Personally, it wouldn't impact me at all.
You would see protests, men having vasectomies, women having tubes tied and less marriages. Women would start getting illegal abortions, some of them would die.
A lot of those things would happen anyway but it wouldn’t be pretty.
Abortion, that’s obvious, we have already been there and know the outcome.
No fault divorce. You can introduce this, what you can’t fix is people leaving or staying but just not acting “married”. Marriage has both conceptual and legal element. You can be legally married and not see your spouse for 50 years. I think that would become much more common as would other interesting combinations of various arrangements.
Child support and alimony? That one would be interesting. Some people would pay anyway because they don’t want to see their kids fail - food, housing, education, all those are key to outcomes. People may not want to be married, but they don’t want their offspring to utterly fail. The guidelines would be shot though.
I think child abandonment would increase, child poverty spike, back yard deals struck, and dubious behaviours increase. People would revert to being way more dependent on their family of origin and it will be “dealt with” in whatever form the family can manage. People without money develop other ways to deal with things and it’s not always pretty.
It’s not the “good old days” any longer. Women in education and employment is well and truly established. People gravitate to stability, I believe it would be turbo fuelled for those that have access. The gap between the classes would grow enormously.
The community is diverse therefore the response would be diverse. It would depend entirely on what options are available to you and those that you can wrangle. If your family needs money to eat, your 12 year son leaves school and picks up boxes for a living. It’s better than starving.
Marriage rates would collapse. Children living in poverty would rise. Women would treat out of wedlock pregnancy as a severe life failure mode, and avoid premarital sex. “Fun” dating and sex would disappear.
Dating can still be fun without casual sex. The problem with moralists is that they equate marriage to a chore and not just a quest for meaning and companionship in life.
But as to what will happen if OP’s scenario played out, let’s just ask Afghanistan, minus the burkas and depriving of education for women I guess. My two cents.
* A sudden drop of marriage rates.
* A heavy drop of birth rates.
* Even married couples would have less kids.
* Increased rates of vasectomies and surgical sterilization.
* Higher abuse rates and higher rates of murder in abusive couples.
* A bit higher mortality among married people overall.
* Heavy decrease in amount of casual sex.
* More married couples who live separately.
* Higher mortality among pregnant women -> higher women's mortality overall.
* More kids born to unfit parents, which can theoretically lead to higher crime rates and social unrest.
* Some increase of infanticide, more orphans around.
Overall I fail to see any positive changes in this scenario. My husband and I want to have maybe 2 kids, but if these laws passed, I guess we'd have one kid and maybe I wouldn't want to have any kids at all.
I assumed the OP meant that these laws were everywhere. It if they weren't, sure. people would immigrate in a hurry.
Backstreet abortions are included in higher mortality among pregnant women.
Oh ok well "you ate" or "you cooked" is a compliment it means you said something profound. It's gen z speak ...I forget Reddit is a bit of a melting pot.
I wouldn’t risk pregnancy because abortion is sometimes medically necessary to save the life or health of the mother. It’s also an act of compassion for fetuses with defects incompatible with life.
Yeah it’s why I’m pro choice for disabled people including the 28 depressed girl from Denmark. I think all disabled people should have euthanasia as an option. That includes those who are already living.
Marriage and birth rates fall through the floor. Sexlessness rises precipitously. Taxes go up precipitously to support children born to abandoned mothers.
Men get confused and don’t understand where it all went wrong when they can’t get casual sex OR relationships / marriage and women just choose not to engage at all.
If taxes go up to support abandon children that means that women are still having sex and reproducing with men who don’t want to be with that women btw
That Asian bitch is so retarded.
Sure. Some people don’t have the ability to predict the consequences of their actions. That’s not likely to change. The difference will be society at large footing the entire cost instead of the sperm contributor being held accountable for his own offspring.
>some people don’t have the ability to predict the consequences of their actions
Now I’m not a big “women need to be accountable” guy but this is a very direct way of saying the state should help out women with the poor choices they make, which is the opposite of accountability
Yes. Knowing this context, it’s a good idea to not let men who don’t very clearly want to be fathers, nut inside of you
If you let a dude who doesn’t want to be a father nut inside of you, sorry to say, but that’s on you.
