> Marriages are fundamentally just a societal complication of a relationship - complete with dubious legal consequences and a not a sure thing that can end.

Or, alternatively marriage is the fundamental glue of society and the germ of new life across the vastness of time and in basically every culture through disasters and war. One of these perspectives is fair to the most ancient institution.

Someone working towards a phd in the final year of work shouldn’t be personally taking upon the baser weight and long term sustainability of society. That’s too much for any one person - Jimmy Carter clearly “settled for less” and still managed a lot more than the rest of us could hope in our lifetimes.

OP is perfectly fine to just focus on the degree and know the world will continue on while OP works.

Your framing this as something more than it is is abhorrent.

> Your framing this as something more than it is is abhorrent.

Framing marriage as something more than "a societal complication of a relationship" is abhorrent? Do you think maybe that's a little harsh?

That’s an outright abusive misreading of what I’ve said.

Again, I feel like you're being quite overly dramatic with your language here. No one is being abused.

Also, you said "OP is perfectly fine to just focus on the degree and know the world will continue on while OP works." but the post you're responding to never said anything to the contrary. They were just speaking about marriage in general - at literally no point did they tell OP not to focus on their degree.

> Someone working towards a phd in the final year of work shouldn’t be personally taking upon the baser weight and long term sustainability of society.

What if that's the correct selfish viewpoint on an individual level, but the wrong decision for overall society?

These are certainly some complex and nuanced issues, but just as a counterpoint, what if having a family is arguably the most important thing that somebody capable of completing a PHD likely does? Unless a PHD invents some important new technology that transforms humanity (and most PHDs probably don't get anywhere close to that level of contribution), the most likely valuable contribution they could make to the world comes with having large families, being a pillar for the community, and helping guide their children well. Successful families are the foundation for a stable and prosperous long-term future.

Idiocracy presented a very satirical look at the future that emerged from the smart people being too focused on education and careers over actually maintaining the society they were given. We all see the news stories coming out where there's the claim that average IQ rates are dropping, right? OP might not be able to solve that problem on his own, but if every PHD candidate made the same decision to put off family, maybe society eventually gets into some trouble.

Marriage is not all its cracked up to be. My divorce 1 year aniversary is this month, after being loyal and faithful for 12 years, I left due to abuse. I am now raising our child alone and I am so much happier now than I ever was while married.

Marriage is societal cancer.

There exists no society at all without marriage. The reason marriage is absolute central in all cultures and civilization is not because it's been forced onto people by bad men or because people think it's better, the reason is that cultures or people who don't practice marriage die out quickly.

To be clear, are you meaning strictly 1-to-1 "marriage", or are any of the many-to-one marriage types (poly, whatever) included?

Am curious, as the Saudi's seems to be "going ok" (for the males) with their harem approach. Not so much for the females I guess (no idea). That being said, their society seems to have lasted that way for a fair while now.

I know a lot of Saudi’s and also lived in the country. You are referring to a very small minority that practices polygamy. Most Saudi’s are in a monogamous marriage.

Marriage as a woman belongs to only one man and that man in turn has a duty to protect and support her and their children.

Which culture died quickly due to not practicing marriage?

All of them. They couldn't establish themselves enough to leave any important traces in history and are effectively erased. Sexual liberation is not a new idea, the reason why it's not traditional is because it is unsustainable and can never grow to a tradition

You do realize people can have sex, procreate and raise families without marriage, right? "Sexual liberation" doesn't negate sex, it only negates the proscription of involuntary sex and gender roles through patriarchy.

Also:

>All of them.

All of whom? Surely you can give us specific examples. Your certainty must based on solid archaeological and anthropological evidence, right?

We complain about ChatGPT making brazenly false statements with complete confidence, yet we have humans out here saying things like this.

This is a... hard anthropological claim to make. I don't claim to be an expert anthropologist, but I would note that marriage means very many things to different peoples. 'Western' marriage, as it were, is already fraught. One man and a women, sharing property? Well, what about two men, two women, or other genders? Non-cishetnormative understandings complicate this picture quite quickly. And what of property? The capitalist idea of property isn't the only one, and different understandings of property will, historically speaking, lead to different understandings of marriage.

