Parents of daughters are more likely to divorce than those with sons(economist.com)
economist.com
Parents of daughters are more likely to divorce than those with sons
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2021/02/06/daughters-provoke-parental-strife
643 comments
We're talking about 20.12% vs 20.48% chance of divorce. Take this sentence from the article:
> “If fathers were really more likely to take off because they preferred sons, surely they wouldn’t wait 13 years to do so,” reasons Dr Kabatek.
It's pure speculation: no data, no model, nothing. But even if dr. Kabatek is right, it only takes a fraction of the fathers to obtain that 1.8% difference. You can't really explain such small differences with sweeping explanations (raising daughters is more stressful than raising sons, abortion of sons conceived into tenuous marriages, or your mother/daughter friction) without adding many, many more factors that mitigate them.
And let's not forget that the data is difficult to interpret. The (preprint of the) article's abstract even starts like this:
> Evidence from the U.S. that couples with daughters are more likely to divorce than couples with sons has not been found for other Western countries.
> “If fathers were really more likely to take off because they preferred sons, surely they wouldn’t wait 13 years to do so,” reasons Dr Kabatek.
It's pure speculation: no data, no model, nothing. But even if dr. Kabatek is right, it only takes a fraction of the fathers to obtain that 1.8% difference. You can't really explain such small differences with sweeping explanations (raising daughters is more stressful than raising sons, abortion of sons conceived into tenuous marriages, or your mother/daughter friction) without adding many, many more factors that mitigate them.
And let's not forget that the data is difficult to interpret. The (preprint of the) article's abstract even starts like this:
> Evidence from the U.S. that couples with daughters are more likely to divorce than couples with sons has not been found for other Western countries.
“But in the five years when the first-born is between the ages of 13 and 18, that increase goes up to 5%. And it peaks, at 9%, when the child is 15.”
It's crucial to understand what these percentages mean.
"between the ages 13 and 18, parents of first-born girls divorce more than parents of first-born boys. The odds of divorce within this period are 10.7% for parents of boys, and 11.3% for parents of girls." https://theconversation.com/parents-of-teenage-daughters-mor...
There are 2 ways of spinning this. 10.7% to 11.3% is only a 0.6% increase in "absolute" terms. In "relative" terms it's a 5.6% increase, but that sounds worse than it really is. If you start with a very small number, then almost any increase no matter how small represents a significant increase in relative percentage.
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
"between the ages 13 and 18, parents of first-born girls divorce more than parents of first-born boys. The odds of divorce within this period are 10.7% for parents of boys, and 11.3% for parents of girls." https://theconversation.com/parents-of-teenage-daughters-mor...
There are 2 ways of spinning this. 10.7% to 11.3% is only a 0.6% increase in "absolute" terms. In "relative" terms it's a 5.6% increase, but that sounds worse than it really is. If you start with a very small number, then almost any increase no matter how small represents a significant increase in relative percentage.
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Relative percentages can also quite easily be inverted, if one look at the complement.
The alternative way to look at it is that 89.3% vs. 88.7% don't divorce, which makes it a relative difference of 0.7%.
The do-divorce is a 5.6% increase, and the don't-divorce is a 0.7%; both are derived from the very same numbers.
The alternative way to look at it is that 89.3% vs. 88.7% don't divorce, which makes it a relative difference of 0.7%.
The do-divorce is a 5.6% increase, and the don't-divorce is a 0.7%; both are derived from the very same numbers.
Excellent point.
There's also the dubious assumption that increasing the divorce rate is a bad thing. Kids can sometimes suffer more from an unhappy marriage than from divorce. Especially older kids who are more aware of the situation.
There's also the dubious assumption that increasing the divorce rate is a bad thing. Kids can sometimes suffer more from an unhappy marriage than from divorce. Especially older kids who are more aware of the situation.
Whats the p value? If p only below 5% this could be just happen by screening 'western' countries.
Right. There's more than 20 western countries. If P is around 5% we would expect the result just from random fluctuation. If you start looking at other factors, such as number of children, when you have children, age gaps between children, etc., let's say 5 different potential scenarios, you would expect to see things that only have a 1% chance of happening. If 5 other groups are doing similar analysis, one of them is likely to see trends that only have a 0.2% chance of happening. I would take this result with a huge grain of salt.
I can’t stress how important it is for parents to build really strong communication skills. Young kids, and especially teenager, are experts at divide and conquer. If parents are not presenting a united front, stress and parents fighting often follows. We never countermand one another in front of the children. Ever. Any time kids ask for something or want something it’s always “what did your mother/father” say first. If they mislead or lie about their answer to that question it’s on them and the consequences are much heavier for them. It’s a simple system but it takes a lot of trust and patience with your spouse.
Yes, it's shocking how our "family" court system works. It seems designed to generate maximum pain, maximum billable hours, even if the parents start out being reasonable, if an attorney whispers enough poison, and the parents listen, then the fight will go on and on, at least until you can't afford the retainer.
I'm not sure how real the risk of losing all contact with your kids is, however that threat is the only weapon some attorneys know how to use, and it can be incredibly difficult to a) keep your head, remember her attorney has no authority over you and every motivation to put you on tilt, and b) endure the injustices. especially with young children, even week-long absences are painful, and it will put you on tilt. A month, or 3 months, is a lifetime, and it will reduce you to a puddle of tears, and you'll have to learn how to reconstitute yourself, like Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen.
This is why I strongly recommend against marriage until the divorce industry is reformed to provide harsh penalties to any actors (attorneys or parents) that use time-sharing as a tool of torture to extract legal agreements. I would also harshly penalize shunning, and "pile on" behavior that parents friends and family might indulge in, but that's a little harder to control.
I'm not sure how real the risk of losing all contact with your kids is, however that threat is the only weapon some attorneys know how to use, and it can be incredibly difficult to a) keep your head, remember her attorney has no authority over you and every motivation to put you on tilt, and b) endure the injustices. especially with young children, even week-long absences are painful, and it will put you on tilt. A month, or 3 months, is a lifetime, and it will reduce you to a puddle of tears, and you'll have to learn how to reconstitute yourself, like Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen.
This is why I strongly recommend against marriage until the divorce industry is reformed to provide harsh penalties to any actors (attorneys or parents) that use time-sharing as a tool of torture to extract legal agreements. I would also harshly penalize shunning, and "pile on" behavior that parents friends and family might indulge in, but that's a little harder to control.
You can forego family court and settle through mediation if you want. In my experience, the core driver of friction as usually seemed to be that the parties hate each other.
You can't "settle through mediation if you want" if the other side doesn't want that. You need two sides agreeing to settle through mediation and coming with reasonable requests, while it's enough that one side disagrees or is coming with unreasonable requests, to get both sides to the court.
Just want to add here that family court comes into play anytime there are underage children involved, irrespective of whether the parents are married or not (in most states).
So not getting married provides no protection from being involved in those same, potentially endless, ongoing family court cases.
So not getting married provides no protection from being involved in those same, potentially endless, ongoing family court cases.
I decided to avoid marriage and kids in large part due to the divorce courts, so you do have that option. Vasectomy is not the ideal option, but it’s seriously worth considering in our utterly broken society.
FFS. I'm writing this, contrary to the spirit of HN, not to respond to someone, but for anyone else reading that utterly toxic advice:
Partner up with someone you love, live with them long enough to be certain you are both in it for the long term (N>3Y, if you need a rough minimum guideline), then consider having a kid or two. It's not effing complicated - happy parents, happy kids. Make sure you dial in the 'happy parents' part before you think about kids. There is no shame in ending a relationship and trying over, and there's no shame in NOT having kids if you aren't sure about the 'happy parents' part.
If you think our society is utterly broken and hopeless, sure, get snipped. On the other hand, if you think you are capable of having stable relationships, raising children is pretty damn magical. Just don't fool yourself into thinking you have a great relationship because you want kids.
Partner up with someone you love, live with them long enough to be certain you are both in it for the long term (N>3Y, if you need a rough minimum guideline), then consider having a kid or two. It's not effing complicated - happy parents, happy kids. Make sure you dial in the 'happy parents' part before you think about kids. There is no shame in ending a relationship and trying over, and there's no shame in NOT having kids if you aren't sure about the 'happy parents' part.
If you think our society is utterly broken and hopeless, sure, get snipped. On the other hand, if you think you are capable of having stable relationships, raising children is pretty damn magical. Just don't fool yourself into thinking you have a great relationship because you want kids.
I disagree. Many, many relationships end 5 and 10 years into it. People change, and this is even more likely to happen if you met before both of you are 25 and then again in mid life.
Yes, get to know someone before having children. But I'd argue that you should have children with someone that seems like they'll be a good parent even if the relationship is over. Its OK to talk about it upfront, too.
Also, a note about "getting snipped": In some countries (like the US), it is almost impossible for a childless female to get sterilized. "You'll change your mind" "you don't have children, so no" "Why don't we ask your spouse" (these last two happen to men as well). You don't have the right to be sterilized. Other places, you must wait until you are 25, but then everyone - male or female - can get sterilized so long as they can pay for it. So, good luck, poor people.
Yes, get to know someone before having children. But I'd argue that you should have children with someone that seems like they'll be a good parent even if the relationship is over. Its OK to talk about it upfront, too.
Also, a note about "getting snipped": In some countries (like the US), it is almost impossible for a childless female to get sterilized. "You'll change your mind" "you don't have children, so no" "Why don't we ask your spouse" (these last two happen to men as well). You don't have the right to be sterilized. Other places, you must wait until you are 25, but then everyone - male or female - can get sterilized so long as they can pay for it. So, good luck, poor people.
> People change
...and they're particularly likely to change under stress, like perhaps the stress of major lifestyle changes associated with raising kids. Child-related constraints on schedules, travel, and finances often stress relationships that were fine for years before. When those kids become more independent and able to advocate for themselves - which is a good and healthy thing - you have the additional stress of a decision process that used to involve two people involving three or more instead. It's just a different world compared to the couple-without-children state. For some it's a breaking point.
...and they're particularly likely to change under stress, like perhaps the stress of major lifestyle changes associated with raising kids. Child-related constraints on schedules, travel, and finances often stress relationships that were fine for years before. When those kids become more independent and able to advocate for themselves - which is a good and healthy thing - you have the additional stress of a decision process that used to involve two people involving three or more instead. It's just a different world compared to the couple-without-children state. For some it's a breaking point.
For those reading this I would like to offer my own experience.
I was 24 when I got a vasectomy and it was probably the single best decision I ever made. Total cost was $800 (I paid cash) and the total time commitment was approximately 90 minutes. I spent less than 30 minutes on an initial consultation, half of which was scheduling the procedure. Another half hour was spent getting the procedure itself. And finally, you'll want to get a test done to ensure the procedure worked as advertised.
I was never asked 'are you really sure?' or 'what about your spouse?' or 'what if you change your mind?'
Edit - Also, it hurts less than my jaw after a trip to the dentist. More of a mild ache than serious 'pain'
I was 24 when I got a vasectomy and it was probably the single best decision I ever made. Total cost was $800 (I paid cash) and the total time commitment was approximately 90 minutes. I spent less than 30 minutes on an initial consultation, half of which was scheduling the procedure. Another half hour was spent getting the procedure itself. And finally, you'll want to get a test done to ensure the procedure worked as advertised.
I was never asked 'are you really sure?' or 'what about your spouse?' or 'what if you change your mind?'
Edit - Also, it hurts less than my jaw after a trip to the dentist. More of a mild ache than serious 'pain'
My income is very low. when I finally went in to planned parenthood they had some programs that paid for my vasectomy completely.
If you're curious about getting snipped it is worth a look to see if you qualify.
I wish there was some dashboard or app that you could put your income and other data into and it spits out what government/charity programs you qualify for. I'm sure there are many people out there struggling that qualify for help, but just don't know these programs exist.
If you're curious about getting snipped it is worth a look to see if you qualify.
I wish there was some dashboard or app that you could put your income and other data into and it spits out what government/charity programs you qualify for. I'm sure there are many people out there struggling that qualify for help, but just don't know these programs exist.
Still no guarantees...people change and kids are a new dynamic that can bring out the worst in a partner. Don’t ask how I know this.
I second this, you can blame society or figure out why you keep picking bad partners. Here’s a hint - there are warning signs that a partner is not going to be good relationship material. One may not be a deal-breaker but there’s a stacking effect. Some of these warning signs: child of abusive parents; child of alcoholic parents; mental disease struggles; alcoholism; drug dependency; anger issues; constantly yelling; habit of lying (whether in telling casual stories about themselves or making statements to others); alternate value system; bad financial management skills; severe identity questions.
There are enough fish in the sea that you do not need to take these characteristics into a marriage.
Find someone that shares your values, your vision of the future and ideally has a similar background to your own - unless you’re the one with the warning signs and are trying to “marry up”.
I don’t mean to diminish the importance of love, attraction, and personality compatibility, but for marriage it’s all that and a bag of chips.
Can you beat the odds? Sure. The point is the aforementioned attributes will make your life much, much harder than it already will be.
There are enough fish in the sea that you do not need to take these characteristics into a marriage.
Find someone that shares your values, your vision of the future and ideally has a similar background to your own - unless you’re the one with the warning signs and are trying to “marry up”.
I don’t mean to diminish the importance of love, attraction, and personality compatibility, but for marriage it’s all that and a bag of chips.
Can you beat the odds? Sure. The point is the aforementioned attributes will make your life much, much harder than it already will be.
You don’t need to pick a bad partner to get utterly fucked over. Sure, paying attention to warning signs is important, but believing making a sound choice is going to protect you is “just world” fantasy land.
However, don’t assume it’s about them, perhaps you’re the one that gets tempted to break things off for one reason or another. Are you happy with all the choices the you of 20 years ago made? Sometimes divorce is a straightforward process where people can remain friends after the fact, but that’s rare as normally someone’s upset.
However, don’t assume it’s about them, perhaps you’re the one that gets tempted to break things off for one reason or another. Are you happy with all the choices the you of 20 years ago made? Sometimes divorce is a straightforward process where people can remain friends after the fact, but that’s rare as normally someone’s upset.
There are always exceptions to rules, I'm not sure we need to dwell too much on that fact. This is about risk reduction, not absolute protection.
I graduated HS in the late 90's, have no children, and it was a very explicit choice.
When I was in college I read a story about a boy who was raped and then the courts required him to pay child support (IIRC the woman was a caregiver in a state facility).
I then read a story about a man who had his child support payments based upon his _SAVINGS_ rather than his income and after he went broken and could no longer make the full payments, went to jail.
I then read about a man who had 3 children with a woman and at some point his wife left him for his best friend. He had all 3 children tested and he was not the father of any of them. The courts still required him to pay child support.
After the 3rd story I decided the risk for me as a male was too great and I would never marry, nor have children.
I've been with my current SO for over 7 years and definitely consider her my life partner, but she understands that:
1. We will never marry, 2. We will never present as married (to protect against common law) 3. We will never have children (she cannot, so this works out for both of us)
---
It's easy to pass men like me off as MRA or disenfranchised or any other number of labels, but the truth is I don't think I've ever been on an MRA site, by all accounts I'm considered successful, and the opportunity has definitely been there.
The truth is I was physically and mentally abused until I left home for college and the result of this experience is that I'm very anti-authoritarian and in general much more guarded against the world than most. Once I realized just how stacked our legal system is against men I chose to protect myself. I just cannot imagine being told I can only see my children on a schedule and having to pay for the right to do so with the threat of jail.
Society pays a very real cost for its decision to treat men so badly. And this is not nearly as uncommon as you think, the ones who have made these sorts of decisions just tend not to talk about it.
Perhaps, rather than dismissing this as a toxic attitude you should endeavor to understand and perhaps help right the very real injustices that happen to men.
When I was in college I read a story about a boy who was raped and then the courts required him to pay child support (IIRC the woman was a caregiver in a state facility).
I then read a story about a man who had his child support payments based upon his _SAVINGS_ rather than his income and after he went broken and could no longer make the full payments, went to jail.
I then read about a man who had 3 children with a woman and at some point his wife left him for his best friend. He had all 3 children tested and he was not the father of any of them. The courts still required him to pay child support.
After the 3rd story I decided the risk for me as a male was too great and I would never marry, nor have children.
I've been with my current SO for over 7 years and definitely consider her my life partner, but she understands that:
1. We will never marry, 2. We will never present as married (to protect against common law) 3. We will never have children (she cannot, so this works out for both of us)
---
It's easy to pass men like me off as MRA or disenfranchised or any other number of labels, but the truth is I don't think I've ever been on an MRA site, by all accounts I'm considered successful, and the opportunity has definitely been there.
The truth is I was physically and mentally abused until I left home for college and the result of this experience is that I'm very anti-authoritarian and in general much more guarded against the world than most. Once I realized just how stacked our legal system is against men I chose to protect myself. I just cannot imagine being told I can only see my children on a schedule and having to pay for the right to do so with the threat of jail.
Society pays a very real cost for its decision to treat men so badly. And this is not nearly as uncommon as you think, the ones who have made these sorts of decisions just tend not to talk about it.
Perhaps, rather than dismissing this as a toxic attitude you should endeavor to understand and perhaps help right the very real injustices that happen to men.
Maybe universal prenups are the solution then. Prenups are nice because they keep the "exit" well-defined.
In fact, prenups are romantic! Why? Because some marriages are kept together only out of fear of the divorce process. Isn't it better to stay together out of love and affection, rather than fear of the consequences of a messy exit? So yeah: prenup == VERY romantic.
In fact, prenups are romantic! Why? Because some marriages are kept together only out of fear of the divorce process. Isn't it better to stay together out of love and affection, rather than fear of the consequences of a messy exit? So yeah: prenup == VERY romantic.
It seems like universal pre-nups and paternity tests would solve a lot of the problems that other commenters mentioned in this thread.
...and another quick note about prenups :)
They generally have limited or no influence on custody determinations; in other words, you can’t have a prenup that guarantees joint physical and legal custody or prevents a protracted family law case.
And the other lesser known fact is that prenups themselves can be challenged (and sometimes overturned).
Basically, if there is a will and the funds to litigate, there’s not much the other party can do do prevent this from happening. It will require time, money, expertise, patience and the ability to compromise (even with highly conflicting opinions) to eventually make it out on the other side.
So what can any of us do to avoid this fate without giving up entirely on marriage or kids?
1. Know yourself (at least a little bit) before jumping into marriage and kids. Develop your “whys”, principles and values.
2. Ensure you and your spouse are familiar with the processes and realities of the family law systems. Not just the horror stories but the underlying history, structure and reasons for its design and function.
3. Talk through with your prospective partner about values, goals, responsibilities, wealth, family, parenting, divorce; talk through different scenarios and try to get on the same page about the key components. (Tip: if you can’t agree or compromise even before marriage and kids, it doesn’t bode well!)
Sigh. So much to say here, but most folks have no interest in the subject until it’s too late. Education on this topic should at least be a prerequisite for getting a marriage license! :)
They generally have limited or no influence on custody determinations; in other words, you can’t have a prenup that guarantees joint physical and legal custody or prevents a protracted family law case.
And the other lesser known fact is that prenups themselves can be challenged (and sometimes overturned).
Basically, if there is a will and the funds to litigate, there’s not much the other party can do do prevent this from happening. It will require time, money, expertise, patience and the ability to compromise (even with highly conflicting opinions) to eventually make it out on the other side.
So what can any of us do to avoid this fate without giving up entirely on marriage or kids?
1. Know yourself (at least a little bit) before jumping into marriage and kids. Develop your “whys”, principles and values.
2. Ensure you and your spouse are familiar with the processes and realities of the family law systems. Not just the horror stories but the underlying history, structure and reasons for its design and function.
3. Talk through with your prospective partner about values, goals, responsibilities, wealth, family, parenting, divorce; talk through different scenarios and try to get on the same page about the key components. (Tip: if you can’t agree or compromise even before marriage and kids, it doesn’t bode well!)
Sigh. So much to say here, but most folks have no interest in the subject until it’s too late. Education on this topic should at least be a prerequisite for getting a marriage license! :)
yes.
every woman I've ever dated has understood from the beginning that if she ends up pregnant there will paternity tests done.
I've had a few get angry with me, but all of them understood it was going to happen regardless of their feelings.
every woman I've ever dated has understood from the beginning that if she ends up pregnant there will paternity tests done.
I've had a few get angry with me, but all of them understood it was going to happen regardless of their feelings.
> I decided to avoid marriage and kids in large part due to the divorce courts
I've never had a job because I'm worried what it would be like to be unemployed.
I've never had a job because I'm worried what it would be like to be unemployed.
That's hardly a fair comparison.
Being out of job just gets you back into the same situation you were in before.
Being out of marriage (even more so, marriage with kids) can get you into a much worse situation, financially-, mentally- and emotionally-wise, in comparison to where you were before.
Being out of job just gets you back into the same situation you were in before.
Being out of marriage (even more so, marriage with kids) can get you into a much worse situation, financially-, mentally- and emotionally-wise, in comparison to where you were before.
Unemployment is (hopefully) temporary - marriage, children, and divorce can permanently change your life.
Between 40-50% of US couples divorce[0].
Prior marriages substantially increase the chances of divorce[1].
41% of first marriages end in divorce.
60% of second marriages end in divorce.
73% of third marriages end in divorce.
I'm not against marriage but it's important to understand what's involved.
[0] https://www.apa.org/topics/divorce-child-custody
[1] https://www.wf-lawyers.com/divorce-statistics-and-facts/
Between 40-50% of US couples divorce[0].
Prior marriages substantially increase the chances of divorce[1].
41% of first marriages end in divorce.
60% of second marriages end in divorce.
73% of third marriages end in divorce.
I'm not against marriage but it's important to understand what's involved.
[0] https://www.apa.org/topics/divorce-child-custody
[1] https://www.wf-lawyers.com/divorce-statistics-and-facts/
If you spend enough time living with a partner together in the same locale you are de-facto married in many jurisdictions
Being not married is often utterly meaningless. You will be caught up in the dragnet.
Being not married is often utterly meaningless. You will be caught up in the dragnet.
It’s only currently possible to start one in 7 states and the District of Columbia. So avoid Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas, New Hampshire, and Utah. Though New Hampshire only accepts them for probate as a spouse can inherit without paying taxes etc.
Even in the remaining 6 states you generally have to represent yourselves as married in some context like filing taxes jointly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage_in_the_Uni...
PS: California does accept common law marriages formed in another state.
Even in the remaining 6 states you generally have to represent yourselves as married in some context like filing taxes jointly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage_in_the_Uni...
PS: California does accept common law marriages formed in another state.
This is known as common law marriage and has the requirement that you _PRESENT_ as married to the world. If you don't present as married you are not common law married.
I’ve heard it hurts a lot?
They use a needle injection and then a spray pain killer. I barely felt it during, most of the soreness was after the procedure. Don't plan on doing anything for 5 days.
I was a security guard at a casino and went back day 4. First half of my shift I was ok, but I went home half way through my shift because walking the patrols was becoming a little uncomfortable.
Here is a rather controversial opinion of mine, hope it is not out of place here:
I would highly encourage all men to get a vasectomy and to freeze your sperm. It is the only way to have sexual agency. Once the woman is pregnant, your consent does not matter and you only are along for the ride.
I just want to clarify here, I believe in Her body her choice. I just believe that the man should have this be a choice as well, and this the only option as far as I see. I would like to hear of alternatives if anyone has them.
Even if you feel sure of not wanting kids, freezing sperm is much cheaper then reversing the vasectomy. People change, and so can you.
I was a security guard at a casino and went back day 4. First half of my shift I was ok, but I went home half way through my shift because walking the patrols was becoming a little uncomfortable.
Here is a rather controversial opinion of mine, hope it is not out of place here:
I would highly encourage all men to get a vasectomy and to freeze your sperm. It is the only way to have sexual agency. Once the woman is pregnant, your consent does not matter and you only are along for the ride.
I just want to clarify here, I believe in Her body her choice. I just believe that the man should have this be a choice as well, and this the only option as far as I see. I would like to hear of alternatives if anyone has them.
Even if you feel sure of not wanting kids, freezing sperm is much cheaper then reversing the vasectomy. People change, and so can you.
Given the recent research linking advanced paternal age to a number of conditions, freezing your sperm is quite prudent even if you don't get snipped.
For 48 hours after the procedure you will walk slowly.
Then a mild kicked in the balls aching will follow for weeks.
Three hours after my vasectomy I went straight into work, against instruction. I was a pharmacist then so fairly active. The anesthesia wears off an about one hour. I chose not to take any ibuprofen throughout. It was fine. I don't have heroic levels of pain tolerance either.
Then a mild kicked in the balls aching will follow for weeks.
Three hours after my vasectomy I went straight into work, against instruction. I was a pharmacist then so fairly active. The anesthesia wears off an about one hour. I chose not to take any ibuprofen throughout. It was fine. I don't have heroic levels of pain tolerance either.
I would fear of having chronic PVPS
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-vasectomy_pain_syndrome
Interesting that I was not informed of this when I got my vasectomy.
Still would have gone through with the procedure. 1-2% chance with the vast majority having their pain treated with a second procedure is not enough of a risk to stop me from being in control of my own life.
But still, it would have been nice to be informed of this.
Still would have gone through with the procedure. 1-2% chance with the vast majority having their pain treated with a second procedure is not enough of a risk to stop me from being in control of my own life.
But still, it would have been nice to be informed of this.
OMG...
If only this message were more commonly known.
> I've seen many possible explanations mentioned. Most common seems to be that raising daughters is more stressful than raising sons (for various reasons)
My mother specifically stated that she always intended to leave my father after she had a daughter. The custody hearing was basically "I want the daughter, you keep the house kthxbye". I have a feeling that this is not a special case.
My mother specifically stated that she always intended to leave my father after she had a daughter. The custody hearing was basically "I want the daughter, you keep the house kthxbye". I have a feeling that this is not a special case.
She wanted to be a single mother if she had a daughter but not if she had a son?
Why did she want to be a single mother?
Why specifically if she had a daughter?
Why not if she had a son?
Was she concerned about your father raising a daughter and she wanted a different man, or different "type" of man, to raise her?
I'm sorry if that is personal and feel free to ignore me, but you did go there. I'm just oftentimes confused about people and their behavior / motivations in life... And this one is up there.
Why did she want to be a single mother?
Why specifically if she had a daughter?
Why not if she had a son?
Was she concerned about your father raising a daughter and she wanted a different man, or different "type" of man, to raise her?
I'm sorry if that is personal and feel free to ignore me, but you did go there. I'm just oftentimes confused about people and their behavior / motivations in life... And this one is up there.
> She wanted to be a single mother if she had a daughter but not if she had a son? / Why not if she had a son? / Why specifically if she had a daughter?
These are all the same question, which is answered "I didn't want the father to be involved with a daughter, after being married to him for a few years, she would be damaged." - my very frank mom, who was a teacher - and I'm her elder son. My mom was never worried about being a single mother.
Of course these questions have been asked, but the answer isn't really interesting. My question is if the conclusion that "daughters cause more instability" vs "mothers have diverse motivation to break a marriage", are the takeaways. I'm not sure that proper consideration was given, as if someone was searching for an answer, since they are pointing to it like it's a proper characterization of the data.
These are all the same question, which is answered "I didn't want the father to be involved with a daughter, after being married to him for a few years, she would be damaged." - my very frank mom, who was a teacher - and I'm her elder son. My mom was never worried about being a single mother.
Of course these questions have been asked, but the answer isn't really interesting. My question is if the conclusion that "daughters cause more instability" vs "mothers have diverse motivation to break a marriage", are the takeaways. I'm not sure that proper consideration was given, as if someone was searching for an answer, since they are pointing to it like it's a proper characterization of the data.
Because she'd never met a girl child before and had unrealistic expectations about what being singlehandedly responsible for a mini-her would be like. :P
From the article:
> that “daughter-divorce” risk emerges only in a first-born girl’s teenage years
> that “daughter-divorce” risk emerges only in a first-born girl’s teenage years
It’s actually much more simple than that: Many girls become assholes at age 12.
Parent comment is likely getting downvoted for its tone, but they've kind of got a point....the hormonal changes underway and the sociopathic clique-power games going on at school do indeed often combine to make many girls quite standoffish at that age.
And many boys experience hormonal changes that make them physically aggressive at that age.
So do many boys, so what's your point?
That difference seems small enough that child abuse (and specifically sexual abuse) could conceivably account for all of it. Girls are 4x more likely to experience childhood sexual abuse than boys.
[deleted]
> When mothers and daughters fight, it always puts fathers in a difficult position.
If a father shows empathy to both there's no reason for him to be put into the crosshairs. If both daughter and mother have a with us or against us attitude that says more about their character than anything else. These issues can be helped with healthier living choices, therapy or medication.
If a father shows empathy to both there's no reason for him to be put into the crosshairs. If both daughter and mother have a with us or against us attitude that says more about their character than anything else. These issues can be helped with healthier living choices, therapy or medication.
Speaking of empathy, try having some for people who have to live in households where real conflict occurs despite their own best efforts.
Sometimes you have to accept that people who are not you have conflicts.
For that matter, dad's have conflicts with their kids too. With both their sons and daughters. Moms have conflicts with their sons too. I don't know why mom daughter conflict is singled out as special here.
For that matter, dad's have conflicts with their kids too. With both their sons and daughters. Moms have conflicts with their sons too. I don't know why mom daughter conflict is singled out as special here.