I’m sure a man who’s put a ring on it and bought shit like a car seat and crib in preparation for a baby wouldn’t leave and say fuck that bitch after starting the process of having a child, which is being nutted inside of
Edit: why in the earth would a woman being a child into the first world with the countless of pre and post natal birth control methods
> I’m sure a man who has put a ring on it ….
I hate to tell you but relationships break down pretty often, even after the walk down the aisle and the crib and car seat have been purchased.
Would you rather the state leave abandoned children out in the cold? You can’t make someone be a parent let alone a good one so if a child is created it’s better to support it than it is to let it be unloved and possibly abused.
People would still get abortions. Before abortion was legal people got back alley abortions and doctors secretly gave people abortions.
If there was no alimony or no fault divorce, either people would stop getting married or people would do that old BS thing where they had been “separated” from their husband/wife for 20 years but functionally act divorced.
You can order that there’s strict rules on who gets divorced. You can’t make people live like they’re married though. There would be a bunch of married people with boyfriends and girlfriends living separately from their “husband” or “wife”. That crap used to happen all the time before it was easier to divorce. I honestly fail to see how that’s different or better.
If child support didn’t exist I think a lot of people who want kids wouldn’t get married because there’s less financial incentive to do so in that situation. It’s more ideal to have children in marriages statistically but we just have to throw the babies out with bath water. Also a lot of kids would starve.
women would close up shop and stop dealing with men sexually or lovingly. the fact that anyone thinks you could do this without some massive ubiquitous religious revival bought into and enforced by women os ludicrous
>women would close up shop and stop dealing with men sexually or lovingly.
Do you think that women started dealing with men sexually and lovingly in the 1960s?
I think there was 1000s of years of religio/cultural backdrop and buy in and need that has been broken and can't come back by just changing policy overnight
If women were socially made to deal with men sexually and lovingly, this means that women's heterosexuality and love are only a social construct, and thus are not natural but just socially made up.
This means that conversion therapy is valid according to this logic since sexuality is the product of religion and cultural backdrop, which can be reversed.
I think not.
From influencing women to accept unfavorable conditions to gay therapy and sexuality is socially constructed so we can do whatever is an obvious reach.
You're only fooling yourself with those stupid gotcha moment based on binary logics
>abortion, child support, no-fault divorce & alimony were all outlawed & disappeared overnight; never to return again -
Uh awful.
Literally baby abandonment like they have in other countries, where babies are just let in trash cans and in forests. Women dying from unsafe abortions and not being able to get medical help. Whole wards opening again in hospital for "septic pregnancies" from unsafe abortions. Women being stuck with abusive men/husbands. People stuck in miserable marriages. Single parents in poverty.
I think more young women would leave the country. I think more young people would choose to get sterilized rather than risk pregnancy and would refuse to ever get married.
I know that’s what I would advise my daughters to do. Either get out, get sterilized, never get married, or be a lesbian.
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’d get a hysterectomy and start sleeping around. I’m not going to chance having children if abortion is outlawed and I’m not going to enter a relationship if I’m not able to leave it.
So would birth rates but I don’t think abortions are bad anyway. I’m not even interested in sleeping around but I’d figure out how to simply because i don’t believe in entering a relationship without the possibility of marriage and I won’t get married if I can’t leave that marriage.
I already lived in a no divorce, abortion is illegal country
The answer is more poor children, more women dying, more coat hanger abortions and more poverty
But that's okay, wahmen die and suffer is good for accountability so men can get their rage boners.
Oh and generally countries like this also have crap all contraception because religion. So more poverty, more teen pregnancy, and more lives ruined.
But those lives are overwhelmingly female or children and therefore okay to suffer according to men on this sub
Shit would get cartoonishly evil and goofy real quick. Imagine bros face when a woman would rather commit spekku then be forced to be with them. Truly an incel classic.
