Long time viewer.. I found it a bit off-putting that Helen prefaced the episode by emphasizing she's in a happy marriage, especially since the goal was to de-stigmatize divorce. Most people enter marriage happily, not expecting to be part of the 40% who divorce. Caveating the discussion that way feels a bit alienating to people who are actually seeking support or understanding around the topic. It’s evident, whether consciously or not, that people in happy marriages can often carry some judgment toward those who get divorced. There’s this sense of being on one team, believing you’d never end up on the other side. De-stigmatizing something means fostering open conversations, not framing it with a disclaimer like 'I'm happy, by the way.' Just an observation.
I don't necessarily think that's the case. Think of her position as a public figure. People, with their natural curiosity, will wonder if this topic was spurred by issues between her and her husband, especially as they are so open about their lives. This answers the question at the offset of the podcast. Imagine the questions and the invasive inquiries into her life if she didn't preface the episode this way.
@@ailenelong7921 I understand the perspective of addressing curiosity as a public figure, but I think there's a way to do that without unintentionally alienating a portion of the audience. For example, she could have clarified her personal situation later in the discussion, rather than leading with it. By starting with a disclaimer about her happy marriage, it risks framing the conversation in a way that separates 'us' from 'them'-those who are happily married versus those who are divorced or considering it. If the goal is to de-stigmatize divorce, the focus should be on creating empathy and not preemptively dispelling assumptions about her own life.
@@ailenelong7921 Sure, at the end of the day, it’s not a big deal-the world will keep spinning. But it does raise a broader critique about podcasting as a skill and the importance of creators nurturing the communities they’ve built. The way they’ve been hosting guests lately, by sticking too closely to preplanned questions, feels overly clinical. As a long-time listener, I’ve noticed this becoming more noticeable in recent episodes.
It is kind of like a brag for those who are seeking advice on divorce. I wouldn't even think the content reflects their personal lives. It is just nice to have many different topics covered.
Yes, yes, and yes. Every one should do a prenup these days. In my opinion its a must. There is nothing to worry about for the wife because she will enjoy everything the man has so long as she remains loyal to him and as long as she chooses to be with him. Its just a protection for if she decides to cheat or file for a "no fault" divorce, the man gets to protect his hard earned money. If the guy already has his money and house before he met his wife, he should still be able to keep them when she decides to cheat or leave him.
It depends on how good the prenup is and what it covers if offspring are involved during the time together, as well as who is financially able when the divorce occurs. Some of the pre-marriage assets might get protected, but unless one or both are filing taxes separately after the union, it might be difficult to separate the longer the marriage continues and children arrive at the union, as well as new properties/assets. If children come in, it's the woman who gives birth to the child, having the medical of 9 months maternity, childbirth and initial raising which impacts if she has a career. Multiple children mean less years in her career. As the couple gets older, once employers start seeing either of the employed spouses being less profitable and successful, the business might terminate either of the couple to reduce the business payroll & retirement contribution. At that point, there might be a mortgage, car payments, education of the offspring/college plus household expenses with only one or none of the couple employed. People think divorces only occurs when they are 'young' but it could be more devastated with they are middle aged or close to senior.
It's a decent episode for the current modern woman, but most people (men & women who aren't lawyers) ignore obtaining the basic information of marriage & divorce when they get seriously involved and even after. While communication is necessary, people don't always remain the same throughout their time together. People change and those changes & non communications spreads the divide. Then emotions accelerate the division and that division of assets along if there are children involved becomes bargaining chips. I've had too many friends (male & female), relatives (male & female) get married & divorced. Many of them all feel the emotional and financial toll of it. In terms of rebuilding their lives, their future & assets, and relationships if children are involved.
Long time viewer.. I found it a bit off-putting that Helen prefaced the episode by emphasizing she's in a happy marriage, especially since the goal was to de-stigmatize divorce. Most people enter marriage happily, not expecting to be part of the 40% who divorce. Caveating the discussion that way feels a bit alienating to people who are actually seeking support or understanding around the topic. It’s evident, whether consciously or not, that people in happy marriages can often carry some judgment toward those who get divorced. There’s this sense of being on one team, believing you’d never end up on the other side. De-stigmatizing something means fostering open conversations, not framing it with a disclaimer like 'I'm happy, by the way.' Just an observation.
I don't necessarily think that's the case. Think of her position as a public figure. People, with their natural curiosity, will wonder if this topic was spurred by issues between her and her husband, especially as they are so open about their lives. This answers the question at the offset of the podcast. Imagine the questions and the invasive inquiries into her life if she didn't preface the episode this way.
@@ailenelong7921 I understand the perspective of addressing curiosity as a public figure, but I think there's a way to do that without unintentionally alienating a portion of the audience. For example, she could have clarified her personal situation later in the discussion, rather than leading with it. By starting with a disclaimer about her happy marriage, it risks framing the conversation in a way that separates 'us' from 'them'-those who are happily married versus those who are divorced or considering it. If the goal is to de-stigmatize divorce, the focus should be on creating empathy and not preemptively dispelling assumptions about her own life.
@@ailenelong7921 Sure, at the end of the day, it’s not a big deal-the world will keep spinning. But it does raise a broader critique about podcasting as a skill and the importance of creators nurturing the communities they’ve built. The way they’ve been hosting guests lately, by sticking too closely to preplanned questions, feels overly clinical. As a long-time listener, I’ve noticed this becoming more noticeable in recent episodes.
I agree, life is long with different seasons always stay humble and grateful as with any life success is never promised to us.
It is kind of like a brag for those who are seeking advice on divorce. I wouldn't even think the content reflects their personal lives. It is just nice to have many different topics covered.
My favorite episode so far!!!
Apparently checking the stats Ive beaten the odds of a first marriage/divorce now that I'm 30 xD It can't get any worse for me during single life haha
Yes, yes, and yes. Every one should do a prenup these days. In my opinion its a must. There is nothing to worry about for the wife because she will enjoy everything the man has so long as she remains loyal to him and as long as she chooses to be with him. Its just a protection for if she decides to cheat or file for a "no fault" divorce, the man gets to protect his hard earned money. If the guy already has his money and house before he met his wife, he should still be able to keep them when she decides to cheat or leave him.
It depends on how good the prenup is and what it covers if offspring are involved during the time together, as well as who is financially able when the divorce occurs. Some of the pre-marriage assets might get protected, but unless one or both are filing taxes separately after the union, it might be difficult to separate the longer the marriage continues and children arrive at the union, as well as new properties/assets. If children come in, it's the woman who gives birth to the child, having the medical of 9 months maternity, childbirth and initial raising which impacts if she has a career. Multiple children mean less years in her career. As the couple gets older, once employers start seeing either of the employed spouses being less profitable and successful, the business might terminate either of the couple to reduce the business payroll & retirement contribution. At that point, there might be a mortgage, car payments, education of the offspring/college plus household expenses with only one or none of the couple employed. People think divorces only occurs when they are 'young' but it could be more devastated with they are middle aged or close to senior.
It's a decent episode for the current modern woman, but most people (men & women who aren't lawyers) ignore obtaining the basic information of marriage & divorce when they get seriously involved and even after. While communication is necessary, people don't always remain the same throughout their time together. People change and those changes & non communications spreads the divide. Then emotions accelerate the division and that division of assets along if there are children involved becomes bargaining chips. I've had too many friends (male & female), relatives (male & female) get married & divorced. Many of them all feel the emotional and financial toll of it. In terms of rebuilding their lives, their future & assets, and relationships if children are involved.