> I don't know why mom daughter conflict is singled out as special here.
Then you didn't read before responding. As I said, there are issues of mothers' vs. fathers' roles, female self-perception, family court, etc. Each combination of mother/father and son/daughter plays out differently. Is it so hard to believe that conflict within one combination might lead to divorce more often than conflict in others? My experience leads me to believe that - through no fault of their own - mother/daughter relationships are more fraught than others. Maybe that's not true, but "they're all the same" is even more clearly not true.
Then you didn't read before responding. As I said, there are issues of mothers' vs. fathers' roles, female self-perception, family court, etc. Each combination of mother/father and son/daughter plays out differently. Is it so hard to believe that conflict within one combination might lead to divorce more often than conflict in others? My experience leads me to believe that - through no fault of their own - mother/daughter relationships are more fraught than others. Maybe that's not true, but "they're all the same" is even more clearly not true.
> parents of teenage daughters argue more about parenting than do the parents of sons
From my own experience. When my daughter hit 12 it was a fucking nightmare. The hormones hit girls hard and they can become incredibly difficult. That said, now she’s 13 things are much easier and look to be getting easier by the week. Although my wife and I both have to be very understanding and on the same team to deal with difficult behaviour — we have a lot of strategy meetings.
Lacking empathy, and wanting independence without responsibility are part of being a teenager. But 12-year old girls can sometimes be super charged griefers.
On the flip side, teenagers are actually awesome to hang out with and total joys full of creativity and fun — if you work through the refusal to clean their room, general lack of hygiene and the drama.
From my own experience. When my daughter hit 12 it was a fucking nightmare. The hormones hit girls hard and they can become incredibly difficult. That said, now she’s 13 things are much easier and look to be getting easier by the week. Although my wife and I both have to be very understanding and on the same team to deal with difficult behaviour — we have a lot of strategy meetings.
Lacking empathy, and wanting independence without responsibility are part of being a teenager. But 12-year old girls can sometimes be super charged griefers.
On the flip side, teenagers are actually awesome to hang out with and total joys full of creativity and fun — if you work through the refusal to clean their room, general lack of hygiene and the drama.
The last part about them being a joy to hang out with is crucial.
We need to remember we were like them once. They’re little extensions of us.
Whenever I have troubles with my kids I try to remember that I was a kid not that long ago. If I zoom out a little, it was just a blink. I’ll spend more of my life with my kids being adults, fate permitting, and the struggles of them figuring things out (and me as well) will be another blink. I really want to make the most of it.
We need to remember we were like them once. They’re little extensions of us.
Whenever I have troubles with my kids I try to remember that I was a kid not that long ago. If I zoom out a little, it was just a blink. I’ll spend more of my life with my kids being adults, fate permitting, and the struggles of them figuring things out (and me as well) will be another blink. I really want to make the most of it.
> We need to remember we were like them once.
To be honest I'm just barely hanging in trying to pretend I'm different now at 33.
To be honest I'm just barely hanging in trying to pretend I'm different now at 33.
I’m not a psychologist. All of my reflecting and self analyzing suggests current me and past me were basically the same people though. I’ve developed skills and my brain works better for certain things, but more or less the same person inside.
I don’t think it’s a bad thing. I was taught my entire life that I’d grow into something and certain things would happen that would make me an adult, and i suppose I inferred this would be transformative. Not really though. If I drop that inferred notion I almost find it freeing. I’m not a kid or an adult or anything besides “me”, whatever that needs to mean in the moment.
I don’t think it’s a bad thing. I was taught my entire life that I’d grow into something and certain things would happen that would make me an adult, and i suppose I inferred this would be transformative. Not really though. If I drop that inferred notion I almost find it freeing. I’m not a kid or an adult or anything besides “me”, whatever that needs to mean in the moment.
> On the flip side, teenagers are actually awesome to hang out with and total joys full of creativity and fun
I absolutely agree.
I absolutely agree.
> and look to be getting easier by the week.
Good luck :) From my understanding the worst age is actually closer to 14/15, and only by 17 or so do things get better.
Good luck :) From my understanding the worst age is actually closer to 14/15, and only by 17 or so do things get better.
From my time as a school teacher substitute in Denmark my experience is that 12-14 (7th and 8th grade) is the worst.
Stay strong! It’s a marathon, not a sprint.
Nice sentiment, but I'd liken it so a 26.2 mile sprint.
I feel western culture defines teen culture in a certain way and then 'teens' act in that way. Even now and in the past, you were see as an adult by 15.
https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/02/23/the-inventi...
Often by age 12 girls would be fully contributing household member doing all work done by adult women and by age 14-15 so would be boys doing everything an adult men would be doing.
Even now that's the case in many places in developing countries, teenagers act like complete adults in mannerism, thoughtfulness and responsibilities. Teenager is a phase that is a luxury, where despite being capable you use more than you bring/produce. In west, it gets you to be an adult without any consequences.
https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/02/23/the-inventi...
Often by age 12 girls would be fully contributing household member doing all work done by adult women and by age 14-15 so would be boys doing everything an adult men would be doing.
Even now that's the case in many places in developing countries, teenagers act like complete adults in mannerism, thoughtfulness and responsibilities. Teenager is a phase that is a luxury, where despite being capable you use more than you bring/produce. In west, it gets you to be an adult without any consequences.
Consider yourself lucky, I was already in juvenile detention at that age!
> if you work through the refusal to clean their room
Well, is it their room or not? If it’s their room, viz. their inviolable space, what basis[1] do you have to enforce your standards on others’ spaces? Unless it’s an actual hygiene/H&S/hoarding situation, or part of the de-jure shared living space (like a Jack+Jill bathroom) then a messy room isn’t a real problem, and raising a fuss about it is only going to create conflict.
[1]: “my house, my rules” is not a convincing argument: your kids have no choice w.r.t. where they live.
EDIT: as you can tell, I’m not a parent - and am still too mentally close to adolescence :)
Well, is it their room or not? If it’s their room, viz. their inviolable space, what basis[1] do you have to enforce your standards on others’ spaces? Unless it’s an actual hygiene/H&S/hoarding situation, or part of the de-jure shared living space (like a Jack+Jill bathroom) then a messy room isn’t a real problem, and raising a fuss about it is only going to create conflict.
[1]: “my house, my rules” is not a convincing argument: your kids have no choice w.r.t. where they live.
EDIT: as you can tell, I’m not a parent - and am still too mentally close to adolescence :)
It's very simple.
As a parent, your job is to help your children become the best people they can be, not the people they'd turn out by default.
I would much rather my son hate me now and thank me later than the other way around.
To use this example - if your choice is to raise a child who is organized vs one who is a slob: aim for organized because it will help them down the road in many ways. It's not the most important thing, but leaving the kid to their own devices is just lazy.
Funny example - every woman I ever dated has a story of coming to a guy's apartment, seeing that it's gross, and turning around. So these men are literally missing out on sex/partnership opportunities because their parents didn't teach them to clean up their room. Thanks a lot mom and dad.
As a parent, your job is to help your children become the best people they can be, not the people they'd turn out by default.
I would much rather my son hate me now and thank me later than the other way around.
To use this example - if your choice is to raise a child who is organized vs one who is a slob: aim for organized because it will help them down the road in many ways. It's not the most important thing, but leaving the kid to their own devices is just lazy.
Funny example - every woman I ever dated has a story of coming to a guy's apartment, seeing that it's gross, and turning around. So these men are literally missing out on sex/partnership opportunities because their parents didn't teach them to clean up their room. Thanks a lot mom and dad.
I'm sure those men could clean their rooms perfectly well if someone made them. Their problem isn't using the wrong solvents or mixing light and dark laundry. It's lacking the conscientiousness to do boring/unpleasant life admin work consistently when no one is making them. There may be ways for parents to impart this trait, but just making them is probably not it. Boys who clean because their mothers are angry become men who clean because their wives are angry.
FWIW my parents were 100% diligent about bedtime, nutrition, cleaning my room, etc. I threw it all to the wind as soon as I moved out for college. Predictably I felt like shit. But I had to go through those experiences of feeling like shit, and then noticing that the "responsible" behaviors helped, before I cared enough to prioritize them.
In other words, I see what my parents were trying to do. I see what so many parents are trying to do when they get into huge conflicts with their kids. Teach lessons that they learned firsthand, so that the kids can skip the unpleasant parts (being sleep deprived, living in filth, bad breakups, whatever) and just do everything right the first time. But it doesn't work that way. Everyone has to find out for themselves.
FWIW my parents were 100% diligent about bedtime, nutrition, cleaning my room, etc. I threw it all to the wind as soon as I moved out for college. Predictably I felt like shit. But I had to go through those experiences of feeling like shit, and then noticing that the "responsible" behaviors helped, before I cared enough to prioritize them.
In other words, I see what my parents were trying to do. I see what so many parents are trying to do when they get into huge conflicts with their kids. Teach lessons that they learned firsthand, so that the kids can skip the unpleasant parts (being sleep deprived, living in filth, bad breakups, whatever) and just do everything right the first time. But it doesn't work that way. Everyone has to find out for themselves.
It's a good point. But did it help that when you decided to prioritise those things, you actually had some idea how to execute?
I don’t think I ever found the information or techniques challenging. I do think that having the prior experience of a “wholesome” life made it occur to me as a potential solution to malaise. It’s very sad that some kids never experience that baseline.
Not if you have any kind of executive-function disorder, which is one of the common traits of ASD and ADD/ADHD.
> There may be ways for parents to impart this trait, but just making them is probably not it. Boys who clean because their mothers are angry become men who clean because their wives are angry.
This is the point I was trying to make in my downvoted post - thank you for stating it more clearly than I was able to.
This is the point I was trying to make in my downvoted post - thank you for stating it more clearly than I was able to.
> I would much rather my son hate me now and thank me later than the other way around.
Well put.
Well put.
The role of a parent is to help children grow into healthy functioning adults. Avoiding unnecessary conflict is something we should all strive for, avoiding all conflict is tantamount to simply not parenting.
Frankly this entire argument feels like an intentional twisting of the common expression "their room."
Frankly this entire argument feels like an intentional twisting of the common expression "their room."
[deleted]
I took it to mean their bedroom specifically, assuming they have a bedroom to themselves.
I’m fine with having family “team cleans”: it’s a positive shared experience, and I can’t protest instilling discipline for tidiness either - I just draw the line at “tidy your room” as overstepping a crucial boundary that arbitrarily encroaches on our autonomy.
By analogy, it’s like if my parents forced me to use a particular desktop wallpaper image on my computer, or restricting what I wore on weekends without a better reasoned argument than “because I said so”.
I’m fine with having family “team cleans”: it’s a positive shared experience, and I can’t protest instilling discipline for tidiness either - I just draw the line at “tidy your room” as overstepping a crucial boundary that arbitrarily encroaches on our autonomy.
By analogy, it’s like if my parents forced me to use a particular desktop wallpaper image on my computer, or restricting what I wore on weekends without a better reasoned argument than “because I said so”.
> I just draw the line at “tidy your room” as overstepping a crucial boundary that arbitrarily encroaches on our autonomy.
Teenagers don't have full autonomy, that's why they aren't adults. Parents exist to set boundaries and expectations for teenager's future adulthood (or more specifically their viewpoint on what a normal adult is).
Many teenagers enter adulthood and realize their parent's expectations weren't who they wish to be. But generally their parent's version is a good enough starting point to discover who they wish to become as an adult.
If new adults decide they want to live in a mess, at that time they can choose to do so because they hopefully understand the social, functional, and health consequences of that choice. An understanding a teenager may lack.
Teenagers don't have full autonomy, that's why they aren't adults. Parents exist to set boundaries and expectations for teenager's future adulthood (or more specifically their viewpoint on what a normal adult is).
Many teenagers enter adulthood and realize their parent's expectations weren't who they wish to be. But generally their parent's version is a good enough starting point to discover who they wish to become as an adult.
If new adults decide they want to live in a mess, at that time they can choose to do so because they hopefully understand the social, functional, and health consequences of that choice. An understanding a teenager may lack.
It's also about providing them with the necessary skills so that they actually do have a choice. If a kid never learns to tidy up, wash dishes, sort their laundry etc. then when they move out of home they may not know how to take care of themselves.
If they have the skills and just choose to be a slob, that's on them. But many young adults seem genuinely lost.
If they have the skills and just choose to be a slob, that's on them. But many young adults seem genuinely lost.
It's a stupid comparison, because keeping your stuff organized is an important life skill while choice of desktop wallpaper is irrelevant.
Well, I guess if your desktop wallpaper was porn or nazi paraphernalia your parents would be totally right to teach you that it should be something else.
Frankly your posts read like someone who doesn't understand that as an adult, it's your responsibility to have more wisdom and experience than your kids, and to help them benefit from it.
Well, I guess if your desktop wallpaper was porn or nazi paraphernalia your parents would be totally right to teach you that it should be something else.
Frankly your posts read like someone who doesn't understand that as an adult, it's your responsibility to have more wisdom and experience than your kids, and to help them benefit from it.
as an adult, it's your responsibility to have more wisdom and experience than your kids, and to help them benefit from it.
This is true, but it's also your responsibility to help them gain wisdom and experience. Making decisions for them may leverage your wisdom and experience wonderfully, but sometimes it's important to let them make mistakes and learn from them.
This is true, but it's also your responsibility to help them gain wisdom and experience. Making decisions for them may leverage your wisdom and experience wonderfully, but sometimes it's important to let them make mistakes and learn from them.
Sure. I am saying "the what", you are suggesting a "how." Hopefully the parent's wisdom and experience enables them to select the right approach for the circumstance.
Using the "clean your room" example though, that's more of a skill and habit because it's not the kind of thing that's gonna feel like "a mistake to learn from" - perhaps until much much later. That's actually how it worked out with me, my mom is a messy hoarder and I grew up like that, but by the time I moved in with my now-wife I just brought my plant, computer and a small amount of clothes :)
But my life would have been better if I was always neat and organized rather than figuring it out in my late 20s.
Using the "clean your room" example though, that's more of a skill and habit because it's not the kind of thing that's gonna feel like "a mistake to learn from" - perhaps until much much later. That's actually how it worked out with me, my mom is a messy hoarder and I grew up like that, but by the time I moved in with my now-wife I just brought my plant, computer and a small amount of clothes :)
But my life would have been better if I was always neat and organized rather than figuring it out in my late 20s.
Conversely, they might just leave home and feel joy at the freedom to finally live how they want to live.
There's also something to be said for learning from the mistakes of others. I saw what smoking did to my grandfather. It destroyed his lungs and he slowly lost the ability to breathe. It robbed him of his strength, then his mobility, then his life. It made a stronger impression on me than a good role model ever could.
Perhaps you particularly appreciate the value of a good habit specifically because you saw the consequences of the opposite.
There's also something to be said for learning from the mistakes of others. I saw what smoking did to my grandfather. It destroyed his lungs and he slowly lost the ability to breathe. It robbed him of his strength, then his mobility, then his life. It made a stronger impression on me than a good role model ever could.
Perhaps you particularly appreciate the value of a good habit specifically because you saw the consequences of the opposite.
(Completely off-topic: I noticed your username and wondered if it was a reference to the C&C community?)
Yes. Tiberian Sun was the first PC game I owned and Westwood Online was the first service I needed a username for (aside from my email). It's been my handle since 1999.
It's their room but my house. Just like in my house I still have to follow the rules that my government puts on me, they have to follow the house rules. They have some autonomy as to how they want to do that, but they still have to follow the rules.
[deleted]
>Well, is it their room or not? ...their inviolable space
It is not their room.
> “my house, my rules” is not a convincing argument
It is in my house ;)
It is not their room.
> “my house, my rules” is not a convincing argument
It is in my house ;)
>> my house, my rules” is not a convincing argument
>> It is in my house ;)
Just wanted to tell you - I laughed out loud. Dad power! (Or mom-power, whatever)
>> It is in my house ;)
Just wanted to tell you - I laughed out loud. Dad power! (Or mom-power, whatever)
And as an adult, you can “own” your house, but you still have to abide by the greater rules of the society you live in.
Teenager in a house has to live within the rules. Homeowner within a HOA has to live within the rules. Homeowner within city limits has to live within the rules, etc.
Teenager in a house has to live within the rules. Homeowner within a HOA has to live within the rules. Homeowner within city limits has to live within the rules, etc.
What about "I'm the adult, and you're the kid"? On the one hand, you do need to respect the child's personal living space, but on the other you have parental responsibility to ensure that 1) that space meets some established minimum quality of cleanliness and 2) the child learns enough cleaning/organizational skills to function as a member of society.
Obviously this is completely different when the child is a fully-grown adult--at that point, what they need is not a life lesson--but for a minor just beginning to learn how to be an adult, the parents must impose their will on their child to some extent for the child's own good.
Obviously this is completely different when the child is a fully-grown adult--at that point, what they need is not a life lesson--but for a minor just beginning to learn how to be an adult, the parents must impose their will on their child to some extent for the child's own good.
> EDIT: as you can tell, I’m not a parent - and am still too mentally close to adolescence :)
Just a general remark: If you're not a parent [1], don't tell others how to be parents. It's okay to ask questions (e.g., "why are you doing it like this instead of like that?"), but don't believe you know what you're talking about.
[1] "Parent" as in "functionally a parent", not necessarily "biologically a parent". If you're raising a child, you're a parent, even if they aren't your biological child.
Just a general remark: If you're not a parent [1], don't tell others how to be parents. It's okay to ask questions (e.g., "why are you doing it like this instead of like that?"), but don't believe you know what you're talking about.
[1] "Parent" as in "functionally a parent", not necessarily "biologically a parent". If you're raising a child, you're a parent, even if they aren't your biological child.
1. That highly downvoted post looks like it's mostly questions to me.
2. It's hard to know how to properly instill good habits in a teenager. Even being a parent of a teen doesn't always mean you know how to do that, and being a parent of a non-teen is definitely not enough. So don't try to categorize parents in general as having this knowledge.
2. It's hard to know how to properly instill good habits in a teenager. Even being a parent of a teen doesn't always mean you know how to do that, and being a parent of a non-teen is definitely not enough. So don't try to categorize parents in general as having this knowledge.
Not to get too autobiographical here, but isn't divorce a pretty healthy outcome to a marriage? So not 100% the most helpful thing to measure.
My parents and the parents of some of my depressed friends are not divorced, simply because divorce requires communication and a willingness to reflect upon the state of your marriage openly.
As I said, I might be biased, but I think the hidden outcome of "not legally, but emotionally divorced" makes up a significant portion of turbulent marriages.
My parents and the parents of some of my depressed friends are not divorced, simply because divorce requires communication and a willingness to reflect upon the state of your marriage openly.
As I said, I might be biased, but I think the hidden outcome of "not legally, but emotionally divorced" makes up a significant portion of turbulent marriages.
That's like saying isn't death a healthy outcome for a cancer patient? Sure, it's what happens to many people that get cancer. But getting cancer in the first place is not "healthy", and so death caused by cancer is not "healthy".
If marriage is nothing more than a legal contract - which sadly for many people it is, then why even bother making vows such as "until death do us part"? All for show? Why not just put a time-clause for when the contract expires so that you can decide whether to sign a new one? A highly utilitarian, and in my opinion, tragically sad view of marriage, but that is essentially what it has become for many people.
If marriage is nothing more than a legal contract - which sadly for many people it is, then why even bother making vows such as "until death do us part"? All for show? Why not just put a time-clause for when the contract expires so that you can decide whether to sign a new one? A highly utilitarian, and in my opinion, tragically sad view of marriage, but that is essentially what it has become for many people.
You're talking at cross purposes.
Divorce is a positive resolution to a terrible relationship. Death isn't a positive resolution to cancer.
Divorce is only negative if we don't condition on the existence of a terrible relationship.
Two things are accurate at the same time:
- A marriage turning into a terrible relationship is a negative outcome.
- Divorce as a reaction to a marriage turning sour is a positive outcome, since we've conditioned on that development and it's now a sunk cost.
Divorce is a positive resolution to a terrible relationship. Death isn't a positive resolution to cancer.
Divorce is only negative if we don't condition on the existence of a terrible relationship.
Two things are accurate at the same time:
- A marriage turning into a terrible relationship is a negative outcome.
- Divorce as a reaction to a marriage turning sour is a positive outcome, since we've conditioned on that development and it's now a sunk cost.
I think this is only true if you modify the initial condition to be "...an irreparably terrible relationship". Without that, there is a third point which may be true:
- Fixing a marriage which is turning into a terrible relationship is a better outcome than divorce. In this way, divorce is a bad outcome, the same way as coming in second in Jeopardy and winning $2000 is a bad outcome compared to coming in first and winning (say) $10 000.
- Fixing a marriage which is turning into a terrible relationship is a better outcome than divorce. In this way, divorce is a bad outcome, the same way as coming in second in Jeopardy and winning $2000 is a bad outcome compared to coming in first and winning (say) $10 000.
Is it?
It seems weird to say "well you signed some papers, so it's extremely valuable that you're together for some legal purposes rather then happy".
The point of repairing a relationship is to remember that you once were happy and can be again by correcting behaviors and the like. But it seems bizarre to assume that's assured - it's even more bizarre to think it would be wrong to acknowledge that maybe you'd only wind up content but not happy, and so a separation is still preferable.
Or that actually you'd be happier alone then with someone else, but not exactly miserable if you were still with them etc.
It seems weird to say "well you signed some papers, so it's extremely valuable that you're together for some legal purposes rather then happy".
The point of repairing a relationship is to remember that you once were happy and can be again by correcting behaviors and the like. But it seems bizarre to assume that's assured - it's even more bizarre to think it would be wrong to acknowledge that maybe you'd only wind up content but not happy, and so a separation is still preferable.
Or that actually you'd be happier alone then with someone else, but not exactly miserable if you were still with them etc.
[deleted]
Uh, why?
> Divorce is only negative if we don't condition on the existence of a terrible relationship.
Not "only". A positive relationship that's ruined by outside factors/factions, for example, might end in divorce.
A relationship that benefits both people but has been mismanaged (ignorance, inexperience, etc.), might end in divorce.
Isn't the point of the OP in part that just by the biological accident of having female offspring one might become more likely to be divorced; that strongly implies that divorce isn't always down to inherent aspects of the relationship.
Not "only". A positive relationship that's ruined by outside factors/factions, for example, might end in divorce.
A relationship that benefits both people but has been mismanaged (ignorance, inexperience, etc.), might end in divorce.
Isn't the point of the OP in part that just by the biological accident of having female offspring one might become more likely to be divorced; that strongly implies that divorce isn't always down to inherent aspects of the relationship.
You are assuming what you are mean to prove, namely that life is inherently valuable, and that marriage is not inherently valuable. Someone who favours euthanasia could easily say that death is a positive resolution to disease.
To those who say life has inherent value, death is not positive, no matter the pain it may relieve. To those who say marriage has inherent value, divorce is not positive, no matter the pain it may relieve.
To turn your argument back on you: Death as a reaction to health/life turning sour is a positive outcome, since we've conditioned on that development and it's now a sunk cost.
I happen to think that both life and marriage are inherently valuable and worth sacrificing for and holding on to, and for similar reasons.
To those who say life has inherent value, death is not positive, no matter the pain it may relieve. To those who say marriage has inherent value, divorce is not positive, no matter the pain it may relieve.
To turn your argument back on you: Death as a reaction to health/life turning sour is a positive outcome, since we've conditioned on that development and it's now a sunk cost.
I happen to think that both life and marriage are inherently valuable and worth sacrificing for and holding on to, and for similar reasons.
There is a third - people facing difficulties which are surmountable, divorce and negatively effect their lives and the lives of their children
> Death isn't a positive resolution to cancer.
not sure about that.
not sure about that.
You're begging the question.
I think anyone I know who considers marriage as “just a legal contract” isn’t saying that one should treat marriage as a contractual relationship like any other but rather that the ceremony itself is unimportant relative to the relationship as a whole. I think these are two very different things people may mean by the phrase and I feel like your comment suggests that one of those things is common while I would suggest that the other interpretation is more common.
If people thought of marriage as nothing but a legal contract, likely to be broken, and acted rationally then I expect they wouldn’t bother at all: the benefits aren’t particularly great while the risks are large.
I think we probably mostly agree with our own opinions but perhaps disagree on the opinions of others.
If people thought of marriage as nothing but a legal contract, likely to be broken, and acted rationally then I expect they wouldn’t bother at all: the benefits aren’t particularly great while the risks are large.
I think we probably mostly agree with our own opinions but perhaps disagree on the opinions of others.
> I feel like your comment suggests that one of those things is common while I would suggest that the other interpretation is more common.
I read it as people taking that step in a relationship without much thought because that's what society has conditioned us to believe is normal and then divorcing like breaking-up.
I read it as people taking that step in a relationship without much thought because that's what society has conditioned us to believe is normal and then divorcing like breaking-up.
Surely such people would consider it to be a social requirement they must satisfy rather than just another legal contract?
Kind of, more like just another legal contract to sign up to satisfy a social requirement.
> the benefits aren’t particularly great while the risks are large.
Marriage brings specific legal and financial benefits, depending on the country (married couples tax allowances, spousal rights to pensions and inheritance etc, spousal privilege in court, visa/residency rights, child custody rights).
As these benefits have reduced over a few decades, the number of marriages has gone down (at least in the West?). I don't think that's a coincidence.
You don't need a legal marriage to share a loving and fulfilling life together with a partner. But, if you do share a loving and fulfilling life together, marriage might benefit you for one or more of the above reasons.
Marriage brings specific legal and financial benefits, depending on the country (married couples tax allowances, spousal rights to pensions and inheritance etc, spousal privilege in court, visa/residency rights, child custody rights).
As these benefits have reduced over a few decades, the number of marriages has gone down (at least in the West?). I don't think that's a coincidence.
You don't need a legal marriage to share a loving and fulfilling life together with a partner. But, if you do share a loving and fulfilling life together, marriage might benefit you for one or more of the above reasons.
Alternative framing is that in the past people stayed for benefits in marriages with people they disliked.
I think it's important to make the distinction between religious and civil mariage.
Clearly civil mariage is just a contact, whose main purpose is the divorce (at least in my country - France - divorce is the main benefit of marriage). And as far as I know there is no commitment for it to last for life, but just until the end of the contract.
Clearly civil mariage is just a contact, whose main purpose is the divorce (at least in my country - France - divorce is the main benefit of marriage). And as far as I know there is no commitment for it to last for life, but just until the end of the contract.
> divorce is the main benefit of marriage
...what? Are you saying French people intentionally get married in order to reap benefits of divorce?
...what? Are you saying French people intentionally get married in order to reap benefits of divorce?
The benefit of being protected by the divorce. Divorce is here to protect the "weaker" (sorry probably not the right word) party.
For example if they have kids and one of the parent stops working to raise the kids, divorce will make sure that person is not left without anything.
There is another civil union (the PACS) and as far as I know the main (and maybe only) differences is that PACS do not get divorce (you can part much more quickly, each party just get their own stuff and that's it) and something related to ineritance taxes. So that's the main reasons why people marry I guess :)
To be fair, I'll add that it's also not legal to marry religiously if you are not married civilly, so some people probably get married civilly just to be able to marry religiously.
For example if they have kids and one of the parent stops working to raise the kids, divorce will make sure that person is not left without anything.
There is another civil union (the PACS) and as far as I know the main (and maybe only) differences is that PACS do not get divorce (you can part much more quickly, each party just get their own stuff and that's it) and something related to ineritance taxes. So that's the main reasons why people marry I guess :)
To be fair, I'll add that it's also not legal to marry religiously if you are not married civilly, so some people probably get married civilly just to be able to marry religiously.
> For example if they have kids and one of the parent stops working to raise the kids, divorce will make sure that person is not left without anything.
It isn't the divorce which creates those rights, it is the marriage. The divorce rules only make it so that those rights are not abruptly suppressed after the dissolution of the marriage.
It isn't the divorce which creates those rights, it is the marriage. The divorce rules only make it so that those rights are not abruptly suppressed after the dissolution of the marriage.
Divorce is a benefit in the US as well.
If you are married for some years in a state without common law marriage and then get divorced, you are probably due some of the house value, for example, even if it was in your husband's name. And one of the cars, and so on.
The same couple, not married, might have to sue to get one of the two cars and might not get any value from the house, even though they helped save for the down payment.
And there are lots of little things like that.
If you are married for some years in a state without common law marriage and then get divorced, you are probably due some of the house value, for example, even if it was in your husband's name. And one of the cars, and so on.
The same couple, not married, might have to sue to get one of the two cars and might not get any value from the house, even though they helped save for the down payment.
And there are lots of little things like that.
Marriage and family as we know it is a relatively recent habit, only about few thousand years, even hundreds of years in many regions. It was justified and necessary to adapt in new environment like agricultural civilization, but it may be not advantageous in new current era of digital world.
This kind of thought is so far from my own. Marriage and family are the most important things in the vast majority of people's lives. Computers and Internet don't make them obsolete...
>That's like saying isn't death a healthy outcome for a cancer patient? ... But getting cancer in the first place is not "healthy", and so death caused by cancer is not "healthy".
What if your analogy is right and marriage is really not healthy in the first place? At least it cannot work for all people?
>If marriage is nothing more than a legal contract - which sadly for many people it is, then why even bother making vows such as "until death do us part"?
It could be a legal contract with such timing: “until death” why not? Wasn’t it always has been like this by definition?