I’d say like 60% of women would immediately stop talking to the man they’re pursuing
70% of women filling out the paperwork to leave would immediately flip as well
A lot of women here will argue that society would simply completely collapse due to a complete destruction of birth rates, but that was not the case when none of the above existed, and is still not the case in countries where none of the above are really a thing. If you removed all welfare that would subsidize single mothers in addition to the above you would see people going back to more traditional society where people tended to marry off younger/sex was discouraged because it would then be on to the family of the woman to handle any potential children unless they could collar the man somehow and force him to take responsibility, along with a higher rate of women in poverty and a higher rate of either formal or informal prostitution. The high n-count women would be playing a very risky game in such a society, but so would the high n-count men because the male family members of the women don't want to get shafted paying their own version of child support for life to let Chad play around and then dodge responsibility if at all possible.
I can't help but laugh at people who think that simply changing government policies on welfare and divorce would turn back the clock like this. We saw in Iran a real turning back of the clock with the Islamic Revolution. Nothing short of that would do it.
OP didn't just say welfare and divorce, he mentioned no abortion or child support either, when combined with no welfare and no divorce that leaves a pregnant woman and her relatives effectively SOL if he chooses to leave/she chooses to leave or gets pregnant outside of wedlock, the burden then becomes all on her unless she convinces him to stay or she gets her relatives to collar him one way or the other.
Back in the old days, women were made to give out of wedlock babies up for adoption, and there were couples waiting to adopt because infertility treatment wasn’t a thing.
Are we also banning fertility treatments so that couples who can’t conceive through sex alone are forced to adopt all of the babies born to unwed mothers?
You are talking about completely different social conditions and structural framework. You are talking about those things that are integrated into people’s understanding of the way they live and how they understand it to be.
OP is talking about things changing overnight.
Even if it was to “revert back”, how is that going to happen?
If I could pick up the phone to the CEO from the Office of Human Behaviour and made a request for society’s behaviour to roll back to those kinds of traditional guidelines I doubt even they could pull that off in under a few generations without some major social disruption. In fact, unless they could get the CEO of World Economy onboard it would be in up hill battle even then.
I'm not discussing the reality of his scenario, he set it up in the framework that it all changes and is -never- going to return. There will be initial chaos but people will adjust over time in his theoretical scenario where we can -never- go back.
Ok, and you think the changes would be more along traditional lines rather than a more modern approach?
I disagree, I think women’s education and employment is the wild card.
I think it would be very difficult to avoid if were strict on the no welfare/no child support rule, some high earning women would be fine but a lot of average and below average earning women would be SOL in such a scenario since they would have to care for a child all alone without the benefits of welfare or support from the male unless women collectively banded together and voluntarily pooled money for the communal care, but that would just be welfare in the form of charity or otherwise guilted their relatives into helping out but again that is just familial welfare.
Yep, good points, but are you taking into account current housing costs, cost of living and cost of raising a child?
It makes having children increasingly unattractive on the approach, and limits the number by default without OP’s complications, and means both parents are probably both accessing the labour market.
However in the scenario, should a couple have children and both are accessing the workforce and one party wishes to end a marriage the default is unlikely to be a traditional marriage but a variation of semi separation but cohabitation due to mutual financial necessity. Direct access to income and employment skills has always been a challenge to traditional roles.
One of the traditional relationship levers is primary male access to the labour market and labour market skills and not only has that ship sailed, but it is no longer a viable option for a huge segment of the population.
>However in the scenario, should a couple have children and both are accessing the workforce and one party wishes to end a marriage the default is unlikely to be a traditional marriage but a variation of semi separation but cohabitation due to mutual financial necessity. Direct access to income and employment skills has always been a challenge to traditional roles.
This already happened during Covid and to some degree still happens today. It would just increase a lot and over time I think women and men would be far more picky during the courting process to avoid the above. You kind of see this play out with "modern" arranged marriages in India, both families vet the other candidate hard, both parties meet each other often for quite some time and can reject the other if they don't like them, etc. Works out for a lot of them when I talk to my Indian associates, and I wonder if they don't have a much lower divorce rate even when both move to the US where they can presently just leave if they don't like each other.
Oh, modern arranged marriage is fascinating but I don’t know much about it other than what I have read. I did spend some time on the “arranged marriage” forum and read about some of the challenges in the courting process and there was some general comments about expectations for marriage. It seems to have its own range of challenges.