All of this is to say that marriage is a fraught societal construct, not a societal neccessity.

This thread took a bit of a wild turn, but I felt I had to respond :)

You're using your lack of evidence as evidence not of absence but of presence?

Depends what society you talk about too.

Marriage isn’t integral to all societies, so much as monogamous partnership is (excluding some rare poly societies).

You also don’t need marriage to procreate , and several societies are built around the concept of children raised by the community.

That said, marriage is certainly the most persistent form of long term bond in history, but it’s not always borne out of mutual desire. It’s often been as much a means of politics as it has been of love.

What successful societies exist today without some concept marriage? I’m not aware of any, but it sounds like you have one in mind.

Ah you’ve introduced two other elements into the mix, and possibly have introduced the issue of conflation of causation and correlation.

1. What is a successful society? You may have a different definition but imho it’s one that hasn’t torn itself apart or causing active harm to itself.

2. I never said they didn’t have a concept of marriage, just that it’s not integral.

Both those points however are dramatically affected by colonization. Particularly Christian colonization, but not restricted to it.

Colonization both destroyed many otherwise successful societies and forced their own concepts onto the ones that remained.

As such I don’t think there’s any society that does have absolutely no concept of marriage, but there are some where marriage is not integral.

Various indigenous groups did not have a formal marriage, but did sometimes have a vow. Even within the US, you’d have the ancient traditions of hand fasting among settlers, which wasn’t a marriage but an informal vow.

The Mosuo/Na people of China famously do not marry.

Hence why I disambiguate between marriage and monogamous binding. heck, monogamous bindings for life are present in a lot of non human social norms too.

But marriage is different in that it’s a formalized procedure to do the binding, and in many cultures was tied to the religious or governmental authority figure as a form of bookkeeping and control, or to show political bindings.

And back to the point of causation/correlation, is marriage integral to success? I’d argue not since hand fasting continued into very relatively (to human history) recent times.

Interesting! I'd never heard of the Mosuo people, but from what I'm reading they fit your description well. Thanks for the detailed comment, cheers.

It absolutely is and you should reconsider your filter bubble

Great rebuttal.

Should we continue by saying “no it isn’t/yes it is, you’re wrong” repeatedly at each other then?

Evolve or die. Marriage is an unnecessary burden and construct in modern times. Love, date, cohabitat (non community property state), but the failure rate is too high (~66% of marriages fail) when the cost is similarly high.

Warren Buffett says the factor which most contributes to your future wealth is who you pick to marry. Do you feel lucky?

https://www.amazon.com/Science-Happily-Ever-After-Enduring/d...

Or marry a good person, raise happy kids and live a good life together.

If you are not married and one partner makes significantly more than the other, what's to stop the wealthy partner just deciding 20 years into the relationship that they want a newer model and just leaving the former partner destitute? It creates a massive power discrepancy in the relationship. "Do what I want or I'll leave you in the street."

Married people work towards the same goal as a unit. Do whatever you want it's your life but marriage has very much been a net positive in my and my kids lives. I'm the primary earner in my relationship.

Marriage isn’t really a solution to any of the problems you state.

Divorce is a very real outcome of marriage, as are prenups.

Many countries also have rules around care for a previous partner by means of common law partnership etc…

Married people often don’t work towards the same goals anymore than unmarried couples.

Marriage can also be a form of entrapment for abused individuals, a means for political gain or forced on people. Even in countries that don’t think those issues are common like the USA where child marriage is more common than people think.

Imho you have a very idealized perception of marriage that doesn’t line up with the various shades of grey in reality.

Marriage can be a societal contract and/or it can be a vow of love. The former is archaic

"Imho you have a very idealized perception of marriage that doesn’t line up with the various shades of grey in reality."

I appreciate you letting me know about reality as I have led a sheltered life with no real world experience.

I've been alive and married (20+ years) for longer than I was alive and single. Its been pretty ideal.