>All for show? If contract is not taken seriously then any contract become ‘for show’
>Why not just put a time-clause for when the contract expires so that you can decide whether to sign a new one?
Because it would make it opposite to what it meant to represent? Anyway, why to bother if many people consider it breakable at any moment already? Much more comfortable for those who do not intend to keep own promises.
>A highly utilitarian, and in my opinion, tragically sad view of marriage, but that is essentially what it has become for many people.
Has become? What if it always has been like this by design And many attempts to make it something else have failed?
What if your analogy is right and marriage is really not healthy in the first place? At least it cannot work for all people?
>If marriage is nothing more than a legal contract - which sadly for many people it is, then why even bother making vows such as "until death do us part"?
It could be a legal contract with such timing: “until death” why not? Wasn’t it always has been like this by definition?
>All for show? If contract is not taken seriously then any contract become ‘for show’
>Why not just put a time-clause for when the contract expires so that you can decide whether to sign a new one?
Because it would make it opposite to what it meant to represent? Anyway, why to bother if many people consider it breakable at any moment already? Much more comfortable for those who do not intend to keep own promises.
>A highly utilitarian, and in my opinion, tragically sad view of marriage, but that is essentially what it has become for many people.
Has become? What if it always has been like this by design And many attempts to make it something else have failed?
Wouldn't a tumor removal be a better metaphor for an unhealthy marriage? There are so many worse outcomes than a divorce, there are no worse outcomes from cancer than death.
Why even have any pre-determined time clause?
I would say the most sensible thing is simply the mutual declaration for the sake of administrivia, that until any of the members of a marriage say otherwise, we all are married. The only reason to even have the document is just for things like power of attorney. Who shall be considered a legal guardian responsible for a child, who is allowed to make decisions for another while they are incapacitated, etc. And the expiration date is "until further notice".
I don't think you have a right to call that sort of family sad or "tragic".
That's actually incredibly insulting, even abusive when it's embedded in policy that everyone has to live under.
Just imagine if I called your family sad and tragic. Even if I used hard unavoidable data to back up the judgement.
I would say the most sensible thing is simply the mutual declaration for the sake of administrivia, that until any of the members of a marriage say otherwise, we all are married. The only reason to even have the document is just for things like power of attorney. Who shall be considered a legal guardian responsible for a child, who is allowed to make decisions for another while they are incapacitated, etc. And the expiration date is "until further notice".
I don't think you have a right to call that sort of family sad or "tragic".
That's actually incredibly insulting, even abusive when it's embedded in policy that everyone has to live under.
Just imagine if I called your family sad and tragic. Even if I used hard unavoidable data to back up the judgement.
You don't think they have the right to have an opinion? How tolerant.
Everyone doesn't have to "live under" it, you don't have to get married.
I suspect having Mummy and Daddy being together "until further notice" would have disastrous impacts on children's sense of permanence and development.
Everyone doesn't have to "live under" it, you don't have to get married.
I suspect having Mummy and Daddy being together "until further notice" would have disastrous impacts on children's sense of permanence and development.
That is defacto reality. If every kid at least knows a kid from a divorced family the damage to the sense of permanence of the family unit has already been done.
Not necessarily. I knew people from different families who were divorced, but rationalized that my parents were different and more committed, and so still just accepted it as an axiom that families stay together (except when they don’t).
While obviously not that consistent, as a kid I perfectly accepted that logic. If I try to place myself in that same mindset, I think I’d find the definition of “marriage is together until further notice” far more concerning than knowing some divorced parents.
While obviously not that consistent, as a kid I perfectly accepted that logic. If I try to place myself in that same mindset, I think I’d find the definition of “marriage is together until further notice” far more concerning than knowing some divorced parents.
> That's like saying isn't death a healthy outcome for a cancer patient?
The end of a marriage (where both participants continue living) and a cancer death, are not comparable.
Your "if you're not going to stay in a bad marriage until you physically die, what's the point of marriage?" viewpoint where marriage is permanent xor utilitarian is a false dichotomy.
Divorce doesn't mean that the participants failed, or that they entered into the marriage simply out of utility.
The end of a marriage (where both participants continue living) and a cancer death, are not comparable.
Your "if you're not going to stay in a bad marriage until you physically die, what's the point of marriage?" viewpoint where marriage is permanent xor utilitarian is a false dichotomy.
Divorce doesn't mean that the participants failed, or that they entered into the marriage simply out of utility.
A better analogy might be "amputating a leg is a healthy end to gangrene". Better not to have gangrene in the first place, but if someone does, better to amputate the leg than die.
But you wouldn't say "amputating a leg is a healthy end to having legs" because for most leg havers, there are better outcomes.
In the same vein, I'd say "divorce is a healthy end to a bad marriage" but not "divorce is a healthy end to marriages in general".
But you wouldn't say "amputating a leg is a healthy end to having legs" because for most leg havers, there are better outcomes.
In the same vein, I'd say "divorce is a healthy end to a bad marriage" but not "divorce is a healthy end to marriages in general".
The “bad” part seems like a strange distinction to need to make. Are people in good marriages getting divorced?
In other words, I think it’s reasonable to say that divorce is a healthy way to end a marriage, because if it ended in divorce, then by definition, at least one party thought it needed to, making it a bad marriage.
In other words, I think it’s reasonable to say that divorce is a healthy way to end a marriage, because if it ended in divorce, then by definition, at least one party thought it needed to, making it a bad marriage.
Divorce doesn't mean that the participants failed, or that they entered into the marriage simply out of utility.
On the contrary, by their own measure, it is a failure. No one gets married anticipating or wanting a divorce. Everyone wants it to last forever.
That's why the comment you responded to suggested a time-bounded contract. Which no one wants.
Have you ever gone through a divorce? Mine was amicable, but even then it was the worst thing I've ever experienced.
On the contrary, by their own measure, it is a failure. No one gets married anticipating or wanting a divorce. Everyone wants it to last forever.
That's why the comment you responded to suggested a time-bounded contract. Which no one wants.
Have you ever gone through a divorce? Mine was amicable, but even then it was the worst thing I've ever experienced.
Technically it would be a failed marriage. That doesn't mean the people involved are themselves 'failures'.
Many enter marriages very optimistically and with a limited view of what it will become. People change, learn more about themselves and their partners, and kids are a powerful dynamic adding a lot of stress and needs. I don't think it's constructive to judge any divorce without having lived through that relationship first.
Many enter marriages very optimistically and with a limited view of what it will become. People change, learn more about themselves and their partners, and kids are a powerful dynamic adding a lot of stress and needs. I don't think it's constructive to judge any divorce without having lived through that relationship first.
> Technically it would be a failed marriage. That doesn't mean the people involved are themselves 'failures'.
That's true but nobody was arguing that. The disagreement wasn't about whether they are failures (a description) but whether they failed (an action). I would say they definitely failed.
That's true but nobody was arguing that. The disagreement wasn't about whether they are failures (a description) but whether they failed (an action). I would say they definitely failed.
> No one gets married anticipating or wanting a divorce.
I think the existence of reasonable precautions such as prenuptial agreements indicates that this statement is false: many people enter into a marriage with the full knowledge that it may end before the death of one of the partners (presumably contrary to their desire at the time). I think that counts as "anticipating".
Heinlein put it well: "We always marry strangers."
I think the existence of reasonable precautions such as prenuptial agreements indicates that this statement is false: many people enter into a marriage with the full knowledge that it may end before the death of one of the partners (presumably contrary to their desire at the time). I think that counts as "anticipating".
Heinlein put it well: "We always marry strangers."
I think the existence of reasonable precautions such as prenuptial agreements indicates that this statement is false: many people enter into a marriage with the full knowledge that it may end before the death of one of the partners (presumably contrary to their desire at the time). I think that counts as "anticipating".
Only 5% of all married couples in the United States got married with a prenup. The fact that signing a prenup is so completely in everyone's interest and the fact that only 5% of marriages have them proves my point - no one is anticipating or looking forward to their own divorce.
Heinlein put it well: "We always marry strangers."
He was married 3 times. I'd be willing to bet he had 2 of those divorces behind him when he wrote that.
Only 5% of all married couples in the United States got married with a prenup. The fact that signing a prenup is so completely in everyone's interest and the fact that only 5% of marriages have them proves my point - no one is anticipating or looking forward to their own divorce.
Heinlein put it well: "We always marry strangers."
He was married 3 times. I'd be willing to bet he had 2 of those divorces behind him when he wrote that.
> The fact that signing a prenup is so completely in everyone's interest and the fact that only 5% of marriages have them proves my point - no one is anticipating or looking forward to their own divorce.
When my spouse and I got married, we had basically no assets of note. (Drafting and) Signing a prenup would have been in the interest of our lawyers, but not our interest.
When my spouse and I got married, we had basically no assets of note. (Drafting and) Signing a prenup would have been in the interest of our lawyers, but not our interest.
If 5% anticipate divorce in that way, it can’t prove your point “no one is anticipating or looking forward to their own divorce”.
That’s one in twenty.
That’s one in twenty.
How dare someone slightly exaggerate!
For middle class folks, marriage isn't much different than a typical employment contract with a large firm. Marriage usually revolves around house and assets, so your 200k down payment is the 100k sign on bonus for your spouse. Paying out mortgage is the stock vesting plan. Kids are additional stock grants for good performance. Divorce is selling shares.
I would say middle class folks will probably consider marriage to be more important. Like Viktor Frankl would say, the meaning of your life is either from your work, love or courage in difficulty for survival.
Most middle class folks I am sure don't fall in third bucket; and a lot of them are just doing 9-5 jobs, probably not doing something which can drive them like say most of the big entrepreneurs or researchers seem to be.
So that leaves love, which would become kind of very important to give their life a meaning. Marriage being a vow to have that love lasting throughout seems special. I am in late 20s, and even though I would want to do something great, the strive to find someone compatible with me seems to weigh on my mind more these days.
Most middle class folks I am sure don't fall in third bucket; and a lot of them are just doing 9-5 jobs, probably not doing something which can drive them like say most of the big entrepreneurs or researchers seem to be.
So that leaves love, which would become kind of very important to give their life a meaning. Marriage being a vow to have that love lasting throughout seems special. I am in late 20s, and even though I would want to do something great, the strive to find someone compatible with me seems to weigh on my mind more these days.
Those middle class folks are wasting their lives, then: just like an office job is an illusion of meaningful work, their marriage is an illusion of love.
What do you do for a living?
> Not to get too autobiographical here, but isn't divorce a pretty healthy outcome to a marriage? So not 100% the most helpful thing to measure.
Do you have any evidence of this? As someone from a Muslim country, my family universally has stayed in bad marriages. My wife, an American, has a family rife with divorce. (Not just her parents, but the whole community. Many people don’t really realize this—among those with college degrees, almost 80% of marriages will last 20+ years. But among those with just a high school diploma, it’s just 40%. In lower middle class communities, kids with parents who are divorced are the norm.)
It’s not clear to me which one is better for the parents. But unhappy parents seems superior to divorced ones for the kids. The financial and structural disruption on kids from divorce is massive. It’s not just individual, it’s the whole community. In the lower middle class communities where my wife’s family is from, divorce is the norm. And I can see kids suffering from the disruption, and wanting stability, but having no role models and no guidance because most people around them are divorced.
This is obviously anecdotal. I’d be curious to see data—to my knowledge this hasn’t been studied rigorously. To me, the notion that “divorce is a fine outcome for marriage” is something that is counter intuitive enough to require some evidence.
Do you have any evidence of this? As someone from a Muslim country, my family universally has stayed in bad marriages. My wife, an American, has a family rife with divorce. (Not just her parents, but the whole community. Many people don’t really realize this—among those with college degrees, almost 80% of marriages will last 20+ years. But among those with just a high school diploma, it’s just 40%. In lower middle class communities, kids with parents who are divorced are the norm.)
It’s not clear to me which one is better for the parents. But unhappy parents seems superior to divorced ones for the kids. The financial and structural disruption on kids from divorce is massive. It’s not just individual, it’s the whole community. In the lower middle class communities where my wife’s family is from, divorce is the norm. And I can see kids suffering from the disruption, and wanting stability, but having no role models and no guidance because most people around them are divorced.
This is obviously anecdotal. I’d be curious to see data—to my knowledge this hasn’t been studied rigorously. To me, the notion that “divorce is a fine outcome for marriage” is something that is counter intuitive enough to require some evidence.
Why does it have to be one or the other?
Some relationships absolutely cause less destruction by ending. Some provide sufficiently despite great flaws.
Some relationships absolutely cause less destruction by ending. Some provide sufficiently despite great flaws.
It doesn’t have to be one or the other at an individual level, but the social and legal norms we create have aggregate effects, not just individual effects, and we should be able to talk about those as a distinct issue. From 1960 to 2010, in the US, the percentage of kids living apart from their fathers has tripled, and the percentage of kids living apart from their mothers has doubled.
My culture (and that of like 3/4 of the world’s population) says that’s a bad thing for kids and society as a whole. I used to think westerners were enlightened and had the right idea on allowing and encouraging individual freedom in this area, but now I think they’ve got it wrong. And it’s hard to really know without focusing on what’s been the aggregate effect.
My culture (and that of like 3/4 of the world’s population) says that’s a bad thing for kids and society as a whole. I used to think westerners were enlightened and had the right idea on allowing and encouraging individual freedom in this area, but now I think they’ve got it wrong. And it’s hard to really know without focusing on what’s been the aggregate effect.
Those statistics don't seem particularly meaningful. I know a lot of people with divorced parents who remarried/repartnered and the kids now have two sets of parents. They're... fine? Hell, as long as the parent-groups can get along, 4 parents sound better than 2...
But if they can't get along, I'm sure it's terrible. Just like if the parents stay together?
But if they can't get along, I'm sure it's terrible. Just like if the parents stay together?
Do those people have college degrees? Just curious about what population you’re sampling.
[deleted]
Why was financial disruption worse than the emotional disruption of a bad marriage? I guess not having enough to eat is worse than an abusive marriage, but do people get into that much financial trouble from divorce usually? What about child support?
I find it hard to imagine a child growing up in a house with two parents who treat each other like shit is worse off than one with a single parent, but who knows?
I find it hard to imagine a child growing up in a house with two parents who treat each other like shit is worse off than one with a single parent, but who knows?
> Why was financial disruption worse than the emotional disruption of a bad marriage? I guess not having enough to eat is worse than an abusive marriage
Look, I’m not talking about abusive marriages. For people without a college degree, 60% of marriages will end before the kids are independent and in their own two feet. Most of those don’t involve involve abuse.
> but do people get into that much financial trouble from divorce usually?
Yes. For the average middle class family, having to split into two households is incredibly financially disruptive. Most middle class couples aren’t in a position where one person can take over the housing payment alone. That means moving, potentially changing schools, etc. And there’s a ton of other shared expenses that each parent now has to pay separately.
> What about child support?
For a non-college educated man making the median $36,000 a year, child support here in Maryland works out to $567 per month. That doesn’t come close to offsetting the support of the other householder.
Look, I’m not talking about abusive marriages. For people without a college degree, 60% of marriages will end before the kids are independent and in their own two feet. Most of those don’t involve involve abuse.
> but do people get into that much financial trouble from divorce usually?
Yes. For the average middle class family, having to split into two households is incredibly financially disruptive. Most middle class couples aren’t in a position where one person can take over the housing payment alone. That means moving, potentially changing schools, etc. And there’s a ton of other shared expenses that each parent now has to pay separately.
> What about child support?
For a non-college educated man making the median $36,000 a year, child support here in Maryland works out to $567 per month. That doesn’t come close to offsetting the support of the other householder.
What happens with house payments in such cases? I suppose the house goes to the mother, but she can't pay mortgage alone and the father can't pay the mortgage plus rent plus child support plus everything else.
Mom sells the house and everyone moves. Even couples who are reasonably comfortable can’t afford to maintain an additional household to the one they have on the same income.
Median household income in my county is $80,000/year. That’s a bit under $5,300 month take home for a married couple. Which is fine—you can buy a 4BR house here in a good school district for $1,450 per month in mortgage. But no way the couple can afford to keep the house if they get divorced. Rent alone in a studio will be $750/month. (Like most normal places, it’s much more expensive to rent here than buy.) Even if the spouse moving out lives like a pauper that’s realistically a $1,500/month hole in the budget few families can cover. So Dad moves into a studio, mom and the kids move into a cheap 2BR, and you’re paying like $1,750 month for housing (total) because you’ve given up the cost advantages of home ownership. And say there is another $750 in new non-shared expenses. So that’s $1,000/month that’s no longer there that was going towards savings/college/enrichment activities, etc. They’ve traded a 4BR house in a nice suburb for two households that are struggling to get by and have no margin. If they’re lucky, the kids got to stay in the same school district, but they’ve probably been taken away from their neighborhood friends. This happened my step siblings in law recently. It’s extremely shitty.
Median household income in my county is $80,000/year. That’s a bit under $5,300 month take home for a married couple. Which is fine—you can buy a 4BR house here in a good school district for $1,450 per month in mortgage. But no way the couple can afford to keep the house if they get divorced. Rent alone in a studio will be $750/month. (Like most normal places, it’s much more expensive to rent here than buy.) Even if the spouse moving out lives like a pauper that’s realistically a $1,500/month hole in the budget few families can cover. So Dad moves into a studio, mom and the kids move into a cheap 2BR, and you’re paying like $1,750 month for housing (total) because you’ve given up the cost advantages of home ownership. And say there is another $750 in new non-shared expenses. So that’s $1,000/month that’s no longer there that was going towards savings/college/enrichment activities, etc. They’ve traded a 4BR house in a nice suburb for two households that are struggling to get by and have no margin. If they’re lucky, the kids got to stay in the same school district, but they’ve probably been taken away from their neighborhood friends. This happened my step siblings in law recently. It’s extremely shitty.
Wholly disagree.
Divorced parents are vastly superior to unhappy parents for the happiness and outcomes of the children.
Divorced parents are vastly superior to unhappy parents for the happiness and outcomes of the children.
There’s lots of data that is google-able. Children of single parents end up significantly worse off.
> but isn't divorce a pretty healthy outcome to a marriage?
How is this even a question, never the less the most upvoted comment?
No, divorce is not a healthy end to a marriage.
How is this even a question, never the less the most upvoted comment?
No, divorce is not a healthy end to a marriage.
It is a healthy end, if the couple wasn't right from the beginning or if they became different people.
It's unfair to expect two humans to remain compatible their entire lives. We evolve massively. A person i would have married at 18 is not the same i'd marry now.
Which isn't to say that difficulty should be met with break ups. Rather, it's to say that some marriages should end. Both parties would be better off. Other marriages would be better served to have problems met, worked through, and the couple made stronger as a result.
It is a healthy end. If it's a bad marriage.
It's unfair to expect two humans to remain compatible their entire lives. We evolve massively. A person i would have married at 18 is not the same i'd marry now.
Which isn't to say that difficulty should be met with break ups. Rather, it's to say that some marriages should end. Both parties would be better off. Other marriages would be better served to have problems met, worked through, and the couple made stronger as a result.
It is a healthy end. If it's a bad marriage.
Marriage is about growing and adapting with the other person. "We changed" as a reason for the end of a marriage is an admission of failure to work at the relationship over its course. Of course you changed. The whole point is to grow and change together, until you die.
People don't just become incompatible. Something went badly wrong for that to happen. It's increasingly common nowadays - nuclear families tend to be more atomized, rather than integrated into an extended family, which increases the stress on the relationship, and many people simply don't prioritize their marriage, but instead their career, kids, or lifestyle. And of course, the modern social environment is more full of distractions and temptations than ever.
People don't just become incompatible. Something went badly wrong for that to happen. It's increasingly common nowadays - nuclear families tend to be more atomized, rather than integrated into an extended family, which increases the stress on the relationship, and many people simply don't prioritize their marriage, but instead their career, kids, or lifestyle. And of course, the modern social environment is more full of distractions and temptations than ever.
If the assumption is that the only source of change is internal to the relationship, sure. There are many sources of change that are external to two partners in a marriage, it’s not unreasonable to think one person may diverge from another to the point where a having a healthy, close, intimate relationship is unhealthy.
It is precisely my point that these 'external' sources of change are nowadays one of the main problems and entirely foreseeable in advance.
For example, if one or both of them prioritize their careers over their marriage, and spend no more than an hour or two a day even in the other's presence, let alone quality time, for years on end, because they're busy at work or with something else...it's entirely predictable that they grow apart. That was the failure. They chose economics or the corporate ladder or an app that's changing the world or...over their marriage.
For example, if one or both of them prioritize their careers over their marriage, and spend no more than an hour or two a day even in the other's presence, let alone quality time, for years on end, because they're busy at work or with something else...it's entirely predictable that they grow apart. That was the failure. They chose economics or the corporate ladder or an app that's changing the world or...over their marriage.
> The whole point is to grow and change together, until you die.
To you. But not so for many people, i imagine. I think the rate of divorce in America would suggest otherwise. Not to say that those are all healthy individuals, but that description sounds like a very religious-centric outlook on an often secular behavior.
In this framing, i'd argue that the liability of marriage should be thought of as "until death", but still. Sometimes the person you become is not something to be accepted nor desired by your loved ones. So who is to blame?
Do you change who you are? Or does your loved one change what they love? Sometimes both are unfair questions.
To you. But not so for many people, i imagine. I think the rate of divorce in America would suggest otherwise. Not to say that those are all healthy individuals, but that description sounds like a very religious-centric outlook on an often secular behavior.
In this framing, i'd argue that the liability of marriage should be thought of as "until death", but still. Sometimes the person you become is not something to be accepted nor desired by your loved ones. So who is to blame?
Do you change who you are? Or does your loved one change what they love? Sometimes both are unfair questions.
Exactly. Divorce can be a healthy end to an unhealthy relationship. Can be. But if you're divorcing, you're already at an unhealthy state.
[deleted]
Divorce is the healthy end to a failed marriage. The unhealthy thing in a marriage is it being failed, and we use divorce as a proxy for that (although not all failed marriages have ended or ended in divorce).
It strikes me that GP is observing that legal divorce is happier than abuse, detachment, resentment, cold war, etc.
I think they have a point.
I think they have a point.
Better than abuse and resentment, yes; healthy, no.
Of course it's healthy for both individuals in a marriage to get out of that marriage they're unhappy in. Is this really up for debate, considering the wealth of examples?
So divorce is the healthy way to end a chronically unhappy marriage, yes. But surely we would agree that a happy marriage is healthier. This is a bit like saying that a pneumonectomy is a healthy end to one’s relationship with one’s lung.
And yes, it is. This argument is silly, because there's _clear_ subtext that it's a healthy end to an unhealthy relationship.
It's of course not healthy to end a healthy relationship. But hey, water is wet.
It's of course not healthy to end a healthy relationship. But hey, water is wet.
If the lung is cancerous and treatment resistant, then that might be a reasonable option.
If two people are unhappy with each other, then they should do whatever they want -- stay, go, who cares?
But parents aren't just two people. Life outcomes for the children of divorced parents are significantly worse than for children whose parents remain together.
But parents aren't just two people. Life outcomes for the children of divorced parents are significantly worse than for children whose parents remain together.
> But parents aren't just two people.
Yes, they still are. And parents that stay together in an unhealthy relationship can do more harm to their children than separating.
Yes, they still are. And parents that stay together in an unhealthy relationship can do more harm to their children than separating.
The first question here is philosophical. I disagree with you as strongly as I could possibly disagree with you about anything. But it's ultimately philosophy and there's nothing much else I can say about it. (Well, beyond the obvious arithmetic, I guess. They are quite literally not just two people any longer.)
But as for the life outcomes of divorced children? That's quantifiable and the data simply disagree with you.
But as for the life outcomes of divorced children? That's quantifiable and the data simply disagree with you.
There is no shortage of screwed up kids from continuously married parents (or stable kids from divorced families). Divorce is like measuring the effect of radiation, rather than the cause. The issues that lead to divorce are the problems that mostly screw up kids, not just the divorce itself.
"The Consequences of Divorce for Adults and Children" (Amato & Irving, 2005), even has in it's introduction:
"Available research suggests that these associations are partly spurious (due to selection effects) and partly due to the stress associated with marital disruption."
https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/180281
"The Consequences of Divorce for Adults and Children" (Amato & Irving, 2005), even has in it's introduction:
"Available research suggests that these associations are partly spurious (due to selection effects) and partly due to the stress associated with marital disruption."
https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/180281
Of course everything you've said is true. Nobody critical of divorce is saying, "it's the literal divorce that's bad for kids and as long as you just stay together and change none of the behaviors that lead to divorce, then that's better than getting a divorce."
But on the other hand, upper-middle-class Hacker Newsers who got divorced because they were "unfulfilled" probably shouldn't point to extreme cases of abuse and neglect to justify their decision, either.
All things being equal, people in this latter category should try to work it out. (Nobody disputes that there are extreme environments for which divorce is the only option.)
Finally, as always, we are talking about averages. Sociology doesn't have a proof-by-counterexample. If I say, "poverty leads to worse outcomes for kids" it's not a legitimate response to say, "there are some wealthy kids who do bad and some poor kids who do well, so you're wrong."
We're always talking about averages.
But on the other hand, upper-middle-class Hacker Newsers who got divorced because they were "unfulfilled" probably shouldn't point to extreme cases of abuse and neglect to justify their decision, either.
All things being equal, people in this latter category should try to work it out. (Nobody disputes that there are extreme environments for which divorce is the only option.)
Finally, as always, we are talking about averages. Sociology doesn't have a proof-by-counterexample. If I say, "poverty leads to worse outcomes for kids" it's not a legitimate response to say, "there are some wealthy kids who do bad and some poor kids who do well, so you're wrong."
We're always talking about averages.
[0] argues that there is a differential impact of divorce on the children depending on the type of family they come from. You can divide families into two broad groups – high-functioning and low-functioning. High-functioning families, the parents may be unhappy, but they try hard to hide their unhappiness from their children, and the children may have no idea the parents have any marital issues. Low-functioning families, the children are very-well aware of their parents' unhappiness, they witness constant fighting, even abuse and domestic violence. Children from low-functioning families often experience their parents' divorce as a relief, and can even benefit from it. Children from high-functioning families, their experience of their parents' divorce is often much more negative.
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6462058/
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6462058/
[deleted]
What are some characteristics of a healthy end to a marriage?
Marriages aren't supposed to end except in death. It's right there in the vows. They are a serious commitment, and I think many take them lightly without realizing that they are intended to be lifelong.
Marriage is one of a very few things in life humans undertake where they are asked to commit to do something “for life” that they have never done before. And their closest vantage point is likely their parents’ marriage.
I think it’s not so much people take it lightly, as that they have no idea of what they are getting into and what kind of work a modern marriage involves.
I think it’s not so much people take it lightly, as that they have no idea of what they are getting into and what kind of work a modern marriage involves.
Yes, the value of pre-marital counseling is vastly underappreciated IMO.
It is amazing to me that people can consider entering into a lifelong contract with a partner and not have discussed 5, 10, 20 year goals. Seems like a common sense due diligence thing to do.
And regular counsel during marriage. Your car shouldn't get a checkup more often than your marriage.
More than that - when my now fiancee proposed to me I was completely surprised by it, and literally couldn't process the question for a good couple of minutes. Thankfully she decided to leave me to it for that time and by the time she got back I accepted, but it occurred to me that a proposal is itself the only time you're asked to make a life-changing decision by surprise, and answer it there and then without being able to spend any time considering what the correct decision is.
As nwienert said better elsewhere in the thread: “You’re emotionally tying yourself to Christian theology and claiming it as universal.”
No, marriage in America is based on Christian theology and by extension so is the legal framework around it, which is why divorce is so difficult. That's factual, not emotional.
Marriage is based on whatever the humans in the marriage want it to be based on. The legal system is constantly evolving in 50 stages. Your understanding of the legal system lacks nuance, probably because you are repeating something you heard a partisan say.
I'm referring to marriage as a legal contract, and legal stuff changes slowly. It was certainly founded on religious principles, which is why homosexuals couldn't marry until recently. I'm not advocating for that state of affairs, nor repeating what some partisan said. Were we to green-field re-do marriage today, divorce would be a whole lot easier and possibly more of an expectation.
> It was certainly founded on religious principles, which is why homosexuals couldn't marry until recently
Simple counterexample: the USSR's views on gay marriage.
Simple counterexample: the USSR's views on gay marriage.
Out of curiosity: what were the USSR's views on gay marriage?
[deleted]
Or perhaps, marriage would be harder? If divorce is easy, what's the point of marriage?
Many administrivia reasons.
It would be useful for me that I have some way to assign certain rights relating to me, to someone else.
I am not married, but I have been living with someone for 12 years, and neither of us has plans to change.
But legally, I don't know what happens when one of us meets a misfortune and the other needs to speak for us. Luckily in our case, we both have plenty of other blood relatives all alive and reachable and all on good terms with each other.
So, if say I am incapacitated, and some functionary at a hospital won't accept my partners decision about what to do, both my partner and the functionary can reach several other generally accepted proxies in the form of my mother, my brother, and even more cousins. My partner will be able to say what to do only slightly indirectly if not directly.
And we both have our own jobs with insurance and retirement savings so neither of us really needs to be legally acknowledged to receive benefits like military death benefits or retirements etc.
So for us we can pretty much get away with having NOT addressed these issues.