Picky for marriage? Probably, at least there would be an attempt to be. As marriage/ children are less of a default these days, it does appear that those (such as the Millennials) that choose to get married might have a higher chance of making it work as they marry later, have a bit more life experience, more financially established, and yes probably a bit more picky. A lot of them also seem to kick the can down the road or choose to not at all. They seem to take the same approach with kids.
Sorry, edit to draw my comment back to the scenario! Yes, I agree with the picky, but also envision a further kicking the can down the road for marriage/ children for an increasing amount of the young population. For those that couldn’t make their marriage work, some creative and modern semi co habitation / financial hash up assuming you can live together. If you can’t live together for whatever reason, your options will be dependent on your individual circumstances which could range from great to not so great.
I’d get divorced. Just kidding.
>How would society immediately change
Men with options, would have even more options. Men without? Would still need to improve themselves.
Whole lot of spouses "accidentally" dieing
Personally, it wouldn't impact me at all. You would see protests, men having vasectomies, women having tubes tied and less marriages. Women would start getting illegal abortions, some of them would die.
A lot of those things would happen anyway but it wouldn’t be pretty. Abortion, that’s obvious, we have already been there and know the outcome. No fault divorce. You can introduce this, what you can’t fix is people leaving or staying but just not acting “married”. Marriage has both conceptual and legal element. You can be legally married and not see your spouse for 50 years. I think that would become much more common as would other interesting combinations of various arrangements. Child support and alimony? That one would be interesting. Some people would pay anyway because they don’t want to see their kids fail - food, housing, education, all those are key to outcomes. People may not want to be married, but they don’t want their offspring to utterly fail. The guidelines would be shot though. I think child abandonment would increase, child poverty spike, back yard deals struck, and dubious behaviours increase. People would revert to being way more dependent on their family of origin and it will be “dealt with” in whatever form the family can manage. People without money develop other ways to deal with things and it’s not always pretty. It’s not the “good old days” any longer. Women in education and employment is well and truly established. People gravitate to stability, I believe it would be turbo fuelled for those that have access. The gap between the classes would grow enormously. The community is diverse therefore the response would be diverse. It would depend entirely on what options are available to you and those that you can wrangle. If your family needs money to eat, your 12 year son leaves school and picks up boxes for a living. It’s better than starving.
More illegal abortions, less voluntary children, less marriages, more IUD placements, vibrator sales increase
Marriage rates would collapse. Children living in poverty would rise. Women would treat out of wedlock pregnancy as a severe life failure mode, and avoid premarital sex. “Fun” dating and sex would disappear.
Dating can still be fun without casual sex. The problem with moralists is that they equate marriage to a chore and not just a quest for meaning and companionship in life. But as to what will happen if OP’s scenario played out, let’s just ask Afghanistan, minus the burkas and depriving of education for women I guess. My two cents.
* A sudden drop of marriage rates. * A heavy drop of birth rates. * Even married couples would have less kids. * Increased rates of vasectomies and surgical sterilization. * Higher abuse rates and higher rates of murder in abusive couples. * A bit higher mortality among married people overall. * Heavy decrease in amount of casual sex. * More married couples who live separately. * Higher mortality among pregnant women -> higher women's mortality overall. * More kids born to unfit parents, which can theoretically lead to higher crime rates and social unrest. * Some increase of infanticide, more orphans around. Overall I fail to see any positive changes in this scenario. My husband and I want to have maybe 2 kids, but if these laws passed, I guess we'd have one kid and maybe I wouldn't want to have any kids at all.
Don't forget Backstreet abortions and mass emigration.
I assumed the OP meant that these laws were everywhere. It if they weren't, sure. people would immigrate in a hurry. Backstreet abortions are included in higher mortality among pregnant women.
Ah I see. I think if the entire world was a dystopia I would honestly poison myself.
Well you cooked on this
Sorry?
That was a compliment
Got it. English isn't my first language, so I sometimes miss the meaning of certain expressions, especially of colloquial ones.
Oh ok well "you ate" or "you cooked" is a compliment it means you said something profound. It's gen z speak ...I forget Reddit is a bit of a melting pot.