How long were you married for before you learned these things and formed your real world marriage experience that I am unaware of? If you were married and it failed then I can understand your negative view of it. I'm sorry it did not work out for you, the end of a marriage / relationship can be hard.

"Divorce is a very real outcome of marriage, as are prenups." lets change that to "Divorce is a very real possible outcome of marriage". prenups are a before marriage thing. So is a long happy life together.

My sister is going through a divorce because they married for reasons other than love and it was clear that it was not a marriage of 2 good people in it for the other.

My brother has also been married for longer than he has been single. Been through some incredibly tough family issues (deaths) that if they were not married would have probably broken them up. Years on they are very happy.

Marriage if done right and again entered into by people that care about each other is an incredible bond and one I feel has contributed strongly to society.

There are negatives to everything but again if its a good match the positives far out weigh it.

Marriage can be a wonderful thing, If its not for you then more power to you, there is no reason to knock the institution that has worked for so many others. Its been around and working for many people for tens of thousands of years. Maybe be open to the fact that there may be some good things that you are missing rather than that through all of human history people have been dumb.

You’re takin this far too personally to have any sort of productive discussion but here it goes against my better judgement.

Saying that marriage is not as important to society has no bearing on what value marriage should mean to you. I also never said that marriage is bad, or not for me. I’m married myself, but like I said, i saw it as a vow of love not a societal contract, unlike your statements that were all matters of societal contract that are neither solved by marriage but are also provided for by common law partnerships.

You inferred something because you took things too personally and saw things in the argument that weren’t there because you clearly took it as a personal attack.

In fact, your marriage is largely irrelevant to the discussion altogether since it’s purely anecdotal and doesn’t expand to the entirety of the human population, let alone the population of a single country like the USA where 1/5 of first time wed couples end in divorce, and who knows what percent of the remaining 4/5 include forced marriage or abuse.

Like I said, I’m married and I don’t think marriage is bad. But I’m also not so arrogant or narcissistic to extend my own life choices and extrapolate them to being integral to society.

I’m also not so narcissistic as to ascribe the success of marriage to the value of the people in the marriage. People change with time. Circumstances change. Marriage shouldn’t be a chain holding people together for eternity to the detriment of each person.

Also to be clear, I’m not saying you’re being a narcissist, though I do think your world view is clearly projected from your life choices based on your response but that’s not enough to judge someone online. Im saying that if I extrapolated my choices to others I’d consider myself a narcissist. Before you reply saying that I’m calling people names.

Marriage as a societal contract is archaic. I didn’t say it was dumb historically (marriage has a long and varied history, where love was often never a factor but made sense for the time), but it is archaic. Those aren’t synonyms.

"Imho you have a very idealized perception of marriage that doesn’t line up with the various shades of grey in reality." Let's ignore you calling me naive. Besides that friend I'm not taking this personally at all no matter how many times you want to insist I am. I'm working on a Saturday and killing some time on HN responding to a post with my opinion and some anecdotal experiences. It's generally called conversation. If you would prefer single sentence responses, so be it. I'm going to go weep into my coffee now since you emotionally devastated me. All the best :)

The point is that your anecdotes are meaningless to the veracity of the point at hand. That’s why they’re anecdotes.

Please stop, there is only so much I can take. ;)

Marrying "a good person" can also mitigate all those concerns you have. If two "good people" co-habitate then neither one will just leave after 20 years. Overall, advice about "good people" isn't really actionable.

> If you are not married and one partner makes significantly more than the other, what's to stop the wealthy partner just deciding 20 years into the relationship that they want a newer model and just leaving the former partner destitute?

So you like to force your spouse to stay in an otherwise unhappy marriage by putting a ring on their finger and have them sign a paper? So romantic!

Kidding aside, among the many reasons people like to marry, this is one of the worse ones.

> Or marry a good person, raise happy kids and live a good life together.

You might as well be telling someone to just be very lucky.

Or simply don’t marry someone you have just met! (And by “just met” I mean someone you haven’t been in a relationship with for at least 5 years)

The fear of someone being destitute after 20 years of marriage has been somewhat alleviated with divorce laws. Usually, the assets gained in mariage are split 50/50. This could also be set with a pre-nup. On the other hand, if neither party makes a good salary, you can't squeeze blood from a turnip.