But they are real issues that generally should be addressed. A legal document on the books would provide a clean path to resolve a lot of potentially messy situations. What if our families didn't all like or respect each other? What if one or both of us had no known and/or reachable bood relatives? What if one of us actually needed to be recognized as a claimant on the others insurance or retirement or property like a house?
Probably a lot of such things could just as well be handled with legal documents other than marriages. Like if I take a job that has spouse insurance benefits, that could just as well be whoever I want to write on that form, rather than having it be determined by my marriage document.
But it would still be useful to have a catch-all document that expresses my wishes in any situation not handled elsewhere.
It would be useful for me that I have some way to assign certain rights relating to me, to someone else.
I am not married, but I have been living with someone for 12 years, and neither of us has plans to change.
But legally, I don't know what happens when one of us meets a misfortune and the other needs to speak for us. Luckily in our case, we both have plenty of other blood relatives all alive and reachable and all on good terms with each other.
So, if say I am incapacitated, and some functionary at a hospital won't accept my partners decision about what to do, both my partner and the functionary can reach several other generally accepted proxies in the form of my mother, my brother, and even more cousins. My partner will be able to say what to do only slightly indirectly if not directly.
And we both have our own jobs with insurance and retirement savings so neither of us really needs to be legally acknowledged to receive benefits like military death benefits or retirements etc.
So for us we can pretty much get away with having NOT addressed these issues.
But they are real issues that generally should be addressed. A legal document on the books would provide a clean path to resolve a lot of potentially messy situations. What if our families didn't all like or respect each other? What if one or both of us had no known and/or reachable bood relatives? What if one of us actually needed to be recognized as a claimant on the others insurance or retirement or property like a house?
Probably a lot of such things could just as well be handled with legal documents other than marriages. Like if I take a job that has spouse insurance benefits, that could just as well be whoever I want to write on that form, rather than having it be determined by my marriage document.
But it would still be useful to have a catch-all document that expresses my wishes in any situation not handled elsewhere.
>Marriages aren't supposed to end except in death.
Says who? Every country I've lived in has provisions for ending marriages, so clearly it's not the only path.
>It's right there in the vows.
What vows? Nobody in my family is religious, none of us made any claims about being together until death. And even then, lots of religions allow for divorce, even some sects of Christianity...
Says who? Every country I've lived in has provisions for ending marriages, so clearly it's not the only path.
>It's right there in the vows.
What vows? Nobody in my family is religious, none of us made any claims about being together until death. And even then, lots of religions allow for divorce, even some sects of Christianity...
> What vows?
In many cultures people make wedding vows about staying married until one of you dies.
In many cultures people make wedding vows about staying married until one of you dies.
I don't think being religious is so relevant. Plenty of atheists view marriage as a life-long commitment.
And plenty do not, what's your point?
Do civil unions have the same “benefits” of marriage? If not there should be.
I think the distinction should be socio-cultural: if you don’t accept that this civil union is “till death do us part”, then by definition it shouldn’t be marriage - it’s a civil union. All the same benefits of marriage with none of the cultural components.
I think the distinction should be socio-cultural: if you don’t accept that this civil union is “till death do us part”, then by definition it shouldn’t be marriage - it’s a civil union. All the same benefits of marriage with none of the cultural components.
Why would this be any business of the state? Why is it any business of yours how someone else defines the commitment of their long term relationship?
It's not my responsibility to advertise my belief system to you.
It's not my responsibility to advertise my belief system to you.
Good points. The state shouldn't be in it at all, because calling it marriage can be an infringement on the religious liberties of others. Civil unions are the state-sanctioned "legal pairing of two humans", and marriages are the religious term for civil unions - and come with religious expectations.
The state shouldn't be in the business of certifying christenings or bar mitzvahs, nor should it be in the business of marriage for the same exact reasons.
The state shouldn't be in the business of certifying christenings or bar mitzvahs, nor should it be in the business of marriage for the same exact reasons.
That the
> Nobody in my family is religious
point is out of place (because whether the family is religious seems to have little relevance)
> Nobody in my family is religious
point is out of place (because whether the family is religious seems to have little relevance)
Are you religious per chance? Not denigrating, but civil marriages (not sure if right name) don't have any of these vows, for health and sick whatnot.
I am divorced, and got married in my country outside the church. Wether we like it or not, it was literally a contract. An officer of the court was there, read the 'contract' which states our data, the legal parts of it (prenup, how assets were after marriage, etc), and the legal responsibilities. There was nothing there about 'until the end' or the likes.
I'm not sure how it is in other countries, and I am from a very catholic country, but most people don't realize that marriage is the contract that is governed by the government's law and not any vows or whatever the priest says in church. It is a contract and parties to that contract are allowed to change their mind and divorce (break contract).
I am divorced, and got married in my country outside the church. Wether we like it or not, it was literally a contract. An officer of the court was there, read the 'contract' which states our data, the legal parts of it (prenup, how assets were after marriage, etc), and the legal responsibilities. There was nothing there about 'until the end' or the likes.
I'm not sure how it is in other countries, and I am from a very catholic country, but most people don't realize that marriage is the contract that is governed by the government's law and not any vows or whatever the priest says in church. It is a contract and parties to that contract are allowed to change their mind and divorce (break contract).
Fixed term marriages are becoming popular in Australia and other places and have historical precedents. It is likely a lifelong term of marriage may be unrealistic with our comparative ease of survival.
This is amazing. The proposal (pun intended) is literally for 5 years, 10 years or life.
It sounds horribly complicated. How do assets and dependents get treated? How does a will work? An inheritance?
Eg You marry for 5 years, and at 4.9 a relative leaves an inheritance. The executors get to work at 5.1 years. Where does the money go?
Maybe I’m overthinking it.
https://topnews.in/how-about-fixedterm-marital-contract-rene...
It sounds horribly complicated. How do assets and dependents get treated? How does a will work? An inheritance?
Eg You marry for 5 years, and at 4.9 a relative leaves an inheritance. The executors get to work at 5.1 years. Where does the money go?
Maybe I’m overthinking it.
https://topnews.in/how-about-fixedterm-marital-contract-rene...
I’d be careful to suggest it has so much to do with “real factors” like relative safety to ease of survival and more with cultural effects. We see this observationally as subsets of the US have lifelong marriage rates in the 90%s, specifically religious communities.
I don’t recall the exact numbers but even just considering how many sexual partners people have can drastically change average likelihood of eventually divorce - with virgin couples above 80% AFAIK (some overlap with religious communities likely). Even a few decades ago when survival was still pretty easy marriage had higher success rates.
The culture probably has a lot more to do with the rate of successful marriages than our safety or lifespan
I don’t recall the exact numbers but even just considering how many sexual partners people have can drastically change average likelihood of eventually divorce - with virgin couples above 80% AFAIK (some overlap with religious communities likely). Even a few decades ago when survival was still pretty easy marriage had higher success rates.
The culture probably has a lot more to do with the rate of successful marriages than our safety or lifespan
[deleted]
Why not? Sometimes things just don’t work out. It’s obviously worse than staying together and being happy about it, but it’s a sunk cost fallacy to think you should always repair your marriage instead of finding a new partner.
> repair your marriage instead of finding a new partner.
There are two ways to think about this.
The first is that once your car gets too broken to repair, you should just ditch it and get a new one.
The other is that once your arm/ankle/hip/liver has problems, you should just transplant a new one instead of doing physical therapy/exercise/eating healthier/drinking less.
In my experience, marriage is much closer to the latter situation than the former.
If you're curious what those "fixes" are for the latter, see https://www.gottman.com/product/the-seven-principles-for-mak....
There are two ways to think about this.
The first is that once your car gets too broken to repair, you should just ditch it and get a new one.
The other is that once your arm/ankle/hip/liver has problems, you should just transplant a new one instead of doing physical therapy/exercise/eating healthier/drinking less.
In my experience, marriage is much closer to the latter situation than the former.
If you're curious what those "fixes" are for the latter, see https://www.gottman.com/product/the-seven-principles-for-mak....
Doesn't matter which situation is closer, they're both nothing like a marriage. There are more than 2 ways to think about it. If marriages are like a car, then there's also the option to ditch it and not get a new one. If it's like a critical body part, someone is way too dependent. Also, those relationship advice books focus on minor issues, not one where someone isn't willing to change, and certainly not willing to read a book like that, and instead demands the other just "love them for who they are".
> If it's like a critical body part, someone is way too dependent
This is unhelpfully extending the metaphor into a straw man. It's simple enough to see the point.
This is unhelpfully extending the metaphor into a straw man. It's simple enough to see the point.
What about a situation where one party wants to make it work and the other doesn't?
In your example, your ankle is under your control - if you want to exercise it, you can. Your ankle doesn't actively sabotage your body (or if it does spread infection/etc, amputation is often used).
A marriage depends on two people working together to build a life together. If one person is not willing to put in that effort, the marriage fails.
In your example, your ankle is under your control - if you want to exercise it, you can. Your ankle doesn't actively sabotage your body (or if it does spread infection/etc, amputation is often used).
A marriage depends on two people working together to build a life together. If one person is not willing to put in that effort, the marriage fails.
Yes, it's a two-way street. That is why both partners say the vows.
This analogy would work better if organ transplants, prosthetics, etc. weren't a real thing and the medically right answer in many cases. If your hip needs replacement, no amount of eating healthier will cause it to no longer need replacement.
There are, of course, many situations where divorce is not the right answer for that situation, just like there are many situations for which a hip replacement is not the right answer. But it is within the set of potential right answers across all situations. There's no sense in trying to replace what is easily repairable, and there's also no sense in spending your life trying to repair what needs to be replaced.
And it's totally possible to go through life where neither you nor anyone you know ought to get a divorce - just like it's totally possible to go through life knowing nobody who needs a hip replacement, but that is hardly evidence that the procedure is the wrong answer for everyone!
There are, of course, many situations where divorce is not the right answer for that situation, just like there are many situations for which a hip replacement is not the right answer. But it is within the set of potential right answers across all situations. There's no sense in trying to replace what is easily repairable, and there's also no sense in spending your life trying to repair what needs to be replaced.
And it's totally possible to go through life where neither you nor anyone you know ought to get a divorce - just like it's totally possible to go through life knowing nobody who needs a hip replacement, but that is hardly evidence that the procedure is the wrong answer for everyone!
The analogy works even better because organ transplants are sometimes necessary and sometimes not. Although GP started off defining a binary, I don't think they are thinking in black and white. A charitable reading of the GP implies the nuances you express.
I like this metaphor because it fits with the generation of my parents!
That's also the generation of people who don't go to the hospital because anything hurts. They go to the hospital 5 years later for something unrelated, when it's discovered it's 4 years too late to do anything about it.
That's also the generation of people who don't go to the hospital because anything hurts. They go to the hospital 5 years later for something unrelated, when it's discovered it's 4 years too late to do anything about it.
> it’s a sunk cost fallacy to think you should always repair your marriage
I guess if you discount the "for better and for worse" part of the vows you take to one another....
I guess if you discount the "for better and for worse" part of the vows you take to one another....
> Why not?
Because marriage is intended as an act of lifetime committent to what is seen as a positive relationship, and so failing this original intent can never be a measure of success.. Preferable to 'failing' in the sense of staying in a 'failed marriage' (where the 'positive relationship' is no more positive) perhaps, but both of these are 'failures'.
Because marriage is intended as an act of lifetime committent to what is seen as a positive relationship, and so failing this original intent can never be a measure of success.. Preferable to 'failing' in the sense of staying in a 'failed marriage' (where the 'positive relationship' is no more positive) perhaps, but both of these are 'failures'.
> Because marriage is intended as an act of lifetime committent
For most of history marriage was property transfer, let's not pretend it's something more romantic than it is.
For most of history marriage was property transfer, let's not pretend it's something more romantic than it is.
> For most of history marriage was property transfer,
Failing to see how this debunks either 'lifetime committment' or 'positive relationship' which are the only logical assertions I made - I did not attempt to qualify how to ascertain 'positive'; financial benefit can also be construed as 'positive'.
Failing to see how this debunks either 'lifetime committment' or 'positive relationship' which are the only logical assertions I made - I did not attempt to qualify how to ascertain 'positive'; financial benefit can also be construed as 'positive'.
That's the fairy tale definition. For many, it's just a legal term.
Referring to a "lifetime committ[m]ent to what is seen as a positive relationship" as a fairy tale is pretty ridiculous.
The oaths made in a typical marriage are impossible, dangerous ideals that, once made, can guilt people into sticking to bad situations.
Bad people don't tend to go around being bad unless they think they can get away with it. Once someone has pinky swore to dedicate their life to them, no matter what they might do, the true colors come out. I've seen it too many times, the idea does more harm than good.
Life-long good marriages exists, I hope to achieve one myself, but the silly oath doesn't help them in any way, and it makes the bad ones worse.
Bad people don't tend to go around being bad unless they think they can get away with it. Once someone has pinky swore to dedicate their life to them, no matter what they might do, the true colors come out. I've seen it too many times, the idea does more harm than good.
Life-long good marriages exists, I hope to achieve one myself, but the silly oath doesn't help them in any way, and it makes the bad ones worse.
> The oaths made in a typical marriage are impossible
> Life-long good marriages exists
I'm sure you have this reconciled somehow, but it sounds contradictory to me.
> Life-long good marriages exists
I'm sure you have this reconciled somehow, but it sounds contradictory to me.
Impossible was a poor word choice. I meant like no one could honestly make the promises, because no one can predict how people and situations will change over a life time.
Maybe if the oaths contained an "unless you become an asshole" clause, they'd be more valuable.
Maybe if the oaths contained an "unless you become an asshole" clause, they'd be more valuable.
hence the second statment:
"Preferable to 'failing' in the sense of staying in a 'failed marriage' (where the 'positive relationship' is no more positive) perhaps, but both of these are 'failures'. "
"Preferable to 'failing' in the sense of staying in a 'failed marriage' (where the 'positive relationship' is no more positive) perhaps, but both of these are 'failures'. "
Thanks - I specifically worded this as generically as possible precisely to avoid getting into 'fairy tale' definitions, but yet, people are happy to reverse-project their own values onto a neutral statement to attack the some strawman in their heads.
sigh.
sigh.
>> Sometimes things just don’t work out
If you're married to someone you don't want to be married to, sure sometimes things just don't work out.
If you're a kid and your parents failed marriage is destroying your life, I don't think "sometimes things just don't work out" is the answer.
If you're married to someone you don't want to be married to, sure sometimes things just don't work out.
If you're a kid and your parents failed marriage is destroying your life, I don't think "sometimes things just don't work out" is the answer.
I disagree. There are two ends to a marriage that I am aware of — death and divorce.
Suppose the marriage was one of mental and physical abuse, but ends in death. I think it may have been healthier for that particular marriage to end in divorce.
Here is a more fun question: What is the optimal reproductive strategy that also maximizes the chance that the children also reproduce? I will add as an established fact that daughters has a higher base chance of reproductive success than sons, but sons have higher base variance.
Game theory should always be asked when biology is involved. I am not sure myself on the answer, but it seems more plausible than the article's "teenage girls are annoying" theory or the speculated "son preference" theory. If there is an optimal strategy, such a strategy may result in a small biological effect which makes parents look for a new chance of reproduction once the majority of child investment is done, resulting in the statistical data that shows 20.12% becoming 20.48%.
Game theory should always be asked when biology is involved. I am not sure myself on the answer, but it seems more plausible than the article's "teenage girls are annoying" theory or the speculated "son preference" theory. If there is an optimal strategy, such a strategy may result in a small biological effect which makes parents look for a new chance of reproduction once the majority of child investment is done, resulting in the statistical data that shows 20.12% becoming 20.48%.
Not being snarky at all but isn't the answer to this always going to reduce to "have as many offspring with as many partners as possible"?
If that would be true then there would not exist any pair bonding species, and there is some excellent benefits from it. Two parents mean one backup while raising the children, and two parents is double the parenting. Two parents also give some potential benefits with twins, something which pair bonding species tend to have a lot of while non-pair bonding species don't. The primary argument in favor of pair-bonding is that having a lot of offspring that don't reproduce is worse than having a few that do.
Humans with our great variations of behaviors has both pair bonding behavior and non-pair bonding behavior, with genes that code for both. If one strategy was always superior to the other then we would have settled for it a long time ago.
(Its a law or something when talking about genes that the behavior is always a gene-enivorment interaction, and there are likely many more factors that influence pair bonding behavior).
Humans with our great variations of behaviors has both pair bonding behavior and non-pair bonding behavior, with genes that code for both. If one strategy was always superior to the other then we would have settled for it a long time ago.
(Its a law or something when talking about genes that the behavior is always a gene-enivorment interaction, and there are likely many more factors that influence pair bonding behavior).
Maybe not? It doesn't much matter if you have a lot of offspring, if the offspring don't survive and reproduce. It's an optimization problem of having enough offspring and being able to ensure that they survive to adulthood.
The key is to apply the strategy of the cookoo bird and have others care for your offspring out of their own interest.
I remembered a case of of a obstetrician impregnating multiple patients but a Google search(1) easily proved this was not an isolated case as the first few links are all separate incidents.
(1) https://www.google.com/search?q=obstetrician+used+own+sperm
As immoral as this strategy sounds I admit it is probably the most effective strategy from an investment/returns pov. It is cheaper than becoming Genghis Khan(2) and the effect is comparable.
(2) https://www.nature.com/news/genghis-khan-s-genetic-legacy-ha...
I remembered a case of of a obstetrician impregnating multiple patients but a Google search(1) easily proved this was not an isolated case as the first few links are all separate incidents.
(1) https://www.google.com/search?q=obstetrician+used+own+sperm
As immoral as this strategy sounds I admit it is probably the most effective strategy from an investment/returns pov. It is cheaper than becoming Genghis Khan(2) and the effect is comparable.
(2) https://www.nature.com/news/genghis-khan-s-genetic-legacy-ha...
The only people who can historically get away with that are high status men (less so women, since child bearing is intrinsically metabolically and temporally expensive). Globally/long run, it's not a great strategy, certainly not compatible with modern ideas of liberty.
If life gets easier and easier (e.g. government guarantees housing, income, education, etc.) then I can see that becoming nearer the truth.
A good starting point for this idea is "r/K selection theory": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory
"R-selectors" have many offspring, investing fairly litle in each one. K-selectors have a few offspring, but invest a lot of time/resources in caring for each. There's a bit more to it than that--and the theory has needed some adjustment, but...
"R-selectors" have many offspring, investing fairly litle in each one. K-selectors have a few offspring, but invest a lot of time/resources in caring for each. There's a bit more to it than that--and the theory has needed some adjustment, but...
> How is this even a question, never the less the most upvoted comment?
No, divorce is not a healthy end to a marriage.
I think the original comment was referring to divorce being a better outcome in a failed relationship. There are a lot of failed relationships that continue to raise their kids in a disfunctional way and that is not good. A couple who divorces and are on good terms afterwards when raisig their children is way healthier.
I think the original comment was referring to divorce being a better outcome in a failed relationship. There are a lot of failed relationships that continue to raise their kids in a disfunctional way and that is not good. A couple who divorces and are on good terms afterwards when raisig their children is way healthier.
A divorce is a much more healthy end to an abusive marriage than the other options. Your blanket statement "divorce is not a healthy end to a marriage" is patently false.
And your suggestion that “divorce isn’t bad because I can think of worse things” is logically flawed.
I'm not saying divorce can't be bad. I'm saying that it's not inherently an unhealthy end to a marriage, because there exist clean divorces and nasty marriages.
[deleted]
Not an ideal ending, as it negates the fundamental promises of the marital contract. However, it's two peoples' (plus kids maybe) lives at stake. Staying together in a dysfunctional marriage can damage all those lives (with downstream repercussions on even more people). In those circumstances, a divorce can lead to much healthier outcomes.
In those cases, is the tragedy that the marriage ended, or would the tragedy be if it remained?
In those cases, is the tragedy that the marriage ended, or would the tragedy be if it remained?
I think the way the commenter worded it, it sounded like they thought a couple just entering into marriage might sit down and talk about the healthiest outcomes of their marriage and say: "Well, we could stay deeply in love for the next 50 years, or we could get divorced tomorrow. Either way, both equally good options." But that's probably not what they meant.
Agreed. I can’t believe what a massive cultural shift I’m witnessing. Divorce is in no way shape or form a “healthy end” to a marriage. The point of marriage is that it doesn’t end. It is a lifelong commitment.
People evolve and so too should marriages.
People evolve and so too should marriages.
Divorce is merely the end of the business relationship of a marriage, not necessarily a social end to the relationship. It should be as healthy as ending any other business relationship.
tubularhells(1)
Why not? If you don't get along the its better to end it than force it. That was the parents meaning. Do you have a counterargument?
That’s not how divorce works. It’s not an end if you have kids. It’s the beginning of something different. But you’re still tied together. So now you have twice the expenses, half the time with the kids who now need you more than ever, more reason to fight with each other, and possibly even more resentment, all compounded by your own personal feelings of loss and failure. Yay, what a win for everyone involved.
Also, realize that people don’t generally get to a divorce by talking things out and figuring divorce is the only option. Even if they do talk things out it’s usually only after divorce is inevitable.
Also, realize that people don’t generally get to a divorce by talking things out and figuring divorce is the only option. Even if they do talk things out it’s usually only after divorce is inevitable.
> ...more reason to fight with each other
Is this often the outcome of divorce? I imagine that spending more time apart should reduce the total volume of conflict
Is this often the outcome of divorce? I imagine that spending more time apart should reduce the total volume of conflict
Note the ‘if you have kids’ beginning to the reasoning
Sorry about your situation, but no. It's healthier than some of the worst outcomes but it's far from the top.
A marriage is an enterprise two people join in together, and then go through life doing the really important work of raising children and supporting each other.
Ideally this is accompanied by deep love and passion etc. Short of that, it's done with deep mutual commitment and appreciation of the other person and the work you're doing together.
Way shittier down the line are relationships plagued with resentment and mistrust, that in my experience have more to do with what the people bring into the relationship than their partner (basically: if both people are sane and enter thoughtfully into the marriage, you should not end up here.)
Once you're in that mode, where you don't have it together to work it out and grow together, sure divorce is happier than eternal rancor and abuse, but it's super-down the line.
I think this is important to understand because once you do, you're much more thoughtful about what you're getting into in the first place. I guess it's easier said for me because I married in my later 30s and had the life experience and introspection to know what I want and need and to appreciate my wife (who is different than me in ways that a less mature version of me might resent rather than appreciate)
A marriage is an enterprise two people join in together, and then go through life doing the really important work of raising children and supporting each other.
Ideally this is accompanied by deep love and passion etc. Short of that, it's done with deep mutual commitment and appreciation of the other person and the work you're doing together.
Way shittier down the line are relationships plagued with resentment and mistrust, that in my experience have more to do with what the people bring into the relationship than their partner (basically: if both people are sane and enter thoughtfully into the marriage, you should not end up here.)
Once you're in that mode, where you don't have it together to work it out and grow together, sure divorce is happier than eternal rancor and abuse, but it's super-down the line.
I think this is important to understand because once you do, you're much more thoughtful about what you're getting into in the first place. I guess it's easier said for me because I married in my later 30s and had the life experience and introspection to know what I want and need and to appreciate my wife (who is different than me in ways that a less mature version of me might resent rather than appreciate)
> Once you're in that mode, where you don't have it together to work it out and grow together, sure divorce is happier than eternal rancor and abuse, but it's super-down the line.
This might be a bit of a trope, but it is at this exact moment that some couples have kids (like my parents did).
Having not been born yet, that was not very down the line from my point of view at all.
This might be a bit of a trope, but it is at this exact moment that some couples have kids (like my parents did).
Having not been born yet, that was not very down the line from my point of view at all.
Yes, divorce is a good thing, if it's warranted.
I created a new account in case this gets indexed somewhere. I am in my 30s and my own parents are still married, but they should have gotten divorced a long time ago. They never did, "because of the kids" and it pains me. They are fucking miserable. I have not seen them lovingly kiss each other in at least 3 decades (I only remember once when I was a toddler). They do not have intercourse of any kind, sleep in separate bedrooms, fight constantly, my dad has been having affairs (unsure if my mom knows about them, I doubt it would change anything if she did), all because they are too ashamed to get divorced, and at this point, they're too old to do it.
Of course looking in from the outside they seem like a happy couple - always went to social functions together, etc. But on the inside, definitely not. I always wonder once you take out the marriages that end in divorce, how many of the ones left are like my parents - happy on the outside, fucking miserable on the inside. In my own experience, the vast majority of friends' parents have been divorced, sometimes multiple times, and I already have friends my age who were married and divorced.
Needless to say, I am in no rush to get married, even in my 30s. I do have relationships when it's right, but I don't let society tell me if or when I should be getting married, if ever. It's way too big a risk to my personal happiness.
I created a new account in case this gets indexed somewhere. I am in my 30s and my own parents are still married, but they should have gotten divorced a long time ago. They never did, "because of the kids" and it pains me. They are fucking miserable. I have not seen them lovingly kiss each other in at least 3 decades (I only remember once when I was a toddler). They do not have intercourse of any kind, sleep in separate bedrooms, fight constantly, my dad has been having affairs (unsure if my mom knows about them, I doubt it would change anything if she did), all because they are too ashamed to get divorced, and at this point, they're too old to do it.
Of course looking in from the outside they seem like a happy couple - always went to social functions together, etc. But on the inside, definitely not. I always wonder once you take out the marriages that end in divorce, how many of the ones left are like my parents - happy on the outside, fucking miserable on the inside. In my own experience, the vast majority of friends' parents have been divorced, sometimes multiple times, and I already have friends my age who were married and divorced.
Needless to say, I am in no rush to get married, even in my 30s. I do have relationships when it's right, but I don't let society tell me if or when I should be getting married, if ever. It's way too big a risk to my personal happiness.
Unfortunately, my marriage resembles that of your parents. My only counterpoint to your belief that they would be happier if they divorced, is to suggest you may be minimizing they value they get from stability and certainty.
There’s value in knowing who’s going to care for you when you get cancer, even if there’s a lot of animosity now.
There’s value in knowing who’s going to care for you when you get cancer, even if there’s a lot of animosity now.
I agree, though context is important too. Getting separated at 80 would likely mean a severe drop in their quality of life, for the remainder of their days. Getting separated at 50 much less so, especially for the man (usually). At 40, the perceived value of that stability and certainty is probably not worth the unhappiness.
> isn't divorce a pretty healthy outcome to a marriage?
It's a bit of a provocative way of saying things, but I am surprised at how conservative (in the social sense, not political) the other comments are, defending traditional family values and arguing that divorce is always a failure
Divorce can _absolutely_ be a healthy outcome to a marriage. If your marriage doesn't work after a time, the healthy option is to stop it. You can argue that you should try to "save your marriage"... but if neither you or your partner really wants to, why would you have this duty to try and salvage it rather than move on? At least if you don't have kids, as divorce tends to have bad impact on them apparently, although I think it's mostly because they're brought up in a society that teaches that divorce is failure and that a family is a mom and a dad.
Of course nobody is saying that divorce is "the most healthy" outcome, it's just "pretty healthy" in a whole range of situation, though not all. And there's divorce and divorce: sometimes it involves incredible drama, fighting and stress (not very healthy, although staying married probably would be worse in this case), and sometimes it's smooth, shake hands and go your own way.
Anecdotally: my parents divorced when I was ~15. It was smooth as far as I could see, although I imagine that unfun things happened that led to this. It made absolutely no difference to me, and I saw them bloom and be happier than I ever saw them: my father went from being a 9-5 robot to doing sports, be involved in local associations and take an unexpected interest in african art. My mom started doing photography and developped a passion for dance. I entirely credit their divorce for how much happier and interesting they got!
It's a bit of a provocative way of saying things, but I am surprised at how conservative (in the social sense, not political) the other comments are, defending traditional family values and arguing that divorce is always a failure
Divorce can _absolutely_ be a healthy outcome to a marriage. If your marriage doesn't work after a time, the healthy option is to stop it. You can argue that you should try to "save your marriage"... but if neither you or your partner really wants to, why would you have this duty to try and salvage it rather than move on? At least if you don't have kids, as divorce tends to have bad impact on them apparently, although I think it's mostly because they're brought up in a society that teaches that divorce is failure and that a family is a mom and a dad.
Of course nobody is saying that divorce is "the most healthy" outcome, it's just "pretty healthy" in a whole range of situation, though not all. And there's divorce and divorce: sometimes it involves incredible drama, fighting and stress (not very healthy, although staying married probably would be worse in this case), and sometimes it's smooth, shake hands and go your own way.
Anecdotally: my parents divorced when I was ~15. It was smooth as far as I could see, although I imagine that unfun things happened that led to this. It made absolutely no difference to me, and I saw them bloom and be happier than I ever saw them: my father went from being a 9-5 robot to doing sports, be involved in local associations and take an unexpected interest in african art. My mom started doing photography and developped a passion for dance. I entirely credit their divorce for how much happier and interesting they got!
I haven't read anything about divorce always being a failure (or not yet).
If you get all your input from non-engineering journalists, comedians, talking heads, etc, you may never encounter any differing opinions; just as if 100 years ago you'd have believed divorce is always bad from those same people, and been surprised at what engineers said about how it can be occasionally a good thing.
If you get all your input from non-engineering journalists, comedians, talking heads, etc, you may never encounter any differing opinions; just as if 100 years ago you'd have believed divorce is always bad from those same people, and been surprised at what engineers said about how it can be occasionally a good thing.