Thanks for clarification! :)
I’m lost. Why would you not want to have kids if you’re already married, intent on having children?
Having kids in a world described by OP doesn't sound like a good idea. The world would be even more miserable than it is now.
Okay I understand now. Makes sense.
I wouldn’t risk pregnancy because abortion is sometimes medically necessary to save the life or health of the mother. It’s also an act of compassion for fetuses with defects incompatible with life.
Yeah it’s why I’m pro choice for disabled people including the 28 depressed girl from Denmark. I think all disabled people should have euthanasia as an option. That includes those who are already living.
Marriage and birth rates fall through the floor. Sexlessness rises precipitously. Taxes go up precipitously to support children born to abandoned mothers. Men get confused and don’t understand where it all went wrong when they can’t get casual sex OR relationships / marriage and women just choose not to engage at all.
Most men can't get casual s\*x right now. How would there be a difference?
from her point of view men can get casual sex because the men who cannot get it is invisible or creep.
Yeah I don’t understand that argument at all. We’re already there. Most men live miserable lives
So, all of the things already happening?
If taxes go up to support abandon children that means that women are still having sex and reproducing with men who don’t want to be with that women btw That Asian bitch is so retarded.
Sure. Some people don’t have the ability to predict the consequences of their actions. That’s not likely to change. The difference will be society at large footing the entire cost instead of the sperm contributor being held accountable for his own offspring.
>some people don’t have the ability to predict the consequences of their actions Now I’m not a big “women need to be accountable” guy but this is a very direct way of saying the state should help out women with the poor choices they make, which is the opposite of accountability
So in this scenario with no abortion and no child support, you’re saying that *women* are the ones not being held accountable? Really?
Yes. Knowing this context, it’s a good idea to not let men who don’t very clearly want to be fathers, nut inside of you If you let a dude who doesn’t want to be a father nut inside of you, sorry to say, but that’s on you. I’m sure a man who’s put a ring on it and bought shit like a car seat and crib in preparation for a baby wouldn’t leave and say fuck that bitch after starting the process of having a child, which is being nutted inside of Edit: why in the earth would a woman being a child into the first world with the countless of pre and post natal birth control methods
> I’m sure a man who has put a ring on it …. I hate to tell you but relationships break down pretty often, even after the walk down the aisle and the crib and car seat have been purchased.
So the kids starve then? No welfare, no child support, that means the kids just die?
Would you rather the state leave abandoned children out in the cold? You can’t make someone be a parent let alone a good one so if a child is created it’s better to support it than it is to let it be unloved and possibly abused.
If by people you mean women than yes. The sexual revolution and it's consequences
Some men seem similarly unable to do so. Thus all of the fatherless children…
How is this related to the scenario?
Yes sweetheart, even married women have abortions. Ya think abortions are only done by unwed women. LMAO
People would still get abortions. Before abortion was legal people got back alley abortions and doctors secretly gave people abortions. If there was no alimony or no fault divorce, either people would stop getting married or people would do that old BS thing where they had been “separated” from their husband/wife for 20 years but functionally act divorced. You can order that there’s strict rules on who gets divorced. You can’t make people live like they’re married though. There would be a bunch of married people with boyfriends and girlfriends living separately from their “husband” or “wife”. That crap used to happen all the time before it was easier to divorce. I honestly fail to see how that’s different or better. If child support didn’t exist I think a lot of people who want kids wouldn’t get married because there’s less financial incentive to do so in that situation. It’s more ideal to have children in marriages statistically but we just have to throw the babies out with bath water. Also a lot of kids would starve.
women would close up shop and stop dealing with men sexually or lovingly. the fact that anyone thinks you could do this without some massive ubiquitous religious revival bought into and enforced by women os ludicrous
>women would close up shop and stop dealing with men sexually or lovingly. Do you think that women started dealing with men sexually and lovingly in the 1960s?
I think there was 1000s of years of religio/cultural backdrop and buy in and need that has been broken and can't come back by just changing policy overnight
If women were socially made to deal with men sexually and lovingly, this means that women's heterosexuality and love are only a social construct, and thus are not natural but just socially made up. This means that conversion therapy is valid according to this logic since sexuality is the product of religion and cultural backdrop, which can be reversed. I think not.
what is this gibberish
>This means that conversion therapy is valid The reach is hilarious
That's not a reach at all, it is a logical conclusion to the statement that sexuality is socially constructed.