"The fear of someone being destitute after 20 years of marriage has been somewhat alleviated with divorce laws" That's exactly my point. If they are not married then if the primary earner just up and left the other would be severely hurt financially.

Losing half of their wealth and honestly rolling the dice on whether a new relationship would be with someone who would be with them through thick and thin or just another “fair weather friend.”

If you are in a relationship with someone where the concern is losing half your wealth after 20 years together then I would advise not marrying that person. I make about double what my wife makes. If tomorrow she said, I want a divorce, then she can take half of what we saved over the 20+ years together without any issue from me (assuming infidelity was not involved, if it was I would go scorched earth). Anything I earned was done with her support. She was there to look after the kids on the nights and weekends I worked late. When I was working until 2am she would often get up to check on me. We earned the money together. When I left software development for 5 years and took a 65% paycut, she was the one that suggested it, indeed she made more than me during that time. When I came back to software she wanted to be sure it was not going to burn me out again.

I very much understand that I sound like a guy that started a business, beat the ods and was wildly successful telling you to open your own business while ignoring the reality that most businesses fail. America stands on the shoulders of those that tried and succeeded though.

I understand that marriages fail and that people get screwed over. I know I have been incredibly lucky with my marriage to my wife. There is really no way to know and I always recommend dating and living together for years before thinking about getting married. We roll the dice when we cross the street. Everything is a risk with no guarantee of a happy ending. For me the gamble was worth it and has paid massive returns far outstripping any financial concerns.

With that said some people get shafted and I really do feel bad for those people. Dedicating your life to someone to discover they are not who you thought must be a devastating experience.

This isn't really how it works though. She would take AT LEAST half of what you currently have, including stuff you had before you met. You would also have some responsibility for providing for her and your children in the future at a similar standard of living to her current one. You would have pension liability and could lose part of your business if you have one. This could likely be the case even if she was unfaithful. Not meaning to preach, just some things that I found out after the fact, that I never thought about when "young and in love".

And you get to take her stuff. If those are your fears marry for risk aversion. Marry someone who makes more money and has more stuff. You have to support your kids regardless if you are with someone or not. What does unfaithfulness matter in terms when dividing property. The unfaithfulness led to the divorce isn't that enough?

Great comment. Indeed it's not black and white.

And yes... live together for 3-5 years or so and then get married if you want. I wouldn't rush it.

> When I left software development for 5 years What did you do? Freelancing or left software dev in those years?

Was it easy to get back into it?

I left software completely. I had to get out. Every software job I have ever had results in me working 60+ hours a week, often more. I took a random office job at my wife's very large company. I was able to leverage my tech skills and excel. Got promoted very quickly. The main difference at least fore is when you leave the non tech job for the day or the weekend, it's gone. No need to think about it. Software is different, always some stupid deadline which requires nights and weekends. I eventually went back to software and have been here for many years now. I definitely feel like leaving again but the golden handcuffs and having kids makes it harder.

It was relatively easy to get another job. It was an entry level job making 55k but I only kept it for a couple years. Which is really a shame because it was the best software job I've ever had but it was a small company and I had kids to provide for.

Those damn golden handcuffs ;) … lucky to have that problem, but still… burnout / boreout is no fun.

I’m in a similar position as you, thinking about pivoting to something else for a while, but hesitant to make the jump because of economic uncertainty.

Thanks for the insight.

> if it was I would go scorched earth

Out of curiosity, why is that particular situation a red line for you?

Infidelity? For me its the ultimate betrayal. I can understand a drunken one night stand where the person that cheated immediately admitted to doing it. Anything else and you are essentially stealing choice from your partner. They are living a life based on an assumption of loyalty and you are allowing them to do so knowing that its a lie. Its choice theft and betrayal. On top of that, all trust would be dead. I don't want to have to spend my whole life worrying what my wife is doing if she is running an hour late from work or going out with friends.