I think it depends.
Financially, if you're a man, no. Most family law courts favor women.
Relationship-wise, if you're a woman, no. Odds are if you're getting divorced as a woman past her 30s, it'll be harder for you to find a partner as opposed to when you were in your 20s (when the woman should be finding a potential husband). Especially if you're a single mother. High-quality men have no desire to raise someone else's kids.
So, imo, divorce can be so lose-lose unless the man and woman are both past 50s. At that point, the kids are grown up and both partners are hopefully financially secure without the need of one another.
Relationship-wise, if you're a woman, no. Odds are if you're getting divorced as a woman past her 30s, it'll be harder for you to find a partner as opposed to when you were in your 20s (when the woman should be finding a potential husband). Especially if you're a single mother. High-quality men have no desire to raise someone else's kids.
So, imo, divorce can be so lose-lose unless the man and woman are both past 50s. At that point, the kids are grown up and both partners are hopefully financially secure without the need of one another.
Hard disagree on the statement "High-quality men have no desire to raise someone else's kids" based on my experience with an amazing step father and a father who himself has been an excellent step father.
I might even venture to say that having the heart to care well for children who are not genetically your own is part of being a high quality man.
I might even venture to say that having the heart to care well for children who are not genetically your own is part of being a high quality man.
I assume it was meant to be a probabilistic statement, where the probability of finding a man who is economically resourceful and has the desired capacity and abilities to raise children, and is also willing to raise step children is so low as to be a material risk for women looking for said man.
Based on the actions of my male friends and accounts I’ve read about dating as a single mom in their 30s, I assume the above is true.
Based on the actions of my male friends and accounts I’ve read about dating as a single mom in their 30s, I assume the above is true.
> High-quality men have no desire to raise someone else's kids
Generally I agree. There are exceptions, especially if the biological father is totally out of the equation. A friend married a woman who already had a kid. Father had vanished, had no interest. He legally adopted the kid, and they had several more together, he considers them all as his own.
Generally I agree. There are exceptions, especially if the biological father is totally out of the equation. A friend married a woman who already had a kid. Father had vanished, had no interest. He legally adopted the kid, and they had several more together, he considers them all as his own.
> it'll be harder for you to find a partner as opposed to when you were in your 20s (when the woman should be finding a potential husband)
I feel like we just went back in time 80 years. No, women don't need to spend their 20's finding a husband. They can have also go to school, volunteer, have friends, start a career. You know - the things men can do.
> High-quality men have no desire to raise someone else's kids
What does this even mean? Let me guess - you are a high-quality man?
This comment is so backwards.
I feel like we just went back in time 80 years. No, women don't need to spend their 20's finding a husband. They can have also go to school, volunteer, have friends, start a career. You know - the things men can do.
> High-quality men have no desire to raise someone else's kids
What does this even mean? Let me guess - you are a high-quality man?
This comment is so backwards.
> No, women don't need to spend their 20's finding a husband. They can have also go to school, volunteer, have friends, start a career. You know - the things men can do.
Nothing in GP's comment suggests ~that women should spend their twenties finding a husband~ (EDIT: I missed that sentence in the original comment), nor that they shouldn't do the things you just mentioned.
I don't understand how this is in any way apropos.
Nothing in GP's comment suggests ~that women should spend their twenties finding a husband~ (EDIT: I missed that sentence in the original comment), nor that they shouldn't do the things you just mentioned.
I don't understand how this is in any way apropos.
> Nothing in GP's comment suggests that women should spend their twenties finding a husband, nor that they shouldn't do the things you just mentioned.
That is in fact exactly what the comment seems to suggest, in these lines.
> as opposed to when you were in your 20s (when the woman should be finding a potential husband
room500's response was exactly what I had in mind too, when I was reading the parent comment.
It very much feels like the GP had something specific in mind for "high-quality" that insinuates that caring for someone else's children is not a high quality thing to do.
I believe that quality is not what they are showing when they focus the comment on what women "should be doing", or if they're still seeing it as "someone else's kids".
That is in fact exactly what the comment seems to suggest, in these lines.
> as opposed to when you were in your 20s (when the woman should be finding a potential husband
room500's response was exactly what I had in mind too, when I was reading the parent comment.
It very much feels like the GP had something specific in mind for "high-quality" that insinuates that caring for someone else's children is not a high quality thing to do.
I believe that quality is not what they are showing when they focus the comment on what women "should be doing", or if they're still seeing it as "someone else's kids".
I must have missed the statement in parentheses the first time I read it (I honestly don't remember it being there before, apologies), so I retract the part on what GP said about "should". However, I maintain that the comment doesn't say anything about whether women shouldn't do the things the other person said; there's no implication one way or the other in the original comment and most people do both.
On the matter of kids and "high quality", I made no comment on that earlier, and I make no comment now.
On the matter of kids and "high quality", I made no comment on that earlier, and I make no comment now.
Men can have kids well into their 50’s. If a girl wastes her 20s on the carousel, by the time she’s in her 30’s, her reproductive opportunities are starting to dwindle.
Women’s attractiveness starts declining in her late 20’s much faster than it does for men. We shouldn’t pretend like it doesn’t, and pretend like we don’t understand why women in their 30’s can’t find Mr. Right.
Women’s attractiveness starts declining in her late 20’s much faster than it does for men. We shouldn’t pretend like it doesn’t, and pretend like we don’t understand why women in their 30’s can’t find Mr. Right.
This isn't a gender thing. Just because you don't agree, the GP's comment isn't any less valid. Part of that is culture and malleable, part is just biological facts (being an old parent just sucks). Most Men spend their 20s thinking about finding a wife, too.
No. It was a 100% gender thing.
Notice that the comment never mentioned that men shouldn't divorce because they are past their 20s when they should be finding a wife.
Notice that the comment never mentions that high-quality women would never want to raise someone else's kid.
GP's comment is less valid because it is from an era where women were less-than.
Notice that the comment never mentioned that men shouldn't divorce because they are past their 20s when they should be finding a wife.
Notice that the comment never mentions that high-quality women would never want to raise someone else's kid.
GP's comment is less valid because it is from an era where women were less-than.
> No. It was a 100% gender thing.
> Notice that the comment never mentioned that men shouldn't divorce because they are past their 20s when they should be finding a wife.
> Notice that the comment never mentions that high-quality women would never want to raise someone else's kid.
> GP's comment is less valid because it is from an era where women were less-than.
In what world do you live in where on average older women are considered more desirable partners than older men? By and large men are attracted to looks (or they prioritize looks a lot more than other qualities) while women are attracted to a set of qualities besides looks (or they prioritize other qualities a lot more than looks).
You can argue that's sexist and old-fashioned, but that's just how attraction works. Good luck changing the world!
> Notice that the comment never mentioned that men shouldn't divorce because they are past their 20s when they should be finding a wife.
> Notice that the comment never mentions that high-quality women would never want to raise someone else's kid.
> GP's comment is less valid because it is from an era where women were less-than.
In what world do you live in where on average older women are considered more desirable partners than older men? By and large men are attracted to looks (or they prioritize looks a lot more than other qualities) while women are attracted to a set of qualities besides looks (or they prioritize other qualities a lot more than looks).
You can argue that's sexist and old-fashioned, but that's just how attraction works. Good luck changing the world!
> This isn't a gender thing. [...] (being an old parent just sucks) [...] //
There is a deal of sex-based difference here: being an older mother is harmful for the mother and the child; being an older father is far, far, less so (older fathers might be better for their kids?). Young women can choose a mate from all ages of men. Young men need to choose a mate -- if they wish to procreate I mean -- from the pool of fertile and healthy younger women. Medical science has eroded a little of that difference, but it still starts to get dangerous for women to fall pregnant in their late-30s.
An example of how that difference plays out is that in a childless couple at age 50 the woman basically has no chance to have children of her own, but the male could quite reasonably be expected to be fertile for a couple more decades. Thus, if a couple are unable to procreate and the male wishes to do so, then there is a tension; a biological impetus towards them leaving their wife and finding another partner.
There is a deal of sex-based difference here: being an older mother is harmful for the mother and the child; being an older father is far, far, less so (older fathers might be better for their kids?). Young women can choose a mate from all ages of men. Young men need to choose a mate -- if they wish to procreate I mean -- from the pool of fertile and healthy younger women. Medical science has eroded a little of that difference, but it still starts to get dangerous for women to fall pregnant in their late-30s.
An example of how that difference plays out is that in a childless couple at age 50 the woman basically has no chance to have children of her own, but the male could quite reasonably be expected to be fertile for a couple more decades. Thus, if a couple are unable to procreate and the male wishes to do so, then there is a tension; a biological impetus towards them leaving their wife and finding another partner.
But procreation-related-statistics only tell the story of one aspect of a persons life.
A divorce can be new start, and life has much more to offer than ‘choosing your mate’
A divorce can be new start, and life has much more to offer than ‘choosing your mate’
I think you're reading way too much into that comment.
It's generally considered a fact that women have a slightly (statistically) more difficult time than men to find a partner after their 20s (and the reverse is true - men have it tougher in their 20s compared to women), and GP's comment is discussing why that complicates things wrt divorce.
> Notice that the comment never mentions that high-quality women would never want to raise someone else's kid.
I think that "high quality" means that they don't want to be second best to another man/woman. Totally understandable.
It's generally considered a fact that women have a slightly (statistically) more difficult time than men to find a partner after their 20s (and the reverse is true - men have it tougher in their 20s compared to women), and GP's comment is discussing why that complicates things wrt divorce.
> Notice that the comment never mentions that high-quality women would never want to raise someone else's kid.
I think that "high quality" means that they don't want to be second best to another man/woman. Totally understandable.
Your comment about high quality men is way off the mark. Fathers of other men’s offspring are among the highest quality men. Who wouldn’t want to review their potential child before committing?
I agree. Also not to get too autobiographical, but life was much easier for me and my siblings after divorce than having to deal with constant fights. Divorce can be a positive outcome, especially if it can be done amicably.
> Divorce can be a positive outcome
This doesn’t pass the universality test - would it be positive if all marriages ended in divorce?
Lots of “bad” outcomes become good given circumstances, but they are still not universally good:
“Amputation can be a positive outcome, especially if gangrene has started”
This doesn’t pass the universality test - would it be positive if all marriages ended in divorce?
Lots of “bad” outcomes become good given circumstances, but they are still not universally good:
“Amputation can be a positive outcome, especially if gangrene has started”
The universality test itself doesn't pass the universality test. Would it be positive if everything good needed to be good all the time?
Sunlight makes you feel good, gives you vitamin D, and warms you up. Too much sunlight gives you skin cancer.
Sugar is necessary for life. Too much sugar gives you diabetes and obesity.
Water is the basic building block of life. Too much water causes electrolyte imbalances that can lead to dangerous cardiac arrythmias.
Very few good things actually do pass the universality test, which suggests that the test itself may be flawed.
Sunlight makes you feel good, gives you vitamin D, and warms you up. Too much sunlight gives you skin cancer.
Sugar is necessary for life. Too much sugar gives you diabetes and obesity.
Water is the basic building block of life. Too much water causes electrolyte imbalances that can lead to dangerous cardiac arrythmias.
Very few good things actually do pass the universality test, which suggests that the test itself may be flawed.
You’re emotionally tying yourself to Christian theology and claiming it as universal.
If most people married just to have children and raise them, then divorced, that doesn’t seem bad in the slightest, especially given that’s the likely the original motivating force behind marriage anyway.
If most people married just to have children and raise them, then divorced, that doesn’t seem bad in the slightest, especially given that’s the likely the original motivating force behind marriage anyway.
> isn't divorce a pretty healthy outcome to a marriage
Isn't bankrupcy a pretty healthy outcome to a business?
Isn't death a pretty healthy outcome to life?
Isn't coup a pretty healthy outcome to a country?
Isn't segfault a pretty healthy outcome to program?
Isn't bankrupcy a pretty healthy outcome to a business?
Isn't death a pretty healthy outcome to life?
Isn't coup a pretty healthy outcome to a country?
Isn't segfault a pretty healthy outcome to program?
> Isn't segfault a pretty healthy outcome to program?
I don't know much about the other ones but segfault is definitely healthier than a buggy program being allowed to write at address 0 or continuing arithmetics after division by 0.
I don't know much about the other ones but segfault is definitely healthier than a buggy program being allowed to write at address 0 or continuing arithmetics after division by 0.
> continuing arithmetics after division by 0
IIRC it took PHP quite many versions to get there (if it even has).
IIRC it took PHP quite many versions to get there (if it even has).
> Isn't segfault a pretty healthy outcome to program?
I remember when Firefox's crash recovery got so good, and its normal shutdown process took so long, that someone suggested that it should just crash when the user hit the exit button.
I remember when Firefox's crash recovery got so good, and its normal shutdown process took so long, that someone suggested that it should just crash when the user hit the exit button.
> Isn't bankrupcy a pretty healthy outcome to a business?
Absolutely, especially when the alternative is financial ruin because you didn’t take legal remedies available to you.
People get caught up in absolutes because they fit in a nice box, but most of the time life is messier.
Absolutely, especially when the alternative is financial ruin because you didn’t take legal remedies available to you.
People get caught up in absolutes because they fit in a nice box, but most of the time life is messier.
You're messing up your shades of gray. Being better than financial ruin isn't enough to qualify as a healthy outcome. "Healthy" includes a swath of outcomes, but it's not wide enough to include bankruptcy.
> Isn't death a pretty healthy outcome to life?
I mean, since it's the inevitable end result no matter what actions one takes in their life, yes?
I mean, since it's the inevitable end result no matter what actions one takes in their life, yes?
> Isn't segfault a pretty healthy outcome to program?
Pardon the snark: http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/318
Pardon the snark: http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/318
Hah, I remember reading a comment a while back about a HFT firm. The guys there wanted to use Java but couldn't deal with GC latency spikes, so they just bought a ton of ram, turned off the GC, and re-booted the servers every day.
>> Isn't segfault a pretty healthy outcome to program?
Found the Erlang user.
>> Isn't segfault a pretty healthy outcome to program?
Found the Erlang user.
A single parent household leads to worse outcomes for children in pretty much every single metric you can think of.
There’s a huge difference between single mom with a baby daddy that ran away, and a shared custody agreement between two people who are both in the picture. “Single mom” stories and statistics are usually about the former. I’m not sure how much worse the latter is compared to a two parent household
It's a better situation, but still not ideal. A lot depends on the custody terms and how well the two parents get along.
[deleted]
If you could measure what would have happened if parents stayed together then yes. But parents break up for a reason, and trying to put that back together makes zero sense. In the US, a large minority of single parents have fathers who have spent time in jail...is it a good idea to put a child into that environment? Probably not.
And the main issue with single parents is income/income instability (which is why there are focused benefits in many countries for single parents). As ever, an income issue gets classed as something else.
And the main issue with single parents is income/income instability (which is why there are focused benefits in many countries for single parents). As ever, an income issue gets classed as something else.
> In the US, a large minority of single parents have fathers who have spent time in jail...is it a good idea to put a child into that environment?
Very well could be a good idea. If the father was in jail because of some youthful drug offenses, it could very well be that he could still be a devoted and loving parent and no danger whatsoever to the child.
Very well could be a good idea. If the father was in jail because of some youthful drug offenses, it could very well be that he could still be a devoted and loving parent and no danger whatsoever to the child.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> A single parent household leads to worse outcomes for children in pretty much every single metric you can think of.
Divorce does not always result in single-parent households.
Divorced parents can and do remarry.
Divorce does not always result in single-parent households.
Divorced parents can and do remarry.
While true — in addition to your point about remarriage, I’ve met a couple who legally split because same sex marriage didn’t exist at the time and one of them was trans — you should probably show the frequency rather than existence of such groups.
From a financial standpoint, probably.
Children not encountering lies, strife, or emotional disattachment on a daily basis anymore seems a significant improvement, however.
Children not encountering lies, strife, or emotional disattachment on a daily basis anymore seems a significant improvement, however.
Having lived many years in both a miserable, acrimonious two parent household, and a post-divorce situation - my personal opinion is the latter is, unintuitively, far more harmful long term for the kids. But the former is so much worse for the parents that I don’t think it’s worth it to, say, stay together until they leave the nest. If that were possible without total loss of sanity, I think it would be better. But the divorce was decidedly not amicable so I don’t know what that’s like.
Right, so if I interpret you correctly, you were in the situation of living with two parents in a bad relationship, and the divorce added additional stress of having two different houses, visitation/custody complexity, and possibly additional fights between the parents about those issues.
So the alternative of having one home and more access to both parents could be better for the child even if the parents don't get along with each other well.
So the alternative of having one home and more access to both parents could be better for the child even if the parents don't get along with each other well.
That is exactly what I mean, yes. If both parents sincerely want what’s best for the kids, that should take priority and thus the bar should be accordingly high for divorce until the kids are grown, whatever you feel grown means. Higher than the parents just wanting to “live their best life”.
As I recall, I didn’t take my parents’ daily fighting, even my mom screaming and throwing things, as much to heart as some might think. I’m glad you used the word access because that’s precisely what I valued most, and the biggest loss. Second to that was the devastating financial strain (2 apartments, 2 cars, etc but same income).
As I recall, I didn’t take my parents’ daily fighting, even my mom screaming and throwing things, as much to heart as some might think. I’m glad you used the word access because that’s precisely what I valued most, and the biggest loss. Second to that was the devastating financial strain (2 apartments, 2 cars, etc but same income).
I will second this sentiment as I grew up in a very similar situation, extremely unhealthy two-parent relationships that left me with some really bad memories and then a vicious divorce between two people who hate each other. Often children are used as weapons against the divorced spouse in this situation which adds significant stress in growing up. At least when the parents are together the children can't be used as proxy wars.
> At least when the parents are together the children can't be used as proxy wars.
Of they can be used as such.
Of they can be used as such.
Not the healthiest of outcomes but could be healthier than others.
Kind of like saying the most healthy outcome is getting fired or rage quitting. It could be but once you found the job you signed a contract for life for, retiring is the healthiest outcome.
Kind of like saying the most healthy outcome is getting fired or rage quitting. It could be but once you found the job you signed a contract for life for, retiring is the healthiest outcome.
The parent didn't say "most healthy", they said "pretty healthy". I think we all agree that the "most healthy" outcome is to be happy and fulfilled as a couple forever.
> Kind of like saying the most healthy outcome is getting fired or rage quitting
I don't agree, a closer analogy (keeping in mind that all analogies have limits) would be to say that a _pretty_ good outcome to taking a job is to quit. Which doesn't seem particularly controversial, there's plenty of situations where quitting is a perfectly reasonable and healthy choice, even if you don't have an abusive relationship with your workplace.
> Kind of like saying the most healthy outcome is getting fired or rage quitting
I don't agree, a closer analogy (keeping in mind that all analogies have limits) would be to say that a _pretty_ good outcome to taking a job is to quit. Which doesn't seem particularly controversial, there's plenty of situations where quitting is a perfectly reasonable and healthy choice, even if you don't have an abusive relationship with your workplace.
This is an interesting perspective.
People tend to associate single-parenthood as source of many problems based on statistics. But I wonder if those are simply correlation and not causation. i.e. people with certain traits are more prone to get divorced, and it could be those traits, and not divorce itself causes most other issues in their children. But it's easier to measure divorce rates than personality traits.
People tend to associate single-parenthood as source of many problems based on statistics. But I wonder if those are simply correlation and not causation. i.e. people with certain traits are more prone to get divorced, and it could be those traits, and not divorce itself causes most other issues in their children. But it's easier to measure divorce rates than personality traits.
More likely the traits of both people. There are people who study the factors that predict divorce. https://www.gottman.com
It's both.
> Not to get too autobiographical here, but isn't divorce a pretty healthy outcome to a marriage?
i guess it isn't very healthy for the kids. http://marripedia.org/effects_of_divorce_on_children_s_healt...
i guess it isn't very healthy for the kids. http://marripedia.org/effects_of_divorce_on_children_s_healt...
The intended comparison is presumably not be to all marriages, but to marriages which are strained enough for divorce to become a question. I don’t know what good data on that would look like.
Perhaps ‘Outcomes for children of parents who went to marriage counselling’
Even then, couples that get counselling are probably a healthier subset of all marriages than would make for an ideal reference.
Perhaps ‘Outcomes for children of parents who went to marriage counselling’
Even then, couples that get counselling are probably a healthier subset of all marriages than would make for an ideal reference.
It's not a healthy outcome to marriage. You don't get married to be divorced later. The problem is that our society has out-advanced marriage but people still did not realize it (although marriage rate are trending lower).
Marriage made sense when the population was sparse, the parents needed workforce, and the woman needed protection. Most of that doesn't apply today. Marriage is mostly a "reliquat" from former society's traditions.
Marriage made sense when the population was sparse, the parents needed workforce, and the woman needed protection. Most of that doesn't apply today. Marriage is mostly a "reliquat" from former society's traditions.
>but isn't divorce a pretty healthy outcome to a marriage?
Could be and then it would mean marriage is not ‘healthy’ in the first place? Which could be by the way.
What if it’s so by design? I mean it’s very difficult to come up with one design that works for ‘all’. Not a trivial task I would say and isn’t it destine for failure?
Could be and then it would mean marriage is not ‘healthy’ in the first place? Which could be by the way.
What if it’s so by design? I mean it’s very difficult to come up with one design that works for ‘all’. Not a trivial task I would say and isn’t it destine for failure?
Define healthy.
It's explicitly the outcome almost every married couple agrees they don't want upfront. So something has failed by that point.
It's not unhealthy in the sense that no one gets sick or physically injured I suppose?
This is definitely one of the more bizarre things I've ever seen written on here.
It's explicitly the outcome almost every married couple agrees they don't want upfront. So something has failed by that point.
It's not unhealthy in the sense that no one gets sick or physically injured I suppose?
This is definitely one of the more bizarre things I've ever seen written on here.
I meant that compared to 40 more years of resentment, divorcing and possibly finding a healthier relationship seems worthwhile.
There are worse outcomes but it is a poor outcome. It is best viewed as the best worst-case exit strategy.
It’s a healthy outcome for a bad marriage.
There’s really bad statistics for the children of divorced parents. It may be healthy in your some cases but it’s damaging to the child.
Nuke it from orbit, its the only way to be sure.
Is anger and strife a healthy outcome to a public vow?
No, that's why the spouses should get a divorce :).
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/12/why-women-s-bodies-a...
Male fetuses are more likely to die in the womb if the mother is stressed. Marriages are more likely to end if the marriage is stressful. Therefore, marriages with first born daughters are more likely to end with divorce, by no fault of the daughter.
Disclosure: I was once a first-born teenage daughter. Yes, my parents divorced.
Male fetuses are more likely to die in the womb if the mother is stressed. Marriages are more likely to end if the marriage is stressful. Therefore, marriages with first born daughters are more likely to end with divorce, by no fault of the daughter.
Disclosure: I was once a first-born teenage daughter. Yes, my parents divorced.
They explicitly say it in the article (in the second paragraph, visible even to non-subscribers) that there is no correlation in the first years of life of the son/daughter. Interesting hypothesis but seems false from what I read in the article.
> But, unlike previous work, their study also looked at the effect of the girl’s age. It found that “daughter-divorce” risk emerges only in a first-born girl’s teenage years (see chart). Before they reach the age of 12, daughters are no more linked to couples splitting up than sons are.
> But, unlike previous work, their study also looked at the effect of the girl’s age. It found that “daughter-divorce” risk emerges only in a first-born girl’s teenage years (see chart). Before they reach the age of 12, daughters are no more linked to couples splitting up than sons are.
Childless parents as a result of self aborting male fetuses would not show up in the study.
Yes, exactly. That means that (assuming there are no other gender-dependent birth factors; this is not true but serves to make the point), we should expect to see slightly more females born than males. The 'surplus' females being born to mothers who were stressed enough that, had they conceived a male, the child would have self-aborted. Thus, assuming stress is correlated with divorce, those families are more likely to divorce.
Then how can you explain no correlation before the daughter has become a teenager? If I understood you correctly, you suggest that parents of daughters divorce more often because the daughter was born to a couple of stressed parents (which is more likely to happen than a boy born to that family). If that would be the only cause of the divorce (I'm oversimplyfying, of course), then there would be no difference whether the daughter is a teenager or not. Perhaps parents think of taking care of a child in their first years of life as a moral obligation, which would reduce the divorce rate. However, it's still suspicious that the divorce occurs around the time the daughter reaches puberty, not some time earlier (after she's 5 or something).
> If I understood you correctly, you suggest that parents of daughters divorce more often because the daughter was born to a couple of stressed parents
I don't. I was specifically responding to yellowbeard's comment, which read:
> Childless parents as a result of self aborting male fetuses would not show up in the study.
Yellowbeard provided one explanation for the fact that, despite male fetuses being more likely to self-abort, there is no difference between divorce stats of young male and female children. My response said why that explanation was wrong. I wasn't saying that the self-abortion delta affects divorce ratios, only that it might.
(Indeed, I do expect that it does have an effect, but that that effect is miniscule and unlikely to be measurable.)
I don't. I was specifically responding to yellowbeard's comment, which read:
> Childless parents as a result of self aborting male fetuses would not show up in the study.
Yellowbeard provided one explanation for the fact that, despite male fetuses being more likely to self-abort, there is no difference between divorce stats of young male and female children. My response said why that explanation was wrong. I wasn't saying that the self-abortion delta affects divorce ratios, only that it might.
(Indeed, I do expect that it does have an effect, but that that effect is miniscule and unlikely to be measurable.)
This doesn’t effect the result. They are comparing people with children. If you didn’t have children or aborted a child it’s the same as not getting married. You simply aren’t part of the study because you are irrelevant for the same reason that a kangaroo is irrelevant to the study.
A disproportionate amount of parents with first born daughters over sons is inconsequential because they are measuring the percentage of divorces for each population, not the total number of divorces for each population.
The logic she uses here is really far fetched and unlikely to be true so you really need statistical causal links in order to say anything substantial. I mean her disclosure also discloses a possible bias. She may not have the ability to admit that she her self was the causal factor in her own parents divorce.
A disproportionate amount of parents with first born daughters over sons is inconsequential because they are measuring the percentage of divorces for each population, not the total number of divorces for each population.
The logic she uses here is really far fetched and unlikely to be true so you really need statistical causal links in order to say anything substantial. I mean her disclosure also discloses a possible bias. She may not have the ability to admit that she her self was the causal factor in her own parents divorce.
But how does this explain the difference between first and second born daughters?
It doesn’t. The difference is that all teenagers become difficult. But girls are often worse.
If parents have already seen a boy go through their teenage years, they’ll be better prepared for the grief a 12-year-old girl can cause.
Also, anecdotally, a close friend of mine had a very difficult older sister. The younger siblings witnessed her bad behaviour, and decided not to repeat the theatrics.
If parents have already seen a boy go through their teenage years, they’ll be better prepared for the grief a 12-year-old girl can cause.
Also, anecdotally, a close friend of mine had a very difficult older sister. The younger siblings witnessed her bad behaviour, and decided not to repeat the theatrics.
> parents of teenage daughters argue more about parenting than do the parents of sons
This to me strikes me as the thing that might be the culprit. I can't count the amount of times I've heard men how much they would worry if they'd be getting a daughter. It seems as if many people think a girl has to be parented differently - probably more intensely - compared to a boy who can apparently be left to his own devices more often.
I'm speculating here of course.
This to me strikes me as the thing that might be the culprit. I can't count the amount of times I've heard men how much they would worry if they'd be getting a daughter. It seems as if many people think a girl has to be parented differently - probably more intensely - compared to a boy who can apparently be left to his own devices more often.
I'm speculating here of course.
I have two sons, three daughters, and I was one of those who said I was terrified of having a daughter and how much I would worry.
It has nothing to do with thinking girls have to be parented differently and everything to do with knowing that most teenage boys and men are pieces of shit when it comes to actually loving and caring about her (just like I was in some cases with flings and tempromances that were more about excitement than deep, long-term love and affection).
I worried (and still worry) about having to watch my daughter make terrible choices in men, while being utterly powerless to do anything to protect her.
It has nothing to do with thinking girls have to be parented differently and everything to do with knowing that most teenage boys and men are pieces of shit when it comes to actually loving and caring about her (just like I was in some cases with flings and tempromances that were more about excitement than deep, long-term love and affection).
I worried (and still worry) about having to watch my daughter make terrible choices in men, while being utterly powerless to do anything to protect her.
This is the opposite of what I teach my sons about men and women. The truth is, women are every bit as capable of being shitheads as men. Gender plays zero role in a person’s capacity to empathize, be trustworthy, and love. I think we set men up for failure when we encourage them to put women on a pedestal. There’s the risk they do that and don’t get the results they’re after and develop a strong bias against women—all because they’ve been misinformed their whole life about gender roles and behavior.
I think GP is saying women face greater risk than men in dating and society. (I’m using man/woman here instead of male/female as the former seems less clinical)
I honestly wonder at this and prefer to not take a stance as I have too little information. Watching some reflections from transgender people after their transitions may help. I’ve heard female to male trans report society treating men with much less care. Meanwhile I imagine women get a lot more engagement from society than men.
I honestly wonder at this and prefer to not take a stance as I have too little information. Watching some reflections from transgender people after their transitions may help. I’ve heard female to male trans report society treating men with much less care. Meanwhile I imagine women get a lot more engagement from society than men.
