Hacker News Reader

Comment by blahaj | Hacker News Reader

> I share my pain publicly as a gesture of solidarity with other people, but especially women, who have been profoundly traumatized by those they thought they could love and trust.

This is about her husband divorcing her. I find this to be a very unfair way to frame someone else's decision to not spend their life with you anymore. Your partner does not owe you a relationship. Interestingly it is not even me coming up with the word "framing". She herself describes her Instagram post as deliberate framing.

She also claims that the AI chose words dismissive of her pain because she is a woman (rather than just because it's fake-positive corpo slop) and does not substantiate that in any way.

I'm all against this AI slop BS, especially when it's impersonating people. The blog post is mostly not about that.

View on HN

>dismissive of her pain because she is a woman

That would probably be her default position: whoever it is did not sufficiently empathize, and only "I" can be the judge of what sufficient means.

there is a part of the marriage vows where a loving couple promise each other til death do us part ... it's selfish to the max to go back on a promise like that for a reason outside of your partners control ... after retyping this a dozen times to stamp the snark out , I am now genuinely curious as to what has reversed the victim role in your mind ...

People being allowed to part ways and not having to stick with their partner until death is one of the great achievements of feminism. It goes both ways.

You cannot control that you will love someone forever, so you cannot promise that. What you can promise someone is that you plan on spending the rest of your life with them and that you have so much love that you trust it will last forever. Sometimes that does not work out. That is no one's fault and no one owes to anyone to stay together with a person they no longer love.

> People being allowed to part ways and not having to stick with their partner until death is one of the great achievements of feminism.

And it has been one of the greatest mistakes humanity has ever made. If there is a good reason, sure, you cannot be expected to live with someone who has been cruel or irresponsible towards you. But no-fault divorce just because you got bored? Fuck off, you made a commitment at the time. Relationships do take work, always have and always will. Especially when there are children a no-fault divorce is pure selfishness.

With that said, we only know one side of this story, so I'm not going to argue for either side in this particular case. I'm talking in general here.

The problem here is the usage of "no-fault". It can be interpreted differently by everyone.

Does fault only include cheating? Can the fault be on the same one who initiated the divorce? What if the fault is simply someone has changed so much that they're no longer compatible with person they fell in love with before? The fault could be on oneself without any inkling of infidelity.

Til death do us part has been ironically dead for decades now since people have been divorcing at high rates for long enough that it doesn't really mean much anymore, and that's okay. Things change.

>The problem here is the usage of "no-fault". It can be interpreted differently by everyone.

No, it's a legal term. From wikipedia:

>No-fault divorce is the dissolution of a marriage that does not require a showing of wrongdoing by either party.[1][2] Laws providing for no-fault divorce allow a family court to grant a divorce in response to a petition by either party of the marriage without requiring the petitioner to provide evidence that the defendant has committed a breach of the marital contract.

It quite literally means that people can request divorce for any reason.

That's just not how humans work. Love can fade. People change. It's the natural course of things. Sometimes there is just no one at fault for love being lost and no way to prevent that. We just gave up the illusion that love in marriage is always forever.

love is not an emotion , love is willing sacrifice , breaking a lifelong commitment because of faded emotions is pathetic and has nothing to do with your feminism argument

> greatest mistakes humanity has ever made

Humanity has a lot more variation than the our standard modern marriage.

And how did those societies turn out? What are they like to live in? Would you live in one?

I live in one - New Zealand is a modern western society.

Making marriage the norm would not fix any of the issues I see in my own society, and marriage causes other problems.

Many people I know (including solo mums) that I know would love to find someone worthwhile marrying... However they haven't (or can't) find someone worthwhile, so it is better to remain single than get married into a dangerous relationship.

I suspect you are mistaking cause and effect. Marriage isn't a cause, it is an outcome.

> You cannot control that you will love someone forever, so you cannot promise that.

Yet, people routinely do in wedding vows. Maybe that tradition should end. Maybe the traditional wedding vows should be changed to "Hey, we'll give it a shot but no promises!"

I'm a big fan of annual contracts versus the whole wedding model. As your next anniversary approaches you review your contract and decide to re-up with the same terms, make changes, or dissolve the marriage.

Maybe in your marriage vow. Why would you assume we all use the same one?

what's the point of a marriage then ?

filing jointly

If anything there's an interesting angle in the facts of this story about a new form of "mansplaining," but it's the algorithm doing "robosplaining" for the human race.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com