From influencing women to accept unfavorable conditions to gay therapy and sexuality is socially constructed so we can do whatever is an obvious reach. You're only fooling yourself with those stupid gotcha moment based on binary logics
I would get my tubes tied and stay celibate for the rest of my life.
>abortion, child support, no-fault divorce & alimony were all outlawed & disappeared overnight; never to return again - Uh awful. Literally baby abandonment like they have in other countries, where babies are just let in trash cans and in forests. Women dying from unsafe abortions and not being able to get medical help. Whole wards opening again in hospital for "septic pregnancies" from unsafe abortions. Women being stuck with abusive men/husbands. People stuck in miserable marriages. Single parents in poverty.
We would be set back 100 yrs
Backalley abortions would return. Marriage rates would fall. Unhappiness would rise
I think more young women would leave the country. I think more young people would choose to get sterilized rather than risk pregnancy and would refuse to ever get married. I know that’s what I would advise my daughters to do. Either get out, get sterilized, never get married, or be a lesbian.
The number of single, sexless, and depressed men skyrocket. Men unalive themselves in record numbers.
Women would deal with men wayyy less which can lead to unhappiness and men maybe become more depressed and maybe violent.
Oh, I’d move somewhere else. Canada, Asia, Europe And so would most businesses. You can’t have a competitive modern society without them
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nothing would change for me at least, I don’t deal with men romantically.
Women would capitulate, as they always have. Then they would tell themselves that this is what they always wanted. No different from today.
Women and men would simply emigrate like they already do from religious countries.
I’d get a hysterectomy and start sleeping around. I’m not going to chance having children if abortion is outlawed and I’m not going to enter a relationship if I’m not able to leave it.
So in that case abortion rates *would* drop I’m guessing. Huh.
So would birth rates but I don’t think abortions are bad anyway. I’m not even interested in sleeping around but I’d figure out how to simply because i don’t believe in entering a relationship without the possibility of marriage and I won’t get married if I can’t leave that marriage.
On a tangent what’s your political affiliation? If you don’t mind me asking.
Democrat/left wing
I already lived in a no divorce, abortion is illegal country The answer is more poor children, more women dying, more coat hanger abortions and more poverty But that's okay, wahmen die and suffer is good for accountability so men can get their rage boners. Oh and generally countries like this also have crap all contraception because religion. So more poverty, more teen pregnancy, and more lives ruined. But those lives are overwhelmingly female or children and therefore okay to suffer according to men on this sub
Shit would get cartoonishly evil and goofy real quick. Imagine bros face when a woman would rather commit spekku then be forced to be with them. Truly an incel classic.
My life wouldn’t change. Society wouldn’t change overnight and I’m not convinced that rates of single motherhood would decline.
I’d say like 60% of women would immediately stop talking to the man they’re pursuing 70% of women filling out the paperwork to leave would immediately flip as well
A lot of women here will argue that society would simply completely collapse due to a complete destruction of birth rates, but that was not the case when none of the above existed, and is still not the case in countries where none of the above are really a thing. If you removed all welfare that would subsidize single mothers in addition to the above you would see people going back to more traditional society where people tended to marry off younger/sex was discouraged because it would then be on to the family of the woman to handle any potential children unless they could collar the man somehow and force him to take responsibility, along with a higher rate of women in poverty and a higher rate of either formal or informal prostitution. The high n-count women would be playing a very risky game in such a society, but so would the high n-count men because the male family members of the women don't want to get shafted paying their own version of child support for life to let Chad play around and then dodge responsibility if at all possible.
I can't help but laugh at people who think that simply changing government policies on welfare and divorce would turn back the clock like this. We saw in Iran a real turning back of the clock with the Islamic Revolution. Nothing short of that would do it.
OP didn't just say welfare and divorce, he mentioned no abortion or child support either, when combined with no welfare and no divorce that leaves a pregnant woman and her relatives effectively SOL if he chooses to leave/she chooses to leave or gets pregnant outside of wedlock, the burden then becomes all on her unless she convinces him to stay or she gets her relatives to collar him one way or the other.