If you have a boy then you only have to worry about one boy. If you have a girl then you have to worry about all the boys.
They said their standards for a mate based a lot on their father and he he treats the mother. So just be a good role model.
> most teenage boys and men are pieces of shit when it comes to actually loving and caring about her (just like I was in some cases with flings and tempromances that were more about excitement than deep, long-term love and affection).
Do you worry about your teenage sons acting this way?
Do you worry about your teenage sons acting this way?
Presumably, but considering the fact that we're programmed to care more about our family than the rest of the world, it's unlikely he'll be as worried about the situation he's described than the opposite.
There’s also probably some underlying worry caused by the fact that women can generally be physically overpowered by men.
[deleted]
I think a large part of the thinking (at least subconciously) is that if a son gets in a stupid relationship and gets someone pregnant, it's not nearly as big of an impact on his life as it is to the daughter who got in a stupid relationship and got pregnant.
Do you have children? They most definitely need to be parented differently.
With boys there’s a lot of effort into mitigating physical damage to themselves or physical and/or emotional damage they may cause to others. With daughters, there’s less effort with physical harm and much more effort into helping their emotional well-being.
I would argue that social media and media in general has disproportionately affected the minds of our daughters compared to our sons.
With boys there’s a lot of effort into mitigating physical damage to themselves or physical and/or emotional damage they may cause to others. With daughters, there’s less effort with physical harm and much more effort into helping their emotional well-being.
I would argue that social media and media in general has disproportionately affected the minds of our daughters compared to our sons.
> With daughters, there’s less effort with physical harm and much more effort into helping their emotional well-being.
Suicide rates for 10-14 year olds are twice as high for boys than for girls, and for 15-24 year olds four times as high. I'm sure you are describing how parenting is done in general, but not spending as much time on the emotional well-being of boys doesn't seem to be a good strategy.
1: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/suicide/rates_1999_2017...
Suicide rates for 10-14 year olds are twice as high for boys than for girls, and for 15-24 year olds four times as high. I'm sure you are describing how parenting is done in general, but not spending as much time on the emotional well-being of boys doesn't seem to be a good strategy.
1: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/suicide/rates_1999_2017...
Suicide attempts, however, are far higher in females: https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/suicide.shtml
This is in part because males choose more effective suicide methods - they are approximately twice as likely to use firearms.
This is in part because males choose more effective suicide methods - they are approximately twice as likely to use firearms.
A female friend of mine who worked at a psychiatric clinic for a while told me years ago that most suicide attempts are really just attempts of getting attention / cries for help. Choosing a less effective method is likely pretty deliberate.
You are aware that this, even if it would be true, does not suggest that they are psychologically ok? Instead, they are in distress and need help.
Yes, but arguably the person that wants to actually really kill themselves as effectively as possible is less ok than someone crying out for help and deliberately choosing "suicide" methods that are much less likely to actually end in death.
Statistically, if you are a parent with a child that is not emotionally OK, a son is more likely to kill himself, which is not reversible / recoverable. So at least while those stats remain true, the idea that girls need more emotional support is not backed up by the evidence I'm looking at.
Statistically, if you are a parent with a child that is not emotionally OK, a son is more likely to kill himself, which is not reversible / recoverable. So at least while those stats remain true, the idea that girls need more emotional support is not backed up by the evidence I'm looking at.
Statistically, the best thing I can do there is to keep him away from guns and to not have them in household. That really works, then he has only less fatal means available to him.
Then of course there are things like treating him as normal multidimensional human as opposed to as emotionless competing machine as people in these HN theads write about boys. Like, the boys I know in real life are way more multifaceted people, they do have emotions and everything. They have relationship issues with regards to their friends. They do have to deal with bullying from their friends both physical and emotional. When young, they are not walking constantly fighting trouble people in this discussion describe. When teenagers, they are not only-cares-about sport and violent games kind of guys. Nor closes himself to his room and ignores the family which is actually supposed to be cool thing about boys kind of guys.
Reading gender sterotypes on HN about boys, one would believe it is impossible for boy to become artist, writer, scientist or philosopher. Except in real world, boys and men engage in all those. But really, median boy that live in my bubble is not destructive machine. There are few boys that do cause disproportional trouble, but majority of them are nice humans.
Back to girls, I would be careful to trust people who find all these attempts to "not be serious" at the time of trying. Majority of them is serious. People who act like they are not serious or just cry for attention that needs to be ignored are how girls dont get help they need.
Then of course there are things like treating him as normal multidimensional human as opposed to as emotionless competing machine as people in these HN theads write about boys. Like, the boys I know in real life are way more multifaceted people, they do have emotions and everything. They have relationship issues with regards to their friends. They do have to deal with bullying from their friends both physical and emotional. When young, they are not walking constantly fighting trouble people in this discussion describe. When teenagers, they are not only-cares-about sport and violent games kind of guys. Nor closes himself to his room and ignores the family which is actually supposed to be cool thing about boys kind of guys.
Reading gender sterotypes on HN about boys, one would believe it is impossible for boy to become artist, writer, scientist or philosopher. Except in real world, boys and men engage in all those. But really, median boy that live in my bubble is not destructive machine. There are few boys that do cause disproportional trouble, but majority of them are nice humans.
Back to girls, I would be careful to trust people who find all these attempts to "not be serious" at the time of trying. Majority of them is serious. People who act like they are not serious or just cry for attention that needs to be ignored are how girls dont get help they need.
The two options are: girls are bad at suicide or girls are not as serious about suicide (compared to boys).
Either way, clearly the boys need more intervention, in whatever form that takes.
Either way, clearly the boys need more intervention, in whatever form that takes.
I think most people chiming in here (me included) are just sharing anecdotes about their experiencing raising their children.
Destruction is a normal part of adolescent behavior. I think many first time parents are just really surprised to see it manifest so strongly in their children, especially toddlers.
Destruction is a normal part of adolescent behavior. I think many first time parents are just really surprised to see it manifest so strongly in their children, especially toddlers.
I don't know what you mean as normal adolescent destruction. My brother was not destructive nor were my friends. Adolescent sons of my colleagues are not destructive. I know that troubled teens exists, but I also know that many of them are actually decent people.
Most toddler destruction is cluelessness and the same toddler is sad and compassionate in other situations. Physically active toddler boys are noisy which is tiring, but they are also sweet and trying their best.
And all of that is irrelevant to effect from article, which manifest only in immigrant fathers and first born female child. And the effect is small.
So the divorce effect is likely way more about clash between cultural expectations of foreign born dads then about how horrible either boys or girls are.
Most toddler destruction is cluelessness and the same toddler is sad and compassionate in other situations. Physically active toddler boys are noisy which is tiring, but they are also sweet and trying their best.
And all of that is irrelevant to effect from article, which manifest only in immigrant fathers and first born female child. And the effect is small.
So the divorce effect is likely way more about clash between cultural expectations of foreign born dads then about how horrible either boys or girls are.
But couldn't that be because some do it as a cry for help?
Suicide attempt as cry for help clearly suggests you are not psychologically ok and that you need help now.
If anything, that makes me think that we need to give more emotional attention and care to boys, since they're less likely to seek help (even if the method for seeking help is destructive).
Yeah I suspect this is the reason. It'd be pretty stupid to insinuate a whole gender is ineffective at suicide.
The insinuation was a gender was more effective.
[deleted]
I definitely didn’t mean to discount the emotional damage done to boys by social media and media. Also the damage done to them by caging them up in schools while demanding absolute obedience and attention in “lord of the flies” situations.
You did though. You said girls need emotional support and boys you need to worry about them damaging themselves (physically) or others (emotionally).
I honestly can't come up with a reading of your comment that doesn't involve discounting the emotional needs of young boys.
I honestly can't come up with a reading of your comment that doesn't involve discounting the emotional needs of young boys.
I’d love to read something that explores why social media affects females more than males, and also a first person perspective of the social pressures of young females and how much wiggle room they actually have to remain socially accepted and active whilst avoiding pressures.
I think a lot comes down to body image of females in society. Something as simple as the fact that females are expected to wear makeup and men do not I think can explain a lot. The vast number of activities that surround makeup create an unhealthy obsession with vanity. It’s the raw amount of time spent looking at one’s self and comparing against others. This then propagates throughout life and results in an unwinnable battle against ageing that only leads to unhappiness. A typical female social media stream contains a huge amount of beauty-related content of which a male’s does not.
There are just certain interests you have to have to blend into social groups that are dramatically different for men and women.
Although recently men are starting to become more vain and I hear a lot of marketing crap like “men should take more care looking after their skin/appearance” - the metrosexual thing - which I think is going down a bad path. We need less social pressures for young people...but of course there is a huge monetary incentive to get men hooked on skin care etc.
I think a lot comes down to body image of females in society. Something as simple as the fact that females are expected to wear makeup and men do not I think can explain a lot. The vast number of activities that surround makeup create an unhealthy obsession with vanity. It’s the raw amount of time spent looking at one’s self and comparing against others. This then propagates throughout life and results in an unwinnable battle against ageing that only leads to unhappiness. A typical female social media stream contains a huge amount of beauty-related content of which a male’s does not.
There are just certain interests you have to have to blend into social groups that are dramatically different for men and women.
Although recently men are starting to become more vain and I hear a lot of marketing crap like “men should take more care looking after their skin/appearance” - the metrosexual thing - which I think is going down a bad path. We need less social pressures for young people...but of course there is a huge monetary incentive to get men hooked on skin care etc.
I'll paraphrase something I read a while back. Men have physical competition, women have emotional/social competition.
Men play sports, fight, kill each other and video games imitate life.
Social media is the women's version of video games, refined to weapons-grade purity.
Men play sports, fight, kill each other and video games imitate life.
Social media is the women's version of video games, refined to weapons-grade purity.
Yeah, Instagram really should be considered a WMD for self esteem.
[deleted]
> Although recently men are starting to become more vain and I hear a lot of marketing crap like “men should take more care looking after their skin/appearance” - the metrosexual thing - which I think is going down a bad path. We need less social pressures for young people...but of course there is a huge monetary incentive to get men hooked on skin care etc.
I'm worried about this trend too. I saw an ad the other day that started with talking about how much time and effort women need to spend on beauty etc. My thought while watching this part was "This is horrible, we should encourage less of this."
But instead of this conclusion, the ad concluded with "If women have to put this much effort in, men should step up and start putting in more effort. Here's a product we make so men can put in more effort." I found it absurd!
I'm worried about this trend too. I saw an ad the other day that started with talking about how much time and effort women need to spend on beauty etc. My thought while watching this part was "This is horrible, we should encourage less of this."
But instead of this conclusion, the ad concluded with "If women have to put this much effort in, men should step up and start putting in more effort. Here's a product we make so men can put in more effort." I found it absurd!
I’d love to read something that explores why social media affects females more than males, and also a first person perspective of the social pressures of young females and how much wiggle room they actually have to remain socially accepted and active whilst avoiding pressures.
I'm a woman. I didn't bend to social pressure until I actually had children. Once you have a child, the amount of crap society hangs on women and all the social pressure comes at you as a form of blackmail where the subtext is "And you and your child can both go die in a fire if you, little girlie, don't go along to get along."
Society generally treats mothers and their children as a package deal. Mothers tend to get custody. A woman can end up pregnant from a one-night stand and have her life irrevocably changed and the father may never know a child existed.
Men bitch about having to pay alimony and child support and how unfair that is if they are no longer getting to sleep with the woman and have her pick up after him and getting to enjoy the company of the children and it gets glossed over that both having kids and the threat of potentially having kids undermines female income on a regular basis. If nothing else, women tend to support their husband's career at the expense of their own career development, either without thinking about it (because it is just a social norm rooted in history) or because if you are woman and not an idiot, it is always at the back of your mind that an unintended pregnancy with unexpected health impacts (or resulting in a special-needs child) can derail your career in a way that it typically doesn't do to a male career.
This is an actual biological difference between cis women and cis men: cis women can potentially get pregnant and cis men cannot. It has profound impacts on many social things in ways that most people either don't readily see or don't want to admit because it's scary, I guess.
I'm a woman. I didn't bend to social pressure until I actually had children. Once you have a child, the amount of crap society hangs on women and all the social pressure comes at you as a form of blackmail where the subtext is "And you and your child can both go die in a fire if you, little girlie, don't go along to get along."
Society generally treats mothers and their children as a package deal. Mothers tend to get custody. A woman can end up pregnant from a one-night stand and have her life irrevocably changed and the father may never know a child existed.
Men bitch about having to pay alimony and child support and how unfair that is if they are no longer getting to sleep with the woman and have her pick up after him and getting to enjoy the company of the children and it gets glossed over that both having kids and the threat of potentially having kids undermines female income on a regular basis. If nothing else, women tend to support their husband's career at the expense of their own career development, either without thinking about it (because it is just a social norm rooted in history) or because if you are woman and not an idiot, it is always at the back of your mind that an unintended pregnancy with unexpected health impacts (or resulting in a special-needs child) can derail your career in a way that it typically doesn't do to a male career.
This is an actual biological difference between cis women and cis men: cis women can potentially get pregnant and cis men cannot. It has profound impacts on many social things in ways that most people either don't readily see or don't want to admit because it's scary, I guess.
Women face plenty of challenges, but to belittle the things men face by cherrypicking what they "bitch" about does very little to gather understanding from men to women's challenges. It is incredibly dismissive to the essence of the problem from a father's perspective.
Additionally, this is a very anecdotal example which doesn't explain why reports are found as early as prepubescent girls. Reports stating girls on average do indeed feel more pressure from social media than boys do.
Additionally, this is a very anecdotal example which doesn't explain why reports are found as early as prepubescent girls. Reports stating girls on average do indeed feel more pressure from social media than boys do.
[deleted]
[deleted]
>women tend to support their husband's career at the expense of their own career development //
Isn't the effect that one would use to support this, the same effect one sees if instead "women prefer to look after their children than immediately return to full-time work after child-birth"?
It seems that in Western democracies often women may [amongst other options] choose their own career vs. support a husband to enable greater closeness with children. Men seldom have that option.
Aside: "> and have her pick up after him": Father's who get no veto on abortion, or pregnancy get to live with the mother's choice. Sure, they share responsibility for the pregnancy too, but twisting that situation to (what appears to be your contention, paraphrased) 'men bear a grudge against alimony because they can't enslave women for menial work' is going to need some hard proof if you're going to convince me that this isn't unwarranted sexism. I think you'll find men "bitch" about it because they're denied any say but are expected to pay because "a man's role is to work".
Isn't the effect that one would use to support this, the same effect one sees if instead "women prefer to look after their children than immediately return to full-time work after child-birth"?
It seems that in Western democracies often women may [amongst other options] choose their own career vs. support a husband to enable greater closeness with children. Men seldom have that option.
Aside: "> and have her pick up after him": Father's who get no veto on abortion, or pregnancy get to live with the mother's choice. Sure, they share responsibility for the pregnancy too, but twisting that situation to (what appears to be your contention, paraphrased) 'men bear a grudge against alimony because they can't enslave women for menial work' is going to need some hard proof if you're going to convince me that this isn't unwarranted sexism. I think you'll find men "bitch" about it because they're denied any say but are expected to pay because "a man's role is to work".
Isn't the effect that one would use to support this, the same effect one sees if instead "women prefer to look after their children than immediately return to full-time work after child-birth"?
No. Well before there are children, women will fairly often do things like follow her husband or boyfriend to a new city when he gets a job offer there. When a person moves to a new city because they got a job offer there, they tend to be getting a promotion and a pay raise.
When a person moves to a new city to follow someone else and then start their own job hunt, they tend to be hurting their career and will typically get a less prestigious job with less pay than what they left. Do that sort of thing often enough along gendered lines and the cumulative effect is pretty harsh.
(what appears to be your contention, paraphrased) 'men bear a grudge against alimony because they can't enslave women for menial work'
Please don't do this. It's hard enough to participate here as a woman without someone intentionally twisting my comment in such an ugly manner.
It takes two people to create a baby. There is a long human history of placing various expectations on both men and women to account for that reality. The expectations related to that are long and varied and tend to be gendered, such as expecting women to be virgins on the wedding night but not expecting the same of men.
The reason for expecting virginity for girls is it's a form of birth control and it's the only one that's really reliable and it wasn't that long ago it was the only one a lot of people really had ready access to.
One college, I think in the UK somewhere, used to give scholarships to "virgin girls" and their test historically was "a girl who had never been pregnant." They had to update their criteria at some point.
The last time I saw data on it, a "normal, healthy fertile woman" was defined as a woman who would get pregnant within a year if she was sexually active and not using protection.
Someone asked explicitly for "a personal perspective" and I gave some of that. The degree to which I am being given crap for having done that is quite aggravating.
You don't have to care what a woman thinks, but I give a woman's take here from time to time simply because this is an overwhelmingly male space and I post as openly female. Sometimes, that goes okay. Sometimes, it's appreciated and respected, but it's never an easy thing to do and it always opens me up to being given a ridiculous amount of crap for making a good faith statement.
It never matters how carefully I word it, someone will inevitably have a problem with a woman daring to give the female side of the equation here.
It always sucks when a baby is conceived that wasn't actively and intentionally wanted and planned by both parties. This is part of why there is so much societal baggage concerning human sexual stuff and why the entire world wants to be judgy about things like how many people you sleep with, did you do it before marriage, is it a serious relationship or a casual one and on and on and on.
That's not because women are awful bitches to men and it's not because men are awful bastards to women. It's because when 1 + 1 suddenly and unexpectedly = 3, that impacts many lives, not just the two poor fools who bumped uglies one night without thinking too much about it (as just one scenario -- I'm well aware there can be others).
I'm already finding this discussion amazingly tiresome on a day when I already feel incredibly raw about men being assholes to me, so I think I probably need to walk away. It's really, really hard to constantly be expected to be the one who worries about the feelings of nine zillion men on this forum while it sometimes seems like not a single soul gives a damn about me, my feelings, my life, my welfare -- anything.
So if people want to just downvote my comments to hell and then have some giant pile on of ugly takes outright twisting my words, I guess y'all can have at it. Because nearly twelve years of posting here in good faith under incredibly difficult circumstances seems to have made not a damn bit of difference in how my words get interpreted here. I can still count on getting openly hated on for simply being a woman who dares to open my damn mouth.
No. Well before there are children, women will fairly often do things like follow her husband or boyfriend to a new city when he gets a job offer there. When a person moves to a new city because they got a job offer there, they tend to be getting a promotion and a pay raise.
When a person moves to a new city to follow someone else and then start their own job hunt, they tend to be hurting their career and will typically get a less prestigious job with less pay than what they left. Do that sort of thing often enough along gendered lines and the cumulative effect is pretty harsh.
(what appears to be your contention, paraphrased) 'men bear a grudge against alimony because they can't enslave women for menial work'
Please don't do this. It's hard enough to participate here as a woman without someone intentionally twisting my comment in such an ugly manner.
It takes two people to create a baby. There is a long human history of placing various expectations on both men and women to account for that reality. The expectations related to that are long and varied and tend to be gendered, such as expecting women to be virgins on the wedding night but not expecting the same of men.
The reason for expecting virginity for girls is it's a form of birth control and it's the only one that's really reliable and it wasn't that long ago it was the only one a lot of people really had ready access to.
One college, I think in the UK somewhere, used to give scholarships to "virgin girls" and their test historically was "a girl who had never been pregnant." They had to update their criteria at some point.
The last time I saw data on it, a "normal, healthy fertile woman" was defined as a woman who would get pregnant within a year if she was sexually active and not using protection.
Someone asked explicitly for "a personal perspective" and I gave some of that. The degree to which I am being given crap for having done that is quite aggravating.
You don't have to care what a woman thinks, but I give a woman's take here from time to time simply because this is an overwhelmingly male space and I post as openly female. Sometimes, that goes okay. Sometimes, it's appreciated and respected, but it's never an easy thing to do and it always opens me up to being given a ridiculous amount of crap for making a good faith statement.
It never matters how carefully I word it, someone will inevitably have a problem with a woman daring to give the female side of the equation here.
It always sucks when a baby is conceived that wasn't actively and intentionally wanted and planned by both parties. This is part of why there is so much societal baggage concerning human sexual stuff and why the entire world wants to be judgy about things like how many people you sleep with, did you do it before marriage, is it a serious relationship or a casual one and on and on and on.
That's not because women are awful bitches to men and it's not because men are awful bastards to women. It's because when 1 + 1 suddenly and unexpectedly = 3, that impacts many lives, not just the two poor fools who bumped uglies one night without thinking too much about it (as just one scenario -- I'm well aware there can be others).
I'm already finding this discussion amazingly tiresome on a day when I already feel incredibly raw about men being assholes to me, so I think I probably need to walk away. It's really, really hard to constantly be expected to be the one who worries about the feelings of nine zillion men on this forum while it sometimes seems like not a single soul gives a damn about me, my feelings, my life, my welfare -- anything.
So if people want to just downvote my comments to hell and then have some giant pile on of ugly takes outright twisting my words, I guess y'all can have at it. Because nearly twelve years of posting here in good faith under incredibly difficult circumstances seems to have made not a damn bit of difference in how my words get interpreted here. I can still count on getting openly hated on for simply being a woman who dares to open my damn mouth.
> Well before there are children, women will fairly often do things like follow her husband or boyfriend //
And vice-versa, do you feel there's some sexually skewed pressure here? Sadly for me I was the one who got a job first, so I won the chance to be stuck in a little box every day, yay!
> expecting women to be virgins on the wedding night but not expecting the same of men //
In the UK I think if you interviewed 10000 people you might get one that thinks that; honestly I've heard a lot of strange views but never anyone expressing virginity as a virtue only for women, it's always been for both sexes. I've no idea what you're leading towards or where you're getting this idea (assuming we're still talking Western Democracies)?
> It never matters how carefully I word it //
I hesitated to post that because you're one of the first people with a gendered name I've noticed, I don't notice many but overwhelmingly they're asexual names (temporal, rsync, whatever) and I've found your comments high value and definitely adding to the site in general. But, what did you mean there then, I couldn't work out a way in which it wasn't a terrible caricature.
You're complaining here about mistreatment, but you're dishing it too. You don't have to care about anyone's feelings to present your perspective - I don't know if you're getting downvoted, but ultimately it's fake internet points. Make your point ... but if you do it in a way that denigrates every divorced male then I think you've got to expect push-back.
> I can still count on getting openly hated on //
Disagreement ain't hate. I appreciate your posts, doesn't mean I don't disagree with some of their content.
And vice-versa, do you feel there's some sexually skewed pressure here? Sadly for me I was the one who got a job first, so I won the chance to be stuck in a little box every day, yay!
> expecting women to be virgins on the wedding night but not expecting the same of men //
In the UK I think if you interviewed 10000 people you might get one that thinks that; honestly I've heard a lot of strange views but never anyone expressing virginity as a virtue only for women, it's always been for both sexes. I've no idea what you're leading towards or where you're getting this idea (assuming we're still talking Western Democracies)?
> It never matters how carefully I word it //
I hesitated to post that because you're one of the first people with a gendered name I've noticed, I don't notice many but overwhelmingly they're asexual names (temporal, rsync, whatever) and I've found your comments high value and definitely adding to the site in general. But, what did you mean there then, I couldn't work out a way in which it wasn't a terrible caricature.
You're complaining here about mistreatment, but you're dishing it too. You don't have to care about anyone's feelings to present your perspective - I don't know if you're getting downvoted, but ultimately it's fake internet points. Make your point ... but if you do it in a way that denigrates every divorced male then I think you've got to expect push-back.
> I can still count on getting openly hated on //
Disagreement ain't hate. I appreciate your posts, doesn't mean I don't disagree with some of their content.
>having kids and the threat of potentially having kids
undermines female income on a regular basis
The only reason you see it this way is because of your previous point regarding women and children being a "package deal". There are societal expectations of men who have children.
>women tend to support their husband's career at the expense of their own career development
This is like saying "men tend to support their wives children at the expense of their own children". It's specialization and symbiosis. Women can benefit from "supporting" their husband's career. Ideally people support EACHOTHER in a relationship, and that includes tradeoffs in many areas of life, financial/career/societal/emotional/children.
>cis women can potentially get pregnant and cis men cannot
What a revelation. You're right, if only men could wrap their mind around this one then they might be able to fix all the issues that they maliciously create. /sarcasm
The only reason you see it this way is because of your previous point regarding women and children being a "package deal". There are societal expectations of men who have children.
>women tend to support their husband's career at the expense of their own career development
This is like saying "men tend to support their wives children at the expense of their own children". It's specialization and symbiosis. Women can benefit from "supporting" their husband's career. Ideally people support EACHOTHER in a relationship, and that includes tradeoffs in many areas of life, financial/career/societal/emotional/children.
>cis women can potentially get pregnant and cis men cannot
What a revelation. You're right, if only men could wrap their mind around this one then they might be able to fix all the issues that they maliciously create. /sarcasm
The only reason you see it this way
That's maybe half a step away from a personal attack. That's not "my opinion." That's how society tends to treat things and that observation is based on lots of reading of stuff with solid studies behind it.
This is like saying "men tend to support their wives children at the expense of their own children".
No, it's not. Not at all. For one thing, two people can be married and have their own children separately from a previous relationship.
if only men could wrap their mind around this one then they might be able to fix all the issues that they maliciously create.
Give me a break. This is not a position I am a proponent of. I rarely talk about the so-called "patriarchy." I do not advocate an idea that sexism is rooted in men being intentionally malicious assholes and I don't think I ever have.
This is not a good faith engagement of the point at all.
The fact that women can have babies tends to impact the lives of all women, whether they want babies or not. They get a lot of social expectations hung on them that are rooted in the idea of father as breadwinner and mother as full-time parent in part because that's a model that is more reliable than mother as breadwinner and father as full-time parent.
By reliable, I mean it tends to withstand things going wrong that you can statistically bet on happening in some percentage of cases. Pregnancy can really seriously impact a woman's body and health in a way that becoming a father doesn't do to a man's body.
As just one really minor example, she can be incontinent for a time after the birth and need to account for that, which is tougher to deal with if you have a paid job than if you are a homemaker.
That's maybe half a step away from a personal attack. That's not "my opinion." That's how society tends to treat things and that observation is based on lots of reading of stuff with solid studies behind it.
This is like saying "men tend to support their wives children at the expense of their own children".
No, it's not. Not at all. For one thing, two people can be married and have their own children separately from a previous relationship.
if only men could wrap their mind around this one then they might be able to fix all the issues that they maliciously create.
Give me a break. This is not a position I am a proponent of. I rarely talk about the so-called "patriarchy." I do not advocate an idea that sexism is rooted in men being intentionally malicious assholes and I don't think I ever have.
This is not a good faith engagement of the point at all.
The fact that women can have babies tends to impact the lives of all women, whether they want babies or not. They get a lot of social expectations hung on them that are rooted in the idea of father as breadwinner and mother as full-time parent in part because that's a model that is more reliable than mother as breadwinner and father as full-time parent.
By reliable, I mean it tends to withstand things going wrong that you can statistically bet on happening in some percentage of cases. Pregnancy can really seriously impact a woman's body and health in a way that becoming a father doesn't do to a man's body.
As just one really minor example, she can be incontinent for a time after the birth and need to account for that, which is tougher to deal with if you have a paid job than if you are a homemaker.
I think people without sons may seriously underestimate the ingenuity, energy, and frequency with which boy toddlers attempt to kill, maim, or otherwise seriously injure themselves.
Ha! I tried to explain this to parents who have only daughters. They would offer advice like "you need to give them more projects to do or you need to listen more to them." They would look on with a judging attitude as my sons would tear around playgrounds looking for sticks and rocks to arm their fort. Or they would play on the "outside" of playground structures. Imagine a 15 foot tall covered slide. They would climb on the outside of the slide - risking a serious fall.
I've already seen the tables turn. Parents with teenage daughters describe things that make me shudder. At least I now have the wisdom to not judge the parents.
It seems to me that the worst bullying behaviour that I hear in my social circle is perpetuated by teenage girls towards other teenage girls.
I've already seen the tables turn. Parents with teenage daughters describe things that make me shudder. At least I now have the wisdom to not judge the parents.
It seems to me that the worst bullying behaviour that I hear in my social circle is perpetuated by teenage girls towards other teenage girls.
I think there is a strong selection bias there as well, there's significant research showing how girls and boys are treated differently when getting into "dangerous" situations. It's been my experience as a father of 2 girls that they also love to climb on the outside of playground structures.
However what I see with a lot of the parents of other girls (compared to boys) is that they caution the girls a lot more and then they say my girls are so self-confident and "brave".
That is not to say that there is no difference between girls and boys, but you there are also huge variations between individuals as well, the way my two daughters are in their "wildness" is so different you would not guess they are siblings.
However what I see with a lot of the parents of other girls (compared to boys) is that they caution the girls a lot more and then they say my girls are so self-confident and "brave".
That is not to say that there is no difference between girls and boys, but you there are also huge variations between individuals as well, the way my two daughters are in their "wildness" is so different you would not guess they are siblings.
ye it is pretty f up how girls are treated. everything must be pink, all the toys are dolls, wear dresses and have long hair which make it harder to play. plus adults are much more friendly to girls. it all starts then.
Even moreso with multiple sons close in age. Thinking about the trouble my brothers and I caused on our own versus in groups versus all together, there seems to be a superlinear growth in the amount of trouble a group of boys can cause.
