest version?

    By definition this makes her a journalist so she must be hated. I will redact her. (I won’t take bad things out. I will sneak compliments in. “Sock is who I textile when in need.25

    25 Footnotes make it more believable.

    0

  8. MJBubba:

    Hypatia:

    10 Cents:
    Hyppy Hyppy Birthday, Hyp! May the troth set  you feed!

    Soxy, you’re probably  the  only one who’ll  appreciate this: My latest legal journalism article, to be published in a few months, is about common-law marriage,  and is called Nothing But The Troth. 

    I think many Ratburghers would find that to be interesting.   Could you post it here, after publication?   Or give us the digest version?

    I will!  They usually send me a URL now.   Thank you so  for asking; authorial pride, you know…😜

    But here’s a teaser: Q.where did Common Law marriage come from? A. Not from “Common Law”,  by which we usually mean the body of English decisional Law imported into the newly independent colonies through the Reception Statutes.  Cuz in England,  you could not get married without an Anglican clergyman (Or a priest, before Henry VIII’s day). And you had to  publish banns, return to the home parish of one of the spouses. In 1753 England codified all this.But their statute didn’t apply in their colonies, and didn’t apply to Jewish and Quaker weddings. (It didn’t legitimize them, just exempted them from the Act.)

    Those requirements probably would hav even impossible to meet here on our wild frontier.

    The Puritans, Bradford’s Mayflower  bunch, certainly wouldn’t have countenanced marriage by private exchange of vows.   In Protestant Holland where they had been living, marriage was purely a civil matter. They didn’t recognize it as a sacrament because Jesus didn’t get married, nor did He marry any couples. But they’da insisted on compliance with statutory civil requirements. Massachusetts never did recognize the doctrine of common law marriage, in fact the colony extirpated  it preemptively  in 1652.

    In the American states that recognized it,  couples could marry themselves by exchanging the verba in praesenti (words in th present tense) , like, “I marry  you”  or “I take you as my wife/husband”.  Contrary to what people think, it didn’t require any period of cohabitation, any more than a statutory marriage does. (At least not in my state, Pa)  And, no period of cohabitation, no matter how lengthy, could establish a common law marriage unless the couple had  exchanged the verba in praesenti.

    In 2004 , it was abolished in my state.  But since under the US Constitution  states cannot impair contracts, ( unlike the Fed govt, which can; that’s what bankruptcy courts do all day) the abolition did not invalidate any such marriages, “otherwise valid”,  contracted before Jan 1,2005.  So we  will be dealing with the doctrine for decades; fifteen years isn’t a very long time in domestic law. Plus, soon after Obergefell, it was held  that, since heterosexual couples had the right to attempt to establish a common law marriage contracted before 2005, homosexual couples must have the same right!  So  now, I am advised by a friend on the bench of Common Pleas, there are many such cases working their way up to our appellate courts. ( Legally I think this decision was erroneous, because we had a statute expressly prohibiting same sex marriage until 2014, so same sex wedding alllegedly contracted while that statute was in force could not have been “otherwise valid”—maybe the judge in this case felt he might as well just  get it over with…)

    And,  fun fact: Pa has a statutory form of “self-uniting” marriage. You get a marriage license, but you do not need a celebrant, or officiant: the couple can say the words and marry  themselves, and then two people sign as witnesses to the vows. We probably have that because Penn  was a Quaker; they, of course have no clergy, and as George  Fox wrote:”We marry none; that is the Lord’s Business, and we are but witnesses.”

    Apparently, D.C. is now the self-uniting marriage Mecca: you can  get the license and there’s no waiting period; couples can unite themselves that same day,  return the certificate to the courthouse, and take a couple of selfie photos on the National Mall as  man and wife!(Or whatever..)

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar

Leave a Reply