I am very prone to emotional detachment so could adapt to being alone and be quite happy relatively quickly (probably within days). When my dad died I just flew up to my moms, organized the finances, organized the funeral and handled everything while everyone else mourned. I just moved on. I loved my dad a lot. I just detach. I haven't cried since I was a child. I'm not advocating one way or another for the healthiness of this but its just the way I am and see no need to change. Its allowed me to just trudge through things that should have shaken me up for months or years.

This is not a knock on my wife, she is amazing and I very much prefer her company to that of my own. I very much married up.

If someone does not confess immediately (like within a day) or cheats multiple times (even in the same day) or even worse has a lengthy affair I believe that is one of the worst things you can do to a person short of the obvious things like murder, violence, etc.

For me personally there can be no forgiveness. I'm not the moral police though, everyone is free to forgive as they want. If someone is cheated on and feels that its not a show stopper then that's their choice, I'm not them. This is very much just a personal thing, for which there can be no forgiveness. Divorce and separate lives is the only option. I would of course still co-parent (I would assume 50/50 custody) my kids with them and be civil (similar to how I interact with my kids teachers) but any emotional attachment would die. I would tell the kids why we are divorcing when they are old enough. This may just be a me thing its very easy for me to do the whole "dead to me" thing and just move on.

This is not a moral judgement on anyone else. People are free to forgive, pursue polyamorous relationships or whatever sexual agreements they want with the consent of their partners, etc. They key to all of these is knowing consent. My wife and I both know our rules around infidelity and its one of the pillars of our relationship.

Note: I'm writing very lengthy responses lately, I'm working too many nights and weekends and this is a distraction.

This is a very interesting perspective! I urge you to create a society or subculture which doesn't waste time on marriage. When it has lasted for at least one generation, come back and tell the rest of us about it.

The divorce rate is 50% in US and 40-50% in developed societies today. I would rather urge you to find a society that doesn't waste time on divorces and dysfunctional marriages today.

Does staying single make it any better? If you check the stats on that, I think you'll find married people tend to be happier, both financially and socially. The fact many marriages don't survive should not necessarily dissuade you from rolling the dice. Just be pickier about who you marry. Pre-marriage counselling can help weed out the improabable marriages.

I think they mean something like Canada's "common law marriage" as an alternative.

You never actually marry. No institutional stuff. No expensive dress to fuss over and never wear again. No huge expensive party for a lot of people that you actually don't like but have to invite. No expensive "honeymoon" vacation that has to be super special and that everyone around you wants to fuss about. No other expensive big party for all those people at 25 years married etc.

Instead you just get the same tax benefits as a married couple for having lived together for a certain amount of time. You stay together as if you were married for however long it lasts. Which in lots of cases is the same 50+ years some people stay married. Or not. No need for a paper. If you guys work out long term you work out long term. If you don't, you don't.

I can see how that approach would be attractive, since it is more convenient. But there is a cultural significance to ritual that makes life events more meaningful, and hence, more durable. If you don't treat it as a life-ling treatment, there is less of a chance you will treat it as such for 50 years.

I can see how the corset of tradition, social pressure and law can make marriage "more durable" of course. If you're facing eternal damnation and being ousted from the only social circle you know unless you marry before ever having sex and everyone around you does the exact same thing then of course many if not most people will endure all but the very worst marriages.

I'm glad this is finally past us in at least some places in the world. Unfortunately not everywhere. Not even in Canada or the US and other such countries.

I think the 50+% divorce rate in itself isn't the bad thing. It's not the root cause. It's just a statistic that shows how unhappy a lot of marriages have always been. But until recently-ish (and still in some places) people couldn't get out of it and endured it all and you can't tell me that they were better off that way.

You can treat "it" as a life-long treatment without all the pressures and the paper and all the other stuff.

Its not just the "corset of tradition" or social pressure. I mean rituals themselves have a psychological value. Kind of like how membership in an organization is made more durable by initiation ceremonies. Without those ceremonies, members tend to float away because they percieve less value in belonging.

What's the fertility rate in these awesome modern societies?

At planet sustaining levels and way below the rabbit kind of fertility that we still see in places where women have no rights and are forced into marriages and prevented from access to higher education.