Not just themselves, but those around them as well. The only defense is that they usually telegraph their headbutts, if you keep your eyes on them when they're within striking distance.
I have a son who is a toddler right now, very well put - "ingenuity" made me laugh.
The Economist (relatively) recently featured a long article about the modern lives of adolescent girls: https://archive.is/OGxxk.
I’m married to an Indian woman and while I don’t have a strong gender preference, she wants a boy a lot more than a girl.
Son preference is an unfortunate cultural element of Asian migration.
"Indian-born mothers living in Canada with two children had 138 boys for every 100 girls"
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/04/11/canadas-missing-...
These preferences are lasting into the second-generations, with no indication that even at the third and later generations these preferences are lost:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-study-suggest...
Immigration to North America from India should restrict the number of males allowed, to balance the trend of sex-selective abortion in those communities, and to increase the 'value' of females - since they will have an easier chance of migrating.
"Indian-born mothers living in Canada with two children had 138 boys for every 100 girls"
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/04/11/canadas-missing-...
These preferences are lasting into the second-generations, with no indication that even at the third and later generations these preferences are lost:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-study-suggest...
Immigration to North America from India should restrict the number of males allowed, to balance the trend of sex-selective abortion in those communities, and to increase the 'value' of females - since they will have an easier chance of migrating.
>with no indication that even at the third and later generations these preferences are lost
That's likely an unintended side effect of the change in western attitudes on integration, going from "conform" to "melting pot" and now to "cultural stew". The pressure to adapt to the new country's values is less than it used to be while it is also encouraged for cultural communities to form and persist. Beyond that, the revolution in cheap global communications likely as plays a role, as cultural values can be reinforced in the new country from the source country. It may be that the only way to change the attitudes towards gender in the Canadian-Indian community will be to change those attitudes in India itself. That of course gets us into the messy territory of cultural imperialism.
That's likely an unintended side effect of the change in western attitudes on integration, going from "conform" to "melting pot" and now to "cultural stew". The pressure to adapt to the new country's values is less than it used to be while it is also encouraged for cultural communities to form and persist. Beyond that, the revolution in cheap global communications likely as plays a role, as cultural values can be reinforced in the new country from the source country. It may be that the only way to change the attitudes towards gender in the Canadian-Indian community will be to change those attitudes in India itself. That of course gets us into the messy territory of cultural imperialism.
I’ve known a few Indian women who suggested I would be disappointed if I had girls. I never had the courage to ask I if they hated their own existence or something.
Wait, how are they able to do this? Do they selectively abort on sex determination? I suppose sex determination isn't illegal in North America like it is in South Asia.
I have an Indian-american friend. His sisters were allowed to marry whomever they wanted, but his parents nearly disowned him when he married a white non-Hindu, since it was his sole responsibility to carry on the family. Years later his mom still will not talk to his wife.
deleted
For anyone passing by, if you say quips like 'go find someone else' don’t be surprised when your partner does
My wife quips the same (wanted a girl, had a boy, wife is Chinese, I’m American), though I think it’s more about how much work is involved in having one kid let alone two.
Are you guys first-gen immigrants? I’m 17 and nearly every single one of my Indian friends is part of a 2-child family (n>~50).
[deleted]
My friend who have constant problems with his teen girl and no with boy is exactly that case. He constantly takes issues with her make up - but had her in dancing group from childhood where makeup is basically required. Constant issues with interpreting her cloth sexually - while she did not understood that yet.
Taking issues with a lot of things that are clearly unfair. She does more sport then boy and have good grades, but somehow she is lazy because she did not went biking over weekend.
Taking issues with a lot of things that are clearly unfair. She does more sport then boy and have good grades, but somehow she is lazy because she did not went biking over weekend.
I believe that's because of (the scare of) pregnancy and the certainty that the baby ends up in the mother's hands wether or not there's a willing let alone capable father.
weird. I'd only be content with a daughter. A son would worry me
It cites a relative risk of only around 0.5-1% in the background literature, and only in the US. Although an interesting aggregate finding, for anyone considering their own relationship here it's likely to be lost in the noise of individual variation.
Anecdotal, but I have three sons and four daughters. In my experience boys are harder when they are younger (wild, causing mayhem and physical destruction in their wake, solving problems using fighting, etc.) but in their teenage years prefer to hang out quietly in their rooms. Girls on the other hand tend to be calmer in their younger years, but then in their teenage years become argumentative, moody, causing lots of emotional and psychological strife. It takes until they are in their early 20s for things to calm down. Though by then the damage has already been done. In an ideal world I'd like to raise girls when they are young and boys when they are older.
Most boys learn to mask their emotional state once the teenage years roll around owing to various vectors of messaging. I fear too many people are relieved by the ease of interface this brings about, but it can and usually is very deceptive. The consequent lack of communication just makes a void that gets filled with all sorts of terrible information about being "CHAD OR NOT" amongst other garbage that has to be unlearned.
Our culture doesn't have a lot of coming of age rituals or expectations. Lack of purpose and responsibility does not do good things to people or societies. Ambiguity in self identity can lead to emotional and psychological isolation, and things like loneliness epidemics. I totally agree with the need for communication, expectations/helping set goals, and love is spelled T.I.M.E.
Another example I'll add to my collection of liberal misgivings.
Liberal democracy and the liberal social and economic orders have done so much good for western societies, but this is another great example of how something they have displaced -- coming of age rituals and expectations -- has really had a negative impact on the people living in them.
Liberal democracy and the liberal social and economic orders have done so much good for western societies, but this is another great example of how something they have displaced -- coming of age rituals and expectations -- has really had a negative impact on the people living in them.
[deleted]
Yep, it starts really early in grade school with the relentless teasing boys receive for crying. You learn to bottle that shit up by 4th grade to make it as a “big kid”.
I dunno, 33 now, still can’t bottle that shit up. I just make sure to avoid situations that would lead to it.
To be fair, I don’t recall ever being teased for crying.
To be fair, I don’t recall ever being teased for crying.
Yes. Unfortunately the society as a whole still dont recognise it as a problem. I am generally MUCH more worried about my boys in the modern world than my girls.
"leaving boys behind" is a big problem in current times, and still noone does anything about it. This is especially seen in education, where girls/women outnumber boys/men in higher education by huge margins (university of ljubljana here is 60:40 women, so 50% more women enrolled).
You are not alone. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/10/07/americans...
Suicide statistics would seem to correlate:
(edit: changed link, didn't realize how spammy statista.com is)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States
(edit: changed link, didn't realize how spammy statista.com is)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States
It’s funny how a little line on a graph can flood you with emotion. I looked at the little line for 10-14 years and seeing that it’s not zero..
The gender gap in the USA/Western Europe appears to be a lot bigger than it is in the rest of the world.
A ratio of 3.4 in the US (77% male) as opposed to 1.7 globally (63% male).
A ratio of 3.4 in the US (77% male) as opposed to 1.7 globally (63% male).
Men in the US commit suicide by gun. More effective.
I see this claim a lot whenever suicide gender imbalance comes up. I think it's really an political idea trying to compensate for the idea that girls who attempt suicide are doing it to seek attention rather than to actually die. Some things to consider:
People who attempt suicide to seek attention are still suffering serious problems and it's not something to judge as "not a real problem".
Men and boys engage in risky activities which aren't classified as suicide attempts but may be exacerbated by wanting to die, such as violence, drug abuse, dangerous driving, even extreme sports.
Men sometimes commit suicide in very deliberate and carefully planned ways that ensure success. That's bound to be more successful than spontaneously running into the bathroom and swallowing every tablet in the medicine cupboard. Sometimes this is because they believe they've failed their social obligations and will never be respected. Eg. cheating on their wife, beating their wife, being unemployed, etc.
People who attempt suicide to seek attention are still suffering serious problems and it's not something to judge as "not a real problem".
Men and boys engage in risky activities which aren't classified as suicide attempts but may be exacerbated by wanting to die, such as violence, drug abuse, dangerous driving, even extreme sports.
Men sometimes commit suicide in very deliberate and carefully planned ways that ensure success. That's bound to be more successful than spontaneously running into the bathroom and swallowing every tablet in the medicine cupboard. Sometimes this is because they believe they've failed their social obligations and will never be respected. Eg. cheating on their wife, beating their wife, being unemployed, etc.
You find similar suicide gender ratios in societies where guns are heavily regulated and comprise a small minority of suicides (e.g. UK, Japan).
IIRC there's another stat that shows men are more likely to be successful when they try.
Basically, across most developed countries, women attempt to commit suicide 3x more than men, but men complete suicide 3x more than women. So men are approximately 10x as likely to succeed when they do try.
This is a combination of male suicide attempts being underreported and gendered differences in suicide as a cry for help vs a desire to end it all. There's also a minor statistical effect where a single suicidal women will attempt suicide multiple times vs a single suicidal male attempting it once (so you get different numbers comparing suicide attempts by gender vs people who have attempted suicide by gender).
This is a combination of male suicide attempts being underreported and gendered differences in suicide as a cry for help vs a desire to end it all. There's also a minor statistical effect where a single suicidal women will attempt suicide multiple times vs a single suicidal male attempting it once (so you get different numbers comparing suicide attempts by gender vs people who have attempted suicide by gender).
Japanese men seem to make do just fine.
I'm sure that's a factor, but I imagine it's more complicated than that.
[deleted]
Mom? Dad? Is that you?
Joking aside, I’m the youngest in a family of 3 boys and 4 girls and your comment lines up with my upbringing. Being the youngest I got to see the teenager year insanity of my sisters all unfold. Another anecdote is that when one of my brothers did get in trouble it was always something significantly worse than my sisters.
Joking aside, I’m the youngest in a family of 3 boys and 4 girls and your comment lines up with my upbringing. Being the youngest I got to see the teenager year insanity of my sisters all unfold. Another anecdote is that when one of my brothers did get in trouble it was always something significantly worse than my sisters.
Not to be snide, but was wondering if the number of bathrooms available in a family might matter. Growing up with sisters, that was a frequent source of tension.
We have more bathrooms than people. It has helped but teenaged girls are .... hard.
Funny, I’m also the youngest of 3 boys and 4 girls.
I have two boys age 8 and 11. It’s nontrivial keeping a boy alive between the ages of 3 and about 6. We’ve been in the ER so many times for stitches and other care that I asked if they had a rewards system or like a punch card for a free visit.
That’s so true. When I was a boy I was on first-name basis with one ER nurse. As an adult with a boy ... I’m on first-name basis with an ER nurse.
[deleted]
> As an adult with a boy ... I’m on first-name basis with an ER nurse.
Not sure if wife or son is also dangerous.
Not sure if wife or son is also dangerous.
Have you considered that maybe it’s just you/your family?
Oh, I’m sure it is. I love it. I’ve always loved taking controlled risks. To the untrained eye it can look like being careless :D
I'm not sure it counts as "controlled" if you still end up in the emergency room.
Well, no one’s perfect. I’d rather take a risk and get a little hurt than be totally safe all the time.
The last time I was in the ER was due to falling off a skateboard and needing stitches in my chin. I was trying to learn to skate, at 45. My son got me a skateboard for Father’s Day. I always wished I’d learned to skate as a kid.
Pry 50% of my ER calls are due to bike wrecks. My wife always says the day I buy a motorcycle is the day she buys a black dress and veil :D
The last time I was in the ER was due to falling off a skateboard and needing stitches in my chin. I was trying to learn to skate, at 45. My son got me a skateboard for Father’s Day. I always wished I’d learned to skate as a kid.
Pry 50% of my ER calls are due to bike wrecks. My wife always says the day I buy a motorcycle is the day she buys a black dress and veil :D
I'm not sure how any of that relates to a kid aged 3 to 6.
I have one son and one daughter. This has been my experience as well. Both of them are teenagers now. Dealing with my son is a lot easier now compared to my daughter. Just a few years ago, it was the opposite.
With 7 kids, you're close to crossing over from "anecdotal" into "dataset" territory.
A single data set for a single family which may not generalize.
I have two sons. One was a handful when he hit puberty and one was not. I sat both of them and a friend of theirs down one day to talk to the one who was a handful and talked to him about the impact of hormones on his mood. The punchline for that conversation was "Your problem is called testosterone, not My Bitch Mother."
All three boys laughed and all three boys were easier to cope with afterwards.
I have two sons. One was a handful when he hit puberty and one was not. I sat both of them and a friend of theirs down one day to talk to the one who was a handful and talked to him about the impact of hormones on his mood. The punchline for that conversation was "Your problem is called testosterone, not My Bitch Mother."
All three boys laughed and all three boys were easier to cope with afterwards.
I wonder if you missed the joke in this one and took it literally? I don’t think he was intending to suggest it was literally actually scientifically rigorous evidence.
I have something of a tendency to take things literally online, but, also, it's becoming clear to me here lately that I sometimes miss friendly banter on HN because no one ever talks to me that way. If a guy here is being "friendly," you can pretty much bet dollars to donuts that he is really wanting to know if I will sleep with him, which makes it enormously difficult to figure out how to interact here "normally" and I sometimes don't know why in the hell I bother because it seems like a lose-lose scenario for me and maybe this entire thing is a giant waste of my time and will never be anything else.
> If a guy here is being "friendly," you can pretty much bet dollars to donuts that he is really wanting to know if I will sleep with him
Except the joke wasn't a reply to you, but someone else, so you can be assured they were not hitting on you on that one.
Also, you don't even know 'irrational' and 'ineedasername' genders and sexual preferences, so you cant say 'he' was trying to hit on 'her'.
Except the joke wasn't a reply to you, but someone else, so you can be assured they were not hitting on you on that one.
Also, you don't even know 'irrational' and 'ineedasername' genders and sexual preferences, so you cant say 'he' was trying to hit on 'her'.
Yeah, wow, I said absolutely none of that.
What I said was I fail to correctly interpret friendly banter that occurs between other people here because it isn't something I first-hand experience.
Being ugly to me and people downvoting me and all this crap for stating that doesn't change it. It's just more evidence that people are all too often not friendly to me as an individual, so I stand by all of my above observations.
1. People here are not actually friendly to me. They are sometimes faux friendly while treating me like nothing but a piece of ass, which I deem to be predatory behavior, the opposite of friendly.
2. That fact makes it hard for me to correctly interpret friendly banter between other people when it does occur.
3. I continue to wonder if posting here is a giant waste of my time given the amount of ridiculous crap I get for no real reason other than posting as openly female.
What I said was I fail to correctly interpret friendly banter that occurs between other people here because it isn't something I first-hand experience.
Being ugly to me and people downvoting me and all this crap for stating that doesn't change it. It's just more evidence that people are all too often not friendly to me as an individual, so I stand by all of my above observations.
1. People here are not actually friendly to me. They are sometimes faux friendly while treating me like nothing but a piece of ass, which I deem to be predatory behavior, the opposite of friendly.
2. That fact makes it hard for me to correctly interpret friendly banter between other people when it does occur.
3. I continue to wonder if posting here is a giant waste of my time given the amount of ridiculous crap I get for no real reason other than posting as openly female.
I misunderstood that you were were talking about interactions here. You could probably tell that based on my response. I'm not 'being ugly to you' - and I know you might not be referring specifically to me. But misunderstandings like this happens, and it's nothing personal and you also shouldn't stress that much over.
Seeing how (to me) you overreacted to both my and ' zadokshi' comment with a long reply about your stress and how much you suffer from these interactions, I guess I would suggest you either stop posting here - at least for a while - to relax, or create a username that doesn't indicate your gender or real identity in any way.
In a side note, if I was on this level of stress and disappointment (sorry, english as second language and the best word here escaped my mind) in other people and and interaction with them, I would try to see someone to talk too.
Edit: BTW, you literally said 'if a guy here is being friendly...'
Seeing how (to me) you overreacted to both my and ' zadokshi' comment with a long reply about your stress and how much you suffer from these interactions, I guess I would suggest you either stop posting here - at least for a while - to relax, or create a username that doesn't indicate your gender or real identity in any way.
In a side note, if I was on this level of stress and disappointment (sorry, english as second language and the best word here escaped my mind) in other people and and interaction with them, I would try to see someone to talk too.
Edit: BTW, you literally said 'if a guy here is being friendly...'
Edit: BTW, you literally said 'if a guy here is being friendly...'
Yes, I did and the very next set of words is the following qualifier:
you can pretty much bet dollars to donuts
It's not some kind of "all men" statement, but that's likely how a lot of people are interpreting it. It's a "I have to invest so much ridiculous energy in trying to not accidentally signal that I'm here hoping some random internet stranger will pick me up that it makes it hard as all hell to try to behave normally and talk normally and interpret things normally."
Anyway, I said I was leaving. This is my last clarification. All other "Wow, I can't believe people are so wildly misinterpreting my words" reactions will be kept to myself.
Have a nice Saturday. (Or whatever day of the week it is where you live.)
Yes, I did and the very next set of words is the following qualifier:
you can pretty much bet dollars to donuts
It's not some kind of "all men" statement, but that's likely how a lot of people are interpreting it. It's a "I have to invest so much ridiculous energy in trying to not accidentally signal that I'm here hoping some random internet stranger will pick me up that it makes it hard as all hell to try to behave normally and talk normally and interpret things normally."
Anyway, I said I was leaving. This is my last clarification. All other "Wow, I can't believe people are so wildly misinterpreting my words" reactions will be kept to myself.
Have a nice Saturday. (Or whatever day of the week it is where you live.)
Canada. Thank you, and have a great weekend!
You said something people disagree with (and mostly being guys here) that proves the point.
Then you accuse friendly people of not being friendly and treating you like apiece of ass, admit you cannot recognize friendly banter, and accuse people of sexism.
If someone here is unfriendly to others, it's you.
Then you accuse friendly people of not being friendly and treating you like apiece of ass, admit you cannot recognize friendly banter, and accuse people of sexism.
If someone here is unfriendly to others, it's you.
I wonder if you'd benefit from starting a new HN account, and try to not reveal anything that would let people connect it to your real identity?
BTW, I'm a guy, and I'm trying to be friendly, and I can assure you I'm not looking for a date.
BTW, I'm a guy, and I'm trying to be friendly, and I can assure you I'm not looking for a date.
Thanks. Sincerely.
But that's not workable for a long list of reasons that I'm both tired of trying to explain and tired of being told are not legitimate concerns or whatever. It boils down to this: men are not expected to hide their gender to participate online. Telling a woman to hide hers as a "solution" is dismissing her very real problems and compounding them.
It shouldn't be an offense worthy of being downvoted to hell to say "Yeah, I missed the joke for the following two reasons, one of which is no joking around allowed when talking to Doreen! Can't have that!
It's exhausting to have to err on the side of being excessively serious every minute I'm here because if I make the mistake of being my normal, friendly self, everyone wants my phone number so to speak.
Making that observation isn't me being a bitch, but getting downvoted to hell for it sure makes me sympathetic to the hords of women who openly hate on men and blame the conspiracy theory of The Patriarchy for all their ills.
Anyway, I need to go do other things. This is not a conversation I really want to have. At all.
Edited: Because auto-corrupt is the bane of my existence.
But that's not workable for a long list of reasons that I'm both tired of trying to explain and tired of being told are not legitimate concerns or whatever. It boils down to this: men are not expected to hide their gender to participate online. Telling a woman to hide hers as a "solution" is dismissing her very real problems and compounding them.
It shouldn't be an offense worthy of being downvoted to hell to say "Yeah, I missed the joke for the following two reasons, one of which is no joking around allowed when talking to Doreen! Can't have that!
It's exhausting to have to err on the side of being excessively serious every minute I'm here because if I make the mistake of being my normal, friendly self, everyone wants my phone number so to speak.
Making that observation isn't me being a bitch, but getting downvoted to hell for it sure makes me sympathetic to the hords of women who openly hate on men and blame the conspiracy theory of The Patriarchy for all their ills.
Anyway, I need to go do other things. This is not a conversation I really want to have. At all.
Edited: Because auto-corrupt is the bane of my existence.
Sure, best wishes.
A quick parting thought: one feature of HN (with which I strongly disagree) is that downvotes require no accompanying explanation or justification.
I've sometimes been pretty vexed when my perfectly good comments got downvoted.
I'd encourage you to not read too much into a downvote. It can be impossible to divine what actually motivates each occurrence.
A quick parting thought: one feature of HN (with which I strongly disagree) is that downvotes require no accompanying explanation or justification.
I've sometimes been pretty vexed when my perfectly good comments got downvoted.
I'd encourage you to not read too much into a downvote. It can be impossible to divine what actually motivates each occurrence.
I downvoted because off topic personal issues
The main problem is that HN has no messaging feature, so people are probably skeptical of the claim that > 0 men are trying to hook up with you (or anyone else) on HN.
Pointing out a comment where this has happened would go a long way to bolster the claim.
Pointing out a comment where this has happened would go a long way to bolster the claim.
Given the UI of Hacker News shows the username only in a tiny grey font that very few people read, has no profile pictures or DM functionality, I seriously doubt that most people being friendly here are trying to get into your pants. This isn't Twitter. Generally, I have no idea of the gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation of the people I interact with here unless it's explicitly mentioned in the comment to make a point.
Well handled. Did they take the lesson?
> My Bitch Mother.
It's always strange to see this kind of thing said. It's uniquely western that this behaviour would be tolerated.
In my neck of the woods, such disrespect would result in a hiding, such that by the time a child is 3 they know not to disrespect their parents... at least not to the extent of verbal insults like that.
What would anyone other than Ted Cruz allow someone else to disrespect their spouse like that?
It's always strange to see this kind of thing said. It's uniquely western that this behaviour would be tolerated.
In my neck of the woods, such disrespect would result in a hiding, such that by the time a child is 3 they know not to disrespect their parents... at least not to the extent of verbal insults like that.
What would anyone other than Ted Cruz allow someone else to disrespect their spouse like that?
My son never called me a bitch and the only time in 22 years of marriage their father ever did was to say "Honey, I think you are pregnant. You are being such a bitch." and because he never, ever spoke to me that way, I didn't say one word in reply. I just went and got a pregnancy test (like that same day or within a day or two) and, lo and behold, I was in fact pregnant.
I'm the one in the family with a potty mouth who swears like a sailor. It was funny to them and they all three laughed in part because that line was colorfully descriptive of his cranky, blamey behavior, not because anyone in the family ever spoke to me that way.
I'm the one in the family with a potty mouth who swears like a sailor. It was funny to them and they all three laughed in part because that line was colorfully descriptive of his cranky, blamey behavior, not because anyone in the family ever spoke to me that way.
Ooof, I'm sorry... I didn't initially read your username and just assumed that you were a guy.
[deleted]
Ah HN. Where else can I read about someone abusing an infant with nostalgia, while also suggesting that it’s a failing of western culture to not beat ones children.
Here's my take on it... A younger non-parent me understands the western take on "not beating your children" very well. But the current parent me can also see why parents sometimes would beat their kids.(not that it is right.). Honestly, negative feedback/reinforcement is also needed to discipline(and I agree physical assault is the wrong way to do it.). The point I'm trying to make here is the stance against hitting your children stems from a "ideal well-adjusted parent" (not different from the "rational actor" in economics). And Yes, I'm contrasting the "ideal vs the actual". For context: I grew up in India in the 80-90s in a rural area. Personally, in my parenting I'm starting to use the "sama-dhana-beda-dhanda" ordering to some extent and customization for family settings of course.
I grew up in Australia in the 80s/90s
I was hit as a kid. I have no distinct memory of being hit really, but I have distinct memories of being scared of it if I misbehaved and parents getting angry.
As a parent now, I see two reasons a parent might hit their kid, and neither is acceptable to me.
(A) you lose your temper because the child misbehaves. This isn’t acceptable because you’re reacting emotionally. The outcome could be extreme, either mentally or physically.
(B) you don’t lose your temper and make a reasoned decision to hit the child. This is even worse because you’ve justified hurting a child, to yourself.
Its not news that how a child is raised will impact their outlook on life. I wasn’t hit a lot, and I’m generally able to not make a physical reaction (such as hitting) when I am upset with my son.
I’ve seen first hand that others who had more violence in their childhood (eg hit with a wire coat hanger by a parent) will themselves be much more likely to react with physical violence if they get upset.
I was hit as a kid. I have no distinct memory of being hit really, but I have distinct memories of being scared of it if I misbehaved and parents getting angry.
As a parent now, I see two reasons a parent might hit their kid, and neither is acceptable to me.
(A) you lose your temper because the child misbehaves. This isn’t acceptable because you’re reacting emotionally. The outcome could be extreme, either mentally or physically.
(B) you don’t lose your temper and make a reasoned decision to hit the child. This is even worse because you’ve justified hurting a child, to yourself.
Its not news that how a child is raised will impact their outlook on life. I wasn’t hit a lot, and I’m generally able to not make a physical reaction (such as hitting) when I am upset with my son.
I’ve seen first hand that others who had more violence in their childhood (eg hit with a wire coat hanger by a parent) will themselves be much more likely to react with physical violence if they get upset.
It's worth noting, there is a pretty big difference between something like a simple spanking and being beaten with a wire clothes hanger. There's a trend to treat the two extremes both as "beating your child" and something a parent should be locked up for doing. I'm not a fan of that grouping.
There are times when a parent needs to do something that will make it very clear that the child's behavior is completely inappropriate. Things for which, if they do not teach the child this, it will cause problems later. For some people, that act may be a spanking or similar. For others, it might be making the child eat soap.
Personally, I'm a bellower. I almost never raise my voice. But when I do, I am heard... period; everyone in the house stops in their tracks to find out what has pushed me over the edge. I don't like yelling, but if my child is doing something that could cause them physical injury (or similar) and I cannot seem to get them to stop by telling them to... I raise my voice, a lot.
There are times when a parent needs to do something that will make it very clear that the child's behavior is completely inappropriate. Things for which, if they do not teach the child this, it will cause problems later. For some people, that act may be a spanking or similar. For others, it might be making the child eat soap.
Personally, I'm a bellower. I almost never raise my voice. But when I do, I am heard... period; everyone in the house stops in their tracks to find out what has pushed me over the edge. I don't like yelling, but if my child is doing something that could cause them physical injury (or similar) and I cannot seem to get them to stop by telling them to... I raise my voice, a lot.
I’m like you, I’ll yell at him, and usually it’s to go “look at the wall” (aka naughty corner when you don’t have a corner that’s actually usable).
But the comment I replied to gives the impression of a pretty harsh implementation:
> such disrespect would result in a hiding, such that by the time a child is 3 they know not to disrespect their parents...
But the comment I replied to gives the impression of a pretty harsh implementation:
> such disrespect would result in a hiding, such that by the time a child is 3 they know not to disrespect their parents...
Where I grew up, corporal punishment was the norm. If I misbehaved at home, I'd have to fetch "the whopper" which was a thick leather dog collar.
If I misbehaved at school, I'd get a caning (bamboo) or hiding (short length of hose pipe).
I was never abused. Boundaries were always known, and the punishment for crossing them also known. If you got in trouble.
I mean... you do something cheeky, and the punishment is a bit of pain for 10 seconds. That was always much much better than being told how badly you'd disappointed your parents or teacher.
I'd take a hiding over a telling off any day.
FYI, my partner was also beaten as a child, but she'd vehemently against corporal punishment now. Our children are being raised without the cane.
If I misbehaved at school, I'd get a caning (bamboo) or hiding (short length of hose pipe).
I was never abused. Boundaries were always known, and the punishment for crossing them also known. If you got in trouble.
I mean... you do something cheeky, and the punishment is a bit of pain for 10 seconds. That was always much much better than being told how badly you'd disappointed your parents or teacher.
I'd take a hiding over a telling off any day.
FYI, my partner was also beaten as a child, but she'd vehemently against corporal punishment now. Our children are being raised without the cane.
dude I snorted my coffee.
Teenage behavior is heavili influenced by adults expectations and treatment of said teenagers.
this is the kind of hn humor I need
i have 6, all girls!
[deleted]
Funny, but these data aren't exactly independent data.
On the other hand, that is a strength in that it's an excellent control for family environment, parents' socioeconomic status and educational attainment, neighborhood quality, etc.
Perhaps they could repeat the experiment with another 7 kids and different enviromental details.
This was obviously a joke.
Anecdotal, but I got a chuckle out of it.
No peer reviewed evidence of that.
A very funny one at that.
Do you think if this a difference between the nature of genders or a difference emerging due to how parents and/or society treats boys and girls differently?
There is no ethical way to ever know.
its brain structure, hormones, inherited traits, etc.
Brain structure is also shaped by environment
Well those behaviours haven't changed for hundreds of years. Grand and Great Grand parents share many of the same stories. Surely their environment are much different to what we have now.
Well our current environment is also very shaped by the past.
of course. but even if you fix environment, girls will usually interact and experience the world different than boys which obviously will cause their brains to form differently. even though environment is same.
lots of studies about that. especially twin studies with m/f twins.
lots of studies about that. especially twin studies with m/f twins.
> lots of studies about that. especially twin studies with m/f twins.
Twin studies with m/f twins outside of an environment shaped by external imposition of traditional (or otherwise differentiated) gender roles and gender-based expectations and treatments?
If so, how was that acheived?
If not, you haven't supported the conclusion of differences even if you fix environmental differences.
Twin studies with m/f twins outside of an environment shaped by external imposition of traditional (or otherwise differentiated) gender roles and gender-based expectations and treatments?
If so, how was that acheived?