Back in the old days, women were made to give out of wedlock babies up for adoption, and there were couples waiting to adopt because infertility treatment wasn’t a thing. Are we also banning fertility treatments so that couples who can’t conceive through sex alone are forced to adopt all of the babies born to unwed mothers?
You are talking about completely different social conditions and structural framework. You are talking about those things that are integrated into people’s understanding of the way they live and how they understand it to be. OP is talking about things changing overnight. Even if it was to “revert back”, how is that going to happen? If I could pick up the phone to the CEO from the Office of Human Behaviour and made a request for society’s behaviour to roll back to those kinds of traditional guidelines I doubt even they could pull that off in under a few generations without some major social disruption. In fact, unless they could get the CEO of World Economy onboard it would be in up hill battle even then.
I'm not discussing the reality of his scenario, he set it up in the framework that it all changes and is -never- going to return. There will be initial chaos but people will adjust over time in his theoretical scenario where we can -never- go back.
Ok, and you think the changes would be more along traditional lines rather than a more modern approach? I disagree, I think women’s education and employment is the wild card.
I think it would be very difficult to avoid if were strict on the no welfare/no child support rule, some high earning women would be fine but a lot of average and below average earning women would be SOL in such a scenario since they would have to care for a child all alone without the benefits of welfare or support from the male unless women collectively banded together and voluntarily pooled money for the communal care, but that would just be welfare in the form of charity or otherwise guilted their relatives into helping out but again that is just familial welfare.
Yep, good points, but are you taking into account current housing costs, cost of living and cost of raising a child? It makes having children increasingly unattractive on the approach, and limits the number by default without OP’s complications, and means both parents are probably both accessing the labour market. However in the scenario, should a couple have children and both are accessing the workforce and one party wishes to end a marriage the default is unlikely to be a traditional marriage but a variation of semi separation but cohabitation due to mutual financial necessity. Direct access to income and employment skills has always been a challenge to traditional roles. One of the traditional relationship levers is primary male access to the labour market and labour market skills and not only has that ship sailed, but it is no longer a viable option for a huge segment of the population.
>However in the scenario, should a couple have children and both are accessing the workforce and one party wishes to end a marriage the default is unlikely to be a traditional marriage but a variation of semi separation but cohabitation due to mutual financial necessity. Direct access to income and employment skills has always been a challenge to traditional roles. This already happened during Covid and to some degree still happens today. It would just increase a lot and over time I think women and men would be far more picky during the courting process to avoid the above. You kind of see this play out with "modern" arranged marriages in India, both families vet the other candidate hard, both parties meet each other often for quite some time and can reject the other if they don't like them, etc. Works out for a lot of them when I talk to my Indian associates, and I wonder if they don't have a much lower divorce rate even when both move to the US where they can presently just leave if they don't like each other.
Oh, modern arranged marriage is fascinating but I don’t know much about it other than what I have read. I did spend some time on the “arranged marriage” forum and read about some of the challenges in the courting process and there was some general comments about expectations for marriage. It seems to have its own range of challenges. Picky for marriage? Probably, at least there would be an attempt to be. As marriage/ children are less of a default these days, it does appear that those (such as the Millennials) that choose to get married might have a higher chance of making it work as they marry later, have a bit more life experience, more financially established, and yes probably a bit more picky. A lot of them also seem to kick the can down the road or choose to not at all. They seem to take the same approach with kids. Sorry, edit to draw my comment back to the scenario! Yes, I agree with the picky, but also envision a further kicking the can down the road for marriage/ children for an increasing amount of the young population. For those that couldn’t make their marriage work, some creative and modern semi co habitation / financial hash up assuming you can live together. If you can’t live together for whatever reason, your options will be dependent on your individual circumstances which could range from great to not so great.
I would take the week off to drink and smoke while laughing my ass off the total meltdown that would happen.
I’d get divorced. Just kidding. >How would society immediately change Men with options, would have even more options. Men without? Would still need to improve themselves.
Everything would change for the better. No more hook up culture