My ex would scream at me if I even hinted to anyone that I was unhappy because "I was trying to make them look bad". Emotional abuse and manipulation, power imbalances, etc, skews stats in any group.

The failure rate for starting a business is much, much higher. Realistically, the failure rate for doing anything sufficiently ambitious or rewarding is going to be high. If your main goal is life is to avoid failure, enjoy your mediocrity.

So the number of successful marriages outside the U.S. is around 60%? Given the complexity of humanity, that actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.

By all means, forgo marriage but many of us quite like being married. I love it. Most of the time!

There’s lies, damned lies, and statistics.

This is one of those often misrepresented statistics. The divorce rate for first time marriages is much lower - off the top of my head I think it might be sub-20%?

This statistic gets skewed because some people go through multiple marriages. And I think it’s one of those things where it’s common that people have only been married once or like 3+ times. I’d imagine if you leave when one marriage gets tough you’ve opened the door to that being a viable option.

And yet the developed world is in turmoil, perhaps because we have abandoned the social contract involving marriage and the nuclear family for the good of our society.

I don't know the answer to this massively complex problem, but I don't think it's easy to reduce things to "marriage = dumb", especially with the world so divided and angry.

I mean, monasteries have existed for hundreds of years.

Thousands. And a phd program is pretty similar to a modern monastery.

Monasteries were a system for sustaining unwanted children, and those children united became a very powerful institution in the world. Before monasteries unwanted children were generally "exposed", meaning left in the wilderness as infants to be devoured by animals or freeze to death. Birth control is why you only see old monks or nuns today.

Still, monasteries didn't produce any children.

> the failure rate is too high

The rate dramatically changes with demographic, for example many of those were married young and did not complete education.

> who you pick to marry

The quote doesn't say whether :) Married men also tend to make more money and work for longer periods of time. There is a cynical view of whether that's good or not, but 40-50 year old single men don't seem to be a particularly successful demographic.

Married men live longer, but the last years are mostly garbage anyway. If you’re co-dependent or really need that companionship, autonomy and agency might not be what you’re optimizing for. Cashflow and wealth doesn’t buy love or happiness, only choices and freedom. Optimize accordingly.

Your comment cautioned against marriage for its "cost". Now you are talking about lifestyle preferences.

My apologies, sometimes I forget connecting the dots must be more explicit. Tell me the lifestyle of someone who has their assets split in half and having to provide alimony/maintenance for (possibly) the rest of their partner’s life. I can only speak for my circle of social acquaintances, many divorced, all living terrible lifestyles because of the financial burden of divorce. Some got away with only losing half their assets and having to provide $3k-$5k/month post tax to their ex partners. Some, worse. One expects to have to work to death, and can never retire.

I’m just working back to first principals. You can be happy without the legal Russian Roulette of marriage is my overarching thesis, and I apologize again it took so many words to arrive at my point.

Now you're talking about financial burden again. I don't wish the situation you are describing on anyone, and I am sympathetic to making choices to avoid that happening. I don't think that is inconsistent with my other comments.

Just to add, here are a few other things that also limit your day to day freedom and add some risk of legal nightmares:

- operating a business

- owning a home or other building

- running for political office

- raising a child

- using a professional license (medical, law, civil engineer, etc)

>The rate dramatically changes with demographic, for example many of those were married young and did not complete education.

So OP, a 28 year old male still in the process of completing education?

I agree with ianai and toomuchtodo, marriage can wait (assuming one is even interested in it) until you've made your place in the world and have time and room to think about such things.

Conversely when i was in a similar situation, my marriage was the thing that helped carry me through. She was a rock and gave me the kind of support i wasnt really getting anywhere else. But we also shared the journey (hers and mine) and that experience in itself is more valuable than my degree (which i neither use nor rarely reference).

IMHO the reality is a marriage os neither something required nor something to avoid, it lies along side professional life and again IMHO, recommending one to get married or not doesnt deserve a place alongside how one should pursue their career goals. They should be equally pursued in a balanced fashion suited to the individual.

"Marriage is an unnecessary burden and construct in modern times."

Too early to say. It is possible (though by no means certain) that by 2200, the Earth will be inhabited by a mix of the Amish, the Haredim and various Salafist creeds which, while distinctly non-modern, never stopped reproducing themselves, while all the modernized groups did.

Edit: interesting that this comment attracted two downvotes but no rebuttal. I would say that the process is at the very least visible in Israel, at its conception in 1948 a very secular state whose demographics has since then changed a lot due to high TFR of the Haredim. And the Israeli politics seems to be following its demography.

As universal as divorce

Meaning, the "validity" of marriage is built into the power hierarchy. The same power hierarchy that determines whether a couple should stay together. People are going to get together. Wouldn't it be better if they could just be together without the need for an authority?

People have children and live their lives together all the time without involving the government or their personal deity. Marriage is a hierarchical construct rooted in male supremacy and heteronormativity.

You seem to be arguing that marriage is a dumb legal thing, ergo relationships are not important. Even if the premise is true, your conclusion is unrelated.

With empathy to the OP, this sentence > Plus if someone is bailing on you when you’re finishing a degree they definitely weren’t going to be there for you in actually troubling times - like an illness or your house burning down

Is also kind of fucked up. There's no particular reason to suggest their partner left because they were unwilling to support a partner through a tough time. Maybe it is the case. But that's a very aggressive assumption that implicitly strips the lost partner of any individual autonomy.

I have noticed that Phd holders usually advise buckling down and dealing with whatever abuse or bureaucratic nightmares are required to finish.

I think I agree with 1 year out, but I would be surprised if this hasn't been going on for longer.

> Forget the outside stuff. ... Feeling like a failure or success is almost a worthless concern as you’re clearly nearly done with a huge life goal. ... Marriages are fundamentally just a societal complication of a relationship ...

Ungenerous translation: That thing that's been really important to you for four years -- just forget about it. If you stop feeling bad about it that you'll stop feeling bad about it. Also marriage is objectively a silly institution. Sounds like you'd like to get married. Maybe that makes you silly. Getting a PhD though -- that's going to change your life forever! You'll be proud! If you're not proud because you don't like your sub-field, well ... maybe that also makes you silly!

To the OP: Sounds like stuff's really hard right now. I'm sorry for that. Grad school is damn hard some times and relationships are too. If find the above advice reassuring or helpful, great! If not, try to brush it off and read other more supportive comments. I hope things get better for you soon.

>Marriages are fundamentally just a societal complication of a relationship - complete with dubious legal consequences and a not a sure thing that can end. (Plus if someone is bailing on you when you’re finishing a degree they definitely weren’t going to be there for you in actually troubling times - like an illness or your house burning down.)

Excellent observations.

@ianai: The POSTER is talking about being under-prepared for integrating their emotions into their lives, and NOT in the "life goal" sense.

"[I am a] broken pile of glass" != "[I need to hear about the] job market" kind of situation.

As I read their posting, it's more of a "help me develop my emotional intelligence."

Which still sounds pretty normal for a last year of phd. Freedom and autonomy from the burden await past the degree.

Deep psychological work is going to take longer than a year, cost $$$$, could be fleeting, and clearly not going to finish the degree in a year.

Or quit the program and start a new life. But I’d strongly advise OP first honestly discuss that with their mentors.

Life absolutely will go on and the market will find a place for OPs work in either direction.

I see. Makes sense.

And for me it's sad for me to see a person, the OP, being / complaining of overwhelmed by the tall wave of their goals competing with their significant emotional trauma .. their psyche is pretty unhappy.

> Marriages are fundamentally just a societal complication of a relationship - complete with dubious legal consequences and a not a sure thing that can end.

Depending on how you see the marriage. Did people or God[1] invent it? TBH, I'm wondering if you are / were married or just talking.

- Marriage is not about finding the right person, but rather BE the right person.

- Don't expect a not perfect person to fulfill your desires, but rather try to be there to support the other.

- Don't try to change the person. You fell in love in the end with that person. Why change her/him?

[1] I know that this might not be popular on HN. I can accept that.