If not, you haven't supported the conclusion of differences even if you fix environmental differences.
Yeah, that minor little detail of all of society generally treating boys and girls differently is slightly hard to really escape.
Right. I can't imagine what "fixed environment" could even possibly be construed to mean. The conscious pressures are unavoidably pervasive, let alone the unconscious ones. Doesn't much matter how the parents parent. Try counting how many times in fictional media women are written to respond to every conflict by collapsing in a puddle of tears, vs men.
[deleted]
One thing you can do is look at people of the same sex but with different levels of testosterone. That would effectively control for environment, unless you think that higher testosterone has subtly visible effects that cause others to (unconsciously?) treat them differently—which actually seems likely, if e.g. a high-T girl would tend to do more "rough" activities and consequently wear "tough", non-delicate clothing—but that in itself would be a useful takeaway.
Another thing you can do is compare countries, or families, or perhaps schools, that are "more gender-role-restrictive" or "less gender-role-restrictive". Surely if the environment has an impact, then varying the strength of that environment would vary the impact. (Obviously there would be other variables to control for.)
Another thing you can do is compare countries, or families, or perhaps schools, that are "more gender-role-restrictive" or "less gender-role-restrictive". Surely if the environment has an impact, then varying the strength of that environment would vary the impact. (Obviously there would be other variables to control for.)
[deleted]
All of the above.
The genders clearly are quite different (on average with large individual variations). It also must matter a lot how society is structured to handle the young maturing. I don't think 2021 America is particularly good at this.
The genders clearly are quite different (on average with large individual variations). It also must matter a lot how society is structured to handle the young maturing. I don't think 2021 America is particularly good at this.
I have two sons and two daughters. What you described is exactly my experience.
Be careful what you wish for.
Your description of boys sounds like my 6 year old daughter. Except she's also emotional, moody, and can go from 0 to 60 in half a second. Can't wait till the teenage years, I'm sure that'll be a blast. Luckily our twin 3 year olds (boy/girl) are much easier so far.
I've overheard parents talk about how easy daughters are. Always made me laugh a little.
I've overheard parents talk about how easy daughters are. Always made me laugh a little.
Mine are currently the opposite. My daughter (10) has been a handful pretty much since she turned three. Love her to pieces, but nothing about raising her is easy. My son (8) is super relaxed, laid back, compliant. He gets into fights with his sister, but she is the one who picks the fights. She's also much larger than he is, which does not help.
[deleted]
Girls calmer in their younger years? I have some outliers then! Hopefully it means we’re prepared for teenage :-)
Exactly the opposite for my family.
Any reason why? If you can tell us, it may be illuminating!
[deleted]
> Though by then the damage has already been done.
Wow that sounds severe, what damage was done?
Wow that sounds severe, what damage was done?
My youngest sister got married young and against the advice of everyone that loved her, more because the groom was a scumbag than the haste of the decision. Well she went full revenge mode and had to be totally cut off from the family once she and her husband started suing my parents. It really put my act of rebellion many years prior, joining the Marines, into perspective for my mother - who had until that point still carried hard feelings. The stereotype about women being irrationally vindictive doesn't come out of nowhere.
I think your story reinforces the apple and tree stereotype as much as it does the irrationally vindictive stereotype.
Eh, my mother's conduct wasn't totally insane - I'd be a little displeased if my son not only selected a branch that prided itself on combat exposure (right as bombs started falling on Baghdad), but he also intentionally chose the one component of the Corps that guaranteed he'd be getting shot at for months on end. I wouldn't have taken it so personally, but I'd still be pretty irritated.
I presumed he was referring to damage to the parents' relationship dealing with the female teenage drama.
Damage to all relationships involved.
Conservative assumptions explanation: mothers might be less confident about being able to raise a boy well without a father than a girl without a father so they are less invested in the marriage if it's a girl, fathers tend to feel threatened by a female majority so they are also less invested in the marriage if it's a girl.
I feel kind of relieved that this explanation doesn't even survive the subheading "But the difference only emerges when the children are teenagers"
I feel kind of relieved that this explanation doesn't even survive the subheading "But the difference only emerges when the children are teenagers"
>"But the difference only emerges when the children are teenagers"
I don't see how that disproves what you said.
The extra stress of dealing with 1.5 women in the household causes more marriages to get to the possible divorce threshold at which point everything you've stated subconsciously kicks in.
I don't see how that disproves what you said.
The extra stress of dealing with 1.5 women in the household causes more marriages to get to the possible divorce threshold at which point everything you've stated subconsciously kicks in.
My anecdotal experience as a father of 3 daughters: my relationship definitely got worse and I believe the root cause is the diminished empathy from my wife, on the other hand my sister got 2 boys and our relationship became incredibly close, she became more empathetic to me and my father!
Would you mind detailing the "diminished empathy"? Is this related to the daughters somehow and would things have been different if they were boys?
For instance the movies they like to watch, also they are annoyed with the mess of my working table, full with arduinos, eletrônics, computers - the same with my guitars or even the kind of art and decoration I appreciate. Before my daughters, the situation was more simetrical between me and my wife - now I feel more isolated, without my own space at home, furthermore without partner to Discuss books or watch tv shows, my wife is more and more focused in the girls world - during our 10 year dating, we were close friends with lot in common, I would never have predicted this change.
I think I understand, if I may phrase it like this: your life before had a balance between masculine and feminine and now you feel that it is skewing heavily toward feminine.
The other findings are telling:
Fathers who had sisters growing up, were less likely to face divorce. Families with immigrant background were more likely to face divorce.
What does it tell you? That it's actually the fathers causing strife because they do not treat their daughters correctly? Or that fathers who understand their daughters behavior are not as negatively emotionally affected by it?
It could also be that fathers who had no sisters were more emotionally attached to their daughters, whereas fathers who grew up with sisters has less emotional attachment to their daughters and consequently were less affected by their horrible teenage years.
There is considerably less drama with my three teenagers (combined) than I witnessed growing up with my one sister.
Or that the sisters help?
The full paper is here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3043527.
For all the bad press, I've found teenage boys easy to deal with. They get loud or break things but only by accident, they rarely mean any harm and are rapidly ready to apologise and mean it when they do. Put the breakables away, stick to a few simple rules, interact with them and ignore tactically and they'll be happy, productive and social.
Some rough housing helps a lot when they're younger too. 10 minutes of wrestling will buy you an hour of helping clean up or playing nicely with others.
Some rough housing helps a lot when they're younger too. 10 minutes of wrestling will buy you an hour of helping clean up or playing nicely with others.
This is very true. It also helps with their ability to regulate emotions. I’d like to the study but, on mobile...
“Daughters provoke parental strife” implies causality not present in TFA.
Also, as a survival of an abusive home, “daughters provoke...” sounds like blaming children for their parents dysfunction. Maybe that wasn’t the intent of the OP. However kids blaming themselves for their parents problems is a pathology many kids that went through these situations have to work to overcome. Any culpability belongs to the grown ups who couldn’t resolve their issues and put the kids first.
Also, as a survival of an abusive home, “daughters provoke...” sounds like blaming children for their parents dysfunction. Maybe that wasn’t the intent of the OP. However kids blaming themselves for their parents problems is a pathology many kids that went through these situations have to work to overcome. Any culpability belongs to the grown ups who couldn’t resolve their issues and put the kids first.
This seems to me like a rare "natural experiment" where correlation implies causality. Because whether a child is a son or daughter is essentially random, it's hard to imagine a confounding factor causing both daughters and divorce.
I think that the remaining factors will be the "difficulty" of parenting the behaviour of sons vs daughters in contrast to the difficulty a daughter or son experiences being parented. That is while you can use the sex of the child as an independent variable, you still need to explain why it has this effect.
I did know a family that fit this profile. The daughter challenged the parents and the parents, specifically the mother couldn't deal with it well.
Rather than divorce, the daughter went to a private school, then to live with relatives in another country.
Rather than divorce, the daughter went to a private school, then to live with relatives in another country.
To me, a Mother and a daughter together form a stronger bond to face the perils of a post divorce life. I feel like, in unsubconsious way, the mother with a daughter would find more courage in leaving the husband
The thing about teens is what makes them so infuriating is also what makes them so interesting. Otis not possible to have the one without the other.
>"It found that “daughter-divorce” risk emerges only in a first-born girl’s teenage years (see chart). Before they reach the age of 12, daughters are no more linked to couples splitting up than sons are. “If fathers were really more likely to take off because they preferred sons, surely they wouldn’t wait 13 years to do so,” reasons Dr Kabatek."
Maybe parts of the article I could not access goes more into detail, but this is an odd perspective when it is known that women initiate 70% of divorces (see fig. 1 in [0]).
[0]: https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_Who_wants_the_B...
Maybe parts of the article I could not access goes more into detail, but this is an odd perspective when it is known that women initiate 70% of divorces (see fig. 1 in [0]).
[0]: https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_Who_wants_the_B...
> it is intriguing to note that Dr Kabatek and Dr Ribar found one type of couple who seem immune to the daughter effect: those in which the father grew up with a sister.
Can anyone with grown daughters and a sister speculate as to why this may be the case?
Can anyone with grown daughters and a sister speculate as to why this may be the case?
I have an older sister who was the first child, and my oldest child is currently a 13 year old girl.
Girls go through very negative emotions between ages 12 and 18. These can be very challenging for a family. PM me for details!
This 5-year-longitudinal study from the Netherlands backs up my anecdotal assertion, adolescents are difficult, girls are slightly worse, and it starts really horribly at 12/13 then eases off as they approach adulthood: https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cdev.12...
Here’s an article with advice on how to cope from the NHS: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/stress-anxiety-depression/copi...
Girls go through very negative emotions between ages 12 and 18. These can be very challenging for a family. PM me for details!
This 5-year-longitudinal study from the Netherlands backs up my anecdotal assertion, adolescents are difficult, girls are slightly worse, and it starts really horribly at 12/13 then eases off as they approach adulthood: https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cdev.12...
Here’s an article with advice on how to cope from the NHS: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/stress-anxiety-depression/copi...
Contact info?
He has seen his parents go through the same process.
I'm wondering if men who have gone through this can suggest some of the ways in which having a sister changed how they interacted with their daughters or wives.
It isn't entirely clear from the brief mention in the article whether having had a sister changes how a man interacts with his wife or how he interacts with his daughter.
It isn't entirely clear from the brief mention in the article whether having had a sister changes how a man interacts with his wife or how he interacts with his daughter.
Sorry, I meant to respond as one of those men. Observing my parents' experience informed my approach.
Can you elaborate? Did it change how you wanted to raise your daughter, or how you interacted with your wife in relation to raising your daughter?
In my case, I was generally happy with how my parents raised us, looking back as an adult, and with the differences in how they approached my adolescent years and my sister's. I saw that my parents' relationship was challenged and ultimately strengthened by the challenge of raising both boys and girls. That strengthened my confidence in my ability to raise children with my wife while preserving and strengthening our marriage, and some small challenges have been eased by observing some of my parents' specific successes and failures. I don't know if I would have divorced had I been an only child, of course.
https://archive.is/BsXXr
There has to be an Evo Psych explanation. I am not an evolutionary psychologist, wish @primalpoly or @sentientist were on HN for their take. An obvious (and obviously naive take), is that one of parents would initiate breakup in search of a son because having a son offers some evolutionary advantage. It happens around the girls hitting puberty because it now signals that their care taking period is over.
There has to be an Evo Psych explanation. I am not an evolutionary psychologist, wish @primalpoly or @sentientist were on HN for their take. An obvious (and obviously naive take), is that one of parents would initiate breakup in search of a son because having a son offers some evolutionary advantage. It happens around the girls hitting puberty because it now signals that their care taking period is over.
I would argue that this is because the mother projects her dreams, aspirations and rejections of her own childhood on the daughter and that, could lead into the mother creating resentment towards the father due to projecting her experiences with her own father upon her spouse. This undoubtedly will lead to more arguments, more stress and ultimately to a failed relationship.
... in the US.
Also, the difference in divorce rates between parents of male child and female child is not something which necessarily indicates a deeper cause.
Far too often we accept such headlines at the face value and start looking for reasons than first critically examining the data itself (sample size, localisation, sampling, statistical significance, design)
Also, the difference in divorce rates between parents of male child and female child is not something which necessarily indicates a deeper cause.
Far too often we accept such headlines at the face value and start looking for reasons than first critically examining the data itself (sample size, localisation, sampling, statistical significance, design)
At least this is an improvement over the King Henry VIII technique for gaining a male heir (flawed though it was).
We seem to be a self selecting group of mostly men here.. I would be interested in hearing from someone who had been a teenaged girl to hear the other side of this. It’s at the very least plausible that much of the conflict comes from the expectations that society places on young women.
I am a girl. My parents are still happily married. But no siblings so no drama.
They were (and kinda still are actually even though I’m nearly 30) hostile to boys though. Because of getting pregnant or falling madlessly in love with an idiot. Which always sounded ridiculous to me since I’ve disliked children from a very young age and was academically ambitious. And actually not very much versed in romantic activities either.
They were (and kinda still are actually even though I’m nearly 30) hostile to boys though. Because of getting pregnant or falling madlessly in love with an idiot. Which always sounded ridiculous to me since I’ve disliked children from a very young age and was academically ambitious. And actually not very much versed in romantic activities either.
I’ve read many explanations here based on different family dynamics. But what if this was just a correlation? I have read that richer parents tend to get more sons and also read that divorce rates are higher in poorer families. So maybe it’s simply related to the wealth of families?
Two key phrases:
"But the difference only emerges when the children are teenagers" "in both America and the Netherlands"
A third, unstated assumption: Data is post-1960s and reflects the feminist revolution.
Since contradicting feminist orthodoxy is heresy against the West's religion of Progressivism, no Hacker News reader is allowed to state the obvious reason for this phenomenon. I find this amusing, living in China, where I suspect the average person on the street could work it out from stereotypes in a matter of seconds, and would certainly have no qualms about baldly stating it.
Perhaps the US thalassocracy will be the first empire to successfully dispense with the need for female chastity ensuring paternal certainty as an incentive for men to invest in future generations. In which case, there is no reason the same speech code cannot remain in effect in the Anglosphere indefinitely. It is certainly not the case that its adherents are unprincipled self-interested self-deceiving conformists!
"But the difference only emerges when the children are teenagers" "in both America and the Netherlands"
A third, unstated assumption: Data is post-1960s and reflects the feminist revolution.
Since contradicting feminist orthodoxy is heresy against the West's religion of Progressivism, no Hacker News reader is allowed to state the obvious reason for this phenomenon. I find this amusing, living in China, where I suspect the average person on the street could work it out from stereotypes in a matter of seconds, and would certainly have no qualms about baldly stating it.
Perhaps the US thalassocracy will be the first empire to successfully dispense with the need for female chastity ensuring paternal certainty as an incentive for men to invest in future generations. In which case, there is no reason the same speech code cannot remain in effect in the Anglosphere indefinitely. It is certainly not the case that its adherents are unprincipled self-interested self-deceiving conformists!
Anybody has a reference to a scientific article? Or knows the numbers of these stats?
Dude with two sons under the age of 3 here. God a divorce sounds like heaven to a man boiling in hell but I cannot bare to think of making those two kids sad/not being there for something.
It gets easier every day. Once they hit 6 you’ll be riding high. Until they hit 13
Is there a free way to access the article? What are the citations?
The easiest way is to use a browser plugin, I use this one that works well:
https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome
That one's for chrome but I'm sure you can find similar for other browsers too.
https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome
That one's for chrome but I'm sure you can find similar for other browsers too.
I grew up with no sisters and have my fourth daughter on the way (first born girl too). Wonder what the differences are for those of us with more kids than the average.
The first one will be a nightmare at 12, the others will witness their behaviour and likely decide not to repeat it.
Here’s some advice from the NHS: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/stress-anxiety-depression/copi...
Here’s some advice from the NHS: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/stress-anxiety-depression/copi...
I hit the paywall so couldn't read the whole thing but the last visible sentence about deeper quarrels about how to raise a teenage son vs daughter make sense.
One easiest stressor I can imagine is teenage pregnancy, or the threat thereof. If my son is going to be a rebellious teenage idiot, that's hard. If my daughter, then so much more stressful. Both because the consequences (pregnancy) are harsher and because there are way more people preying on women.
It's probably much harder on the marriage to have this kind of stress.
One easiest stressor I can imagine is teenage pregnancy, or the threat thereof. If my son is going to be a rebellious teenage idiot, that's hard. If my daughter, then so much more stressful. Both because the consequences (pregnancy) are harsher and because there are way more people preying on women.
It's probably much harder on the marriage to have this kind of stress.
If parents are getting divorced because they are arguing about the upbringing of girls, why is this risk only materializing when the girl is the first child? Why would the dynamics be different if the girl was not the first child? Ergo, the conclusion is not thought through and likely to be false.
http://web.archive.org/web/20210207003003if_/https://www.eco...
link without paywall.
didn't get one thing: is it only the father who is doing all the fighting with his daughter?
also interesting: "In light of all this, it is intriguing to note that Dr Kabatek and Dr Ribar found one type of couple who seem immune to the daughter effect: those in which the father grew up with a sister. Having seen things somewhat from a sister’s point of view may act as a sort of social inoculation. "
link without paywall.
didn't get one thing: is it only the father who is doing all the fighting with his daughter?
also interesting: "In light of all this, it is intriguing to note that Dr Kabatek and Dr Ribar found one type of couple who seem immune to the daughter effect: those in which the father grew up with a sister. Having seen things somewhat from a sister’s point of view may act as a sort of social inoculation. "
any link to full article or paper?
paywalled and on mobile
paywalled and on mobile
There seems to be a paywall, can anyone provide the text or a mirror to keep up with the interesting discussion?
This is much ado over almost nothing: "between the ages 13 and 18, parents of first-born girls divorce more than parents of first-born boys. The odds of divorce within this period are 10.7% for parents of boys, and 11.3% for parents of girls." https://theconversation.com/parents-of-teenage-daughters-mor...
10.7% vs. 11.3%. Not much difference.
What little difference there is could be explained by, for example, the father sexually abusing the teenage daughter, not by trouble caused by the daughter.
10.7% vs. 11.3%. Not much difference.
What little difference there is could be explained by, for example, the father sexually abusing the teenage daughter, not by trouble caused by the daughter.
That’s quite a leap at the end.
You’re saying 0.6% of fathers sexually abuse a daughter?
You’re saying 0.6% of fathers sexually abuse a daughter?
As awful as it may be, that doesn't sound so far-fetched to me.
1/4 woman and 1/7 men have been "victims of severe physical violence [...] by an intimate partner in their lifetime." That's 25% for women! Very different statistic, but it does provide perspective. Is GP's 0.6% so implausible?
---
Source for the above is https://ncadv.org/STATISTICS. This is just what came up in a quick Google search, but it was inline with what I recalled reading in the past.
1/4 woman and 1/7 men have been "victims of severe physical violence [...] by an intimate partner in their lifetime." That's 25% for women! Very different statistic, but it does provide perspective. Is GP's 0.6% so implausible?
---
Source for the above is https://ncadv.org/STATISTICS. This is just what came up in a quick Google search, but it was inline with what I recalled reading in the past.
Yeah 1 in 200 is well within the realm of abuse stats though it's still really speculative to try to assign a cause for a blip in the data. No idea what controls they used, but I can't imagine there is much for statistical significance there.
I think that was OP's point though. At these numbers, "this is much ado over almost nothing."
I agree wholeheartedly, but not so much with OP's second part trying to speculate over a cause.
That number ("1/4 woman and 1/7 men") seemed unlikely high to me.
I looked at the source that was cited on the ncadv.org page. Maybe I'm misreading it, but it doesn't seem to support that. According to table 11 it's 2.8 in 1000 men and 8.4 in 1000 women.
I looked at the source that was cited on the ncadv.org page. Maybe I'm misreading it, but it doesn't seem to support that. According to table 11 it's 2.8 in 1000 men and 8.4 in 1000 women.
Yeah... what? Wow. Just really took a turn there all of a sudden.
I haven't seen any studies putting the prevalence of father-daughter incest as low as 0.6%. I believe that a quick google scholar search will lead you to guesstimate a figure about 10x higher than that (at the low end) but it depends on how the populations have been sampled, what the definition of incest is, and how surveys are worded.
But in any case, sounds like GP is saying that the difference in prevalence of incest between boys and girls could lead to a difference of 0.6% in divorce rates. Which is quite a different hypothesis.
But in any case, sounds like GP is saying that the difference in prevalence of incest between boys and girls could lead to a difference of 0.6% in divorce rates. Which is quite a different hypothesis.
I don't know. Does anyone know? Accurate stats are hard to come by, as this is of course underreported by the victims. We do know the number is greater than 0.0% though.
The Conversation article has a link to the original paper https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_... which does not even mention this possibility at all as a factor. I find this to be a curious omission.
Non-sexual physical abuse could also be a factor. The teenage years are when boys and girls start to "grow apart" in terms of height and strength, which makes teenage girls on average less able to defend against physical abuse than teenage boys. Also, our society is "more accepting" of violence against males than violence against females. Is this a factor in the divorce rate? I don't know, but the possibility should not be ignored.
The Conversation article has a link to the original paper https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_... which does not even mention this possibility at all as a factor. I find this to be a curious omission.
Non-sexual physical abuse could also be a factor. The teenage years are when boys and girls start to "grow apart" in terms of height and strength, which makes teenage girls on average less able to defend against physical abuse than teenage boys. Also, our society is "more accepting" of violence against males than violence against females. Is this a factor in the divorce rate? I don't know, but the possibility should not be ignored.
Maybe not that. I am thinking something along the lines of "Have more stringent, less rational parenting techniques towards daughters" which would not necessarily be sexual.
Probably a lot more than that.
I've learned well that when popular news not come with actual numbers, one can assume that the numbers aren't spectacular.
It tends to print then whenever they be spectacular.
It tends to print then whenever they be spectacular.
acrump(6)
username90(3)
the article is behind a paywall
This just seems all sorts of misguided. To the point where it’s blaming the daughters for parents divorce. Anyways, I tried to read the article and got hit with a paywall, so I can’t go much deeper than the headline.
I think these dumb headlines can just be chocked down to godincidences in numbers. Nothing really to coax out of them.
i find it odd how article doesn't discuss at all possibility of sexual abuse (or suspicion) of teenage daughter by father as reason for elevated risk during puberty suddenly disappearing when daughter moves out around age 20
even though article rejects this, it’s because fathers don’t want daughters. that hits the hardest when daughters hit puberty and dads realize things are different
Wait what? This is a massive generalization. I’m hoping to have a daughter soon.
i remember there was some study. men prefer sons while women have no preference. i don’t remember the percentage.
btw once your baby is born you might not feel the same way. reality kicks in. and it kicks in even harder at puberty.
btw once your baby is born you might not feel the same way. reality kicks in. and it kicks in even harder at puberty.
Crudely, think reason is that the father subconsciously becomes sexually attracted to daughter after a while and only option is to search for a replacement.
Understand this will get banned, but think it's closer to the truth. (not due to daughters more difficult to handle etc)
How would this strange view be supported by this being about having a girl as firstborn rather than having any daughters?
I wonder how much of bad teenage behavior is exacerbated by mandatory school attendance combined with the way secondary schools typically operate, which I seem to recall as being somewhere between day care, a factory, and a prison. Girls were often disciplined for "socializing" which I thought was one of the things you were supposed to learn in school.
Moreover, secondary school students live in a supposed democracy yet few actually have the right to vote on policies that affect them (not to mention taxes such as sales/use tax which are "taxation without representation.") Student "governments" typically have little to no actual power over school policies or the curriculum.
On the other hand, I have heard media pundits suggest that the current wave of youth crime is due in part to schools being closed. I'm not sure whether that supports or refutes the first paragraph.
p.s. Instead of downvotes on my speculation I'd prefer logical arguments and/or evidence one way or another. Then again this seems kind of off-topic for HN so it may not work well with the HN format anyway.
Moreover, secondary school students live in a supposed democracy yet few actually have the right to vote on policies that affect them (not to mention taxes such as sales/use tax which are "taxation without representation.") Student "governments" typically have little to no actual power over school policies or the curriculum.
On the other hand, I have heard media pundits suggest that the current wave of youth crime is due in part to schools being closed. I'm not sure whether that supports or refutes the first paragraph.
p.s. Instead of downvotes on my speculation I'd prefer logical arguments and/or evidence one way or another. Then again this seems kind of off-topic for HN so it may not work well with the HN format anyway.
> Earlier research has also shown that one of the most common things parents fight over is how much they should control their teenagers’ personal choices, such as how they dress, whom they date and where they work.
Sounds kinda like sexism is the wedge driven between the father, and his wife and daughter. One effective way to reduce bigotry is through compassionate exposure: knowing, and sympathizing with a member of a population different from yourself.
> In light of all this, it is intriguing to note that Dr Kabatek and Dr Ribar found one type of couple who seem immune to the daughter effect: those in which the father grew up with a sister.
I have friction with my stepchild. He doesn't want me to be a part of his life. Sometimes, I wish that he was older and we could try MDMA therapy to build a compassionate bond... he's not even in elementary school yet; that's a great way to get your child taken away. But I wonder if one-sided interpersonal problems like this can be addressed by giving the adult MDMA and the child a placebo...
Sounds kinda like sexism is the wedge driven between the father, and his wife and daughter. One effective way to reduce bigotry is through compassionate exposure: knowing, and sympathizing with a member of a population different from yourself.
> In light of all this, it is intriguing to note that Dr Kabatek and Dr Ribar found one type of couple who seem immune to the daughter effect: those in which the father grew up with a sister.
I have friction with my stepchild. He doesn't want me to be a part of his life. Sometimes, I wish that he was older and we could try MDMA therapy to build a compassionate bond... he's not even in elementary school yet; that's a great way to get your child taken away. But I wonder if one-sided interpersonal problems like this can be addressed by giving the adult MDMA and the child a placebo...
In reality daughters are getting all these ideas about how to behave from their friends and from contemporary popular culture.
So actually what is happening is a struggle between parental advice, and outsider influence.
Now I find it interesting how you immediately make the jump and accuse the father (and it's also interesting that you single out the father) to be the bad guy. Dare I say outsiders don't give a shit about the daughter and their influence over her is very likely much more negative?
So actually what is happening is a struggle between parental advice, and outsider influence.
Now I find it interesting how you immediately make the jump and accuse the father (and it's also interesting that you single out the father) to be the bad guy. Dare I say outsiders don't give a shit about the daughter and their influence over her is very likely much more negative?
It isn't a jump. It's a deduction made from the second paragraph: dads primed to empathize with their daughters seem to be immune to this. I'd conjecture that dads without sisters, who had close (non-romantic) friendships with girls in their teens, are also less inclined to this friction.
If he’s a four-year old or younger, I’d just give it time. Trying to do anything even minutely like MDMA therapy would be massive overkill. Four-year-olds are narcissists just getting used to cooperative play with other kids.
Show that you take your responsibility as a step parent as a duty, even if he says he hates you (the best reaction to that is to unemotionally and calmly make it clear your parental role is unconditional, e.g. ‘ok, but i’m still your stepdad and i love you.’) Or: ‘ok, you feel how you feel but it’s still my job to help you brush your teeth.’
Give him low pressure opportunities to do things with you, don’t force anything that isn’t necessary.
Don’t expect too much right now, you are likely connected to some trauma in his life, and no four year old likes to be forced to do anything.
If he’s younger than four, it all applies doubly.
Show that you take your responsibility as a step parent as a duty, even if he says he hates you (the best reaction to that is to unemotionally and calmly make it clear your parental role is unconditional, e.g. ‘ok, but i’m still your stepdad and i love you.’) Or: ‘ok, you feel how you feel but it’s still my job to help you brush your teeth.’
Give him low pressure opportunities to do things with you, don’t force anything that isn’t necessary.
Don’t expect too much right now, you are likely connected to some trauma in his life, and no four year old likes to be forced to do anything.
If he’s younger than four, it all applies doubly.
Stepmom, actually. Just because I contemplate a thing doesn't mean I'm seriously interested in attempting it. I'm a problem solver, and out-of-the-box thinking requires contemplation of bad ideas. And yeah, your advice is in line with my actual approach to the situation. But sometimes I worry that I don't have enough compassion for him, which planted the seed of me needing the MDMA treatment. Sometimes bad ideas just need some rework to get a genuine out-of-the-box solution.
> Sometimes, I wish that he was older and we could try MDMA therapy to build a compassionate bond... he's not even in elementary school yet; that's a great way to get your child taken away. But I wonder if one-sided interpersonal problems like this can be addressed by giving the adult MDMA and the child a placebo...
And which side do you think those one-sided interpersonal problems are on?
FWIW if you were my step parent and you seriously considered this to be a potential solution I wouldn't want you to be part of my life either. Maybe approach this from the other viewpoint: your stepchild does not want you in their life because they want someone else in their life instead. It never was about you in the first place.
And which side do you think those one-sided interpersonal problems are on?
FWIW if you were my step parent and you seriously considered this to be a potential solution I wouldn't want you to be part of my life either. Maybe approach this from the other viewpoint: your stepchild does not want you in their life because they want someone else in their life instead. It never was about you in the first place.
> And which side do you think those one-sided interpersonal problems are on?
Mine! Did you even read what I said? Y'all having trouble with that "generous interpretation" here.
> It never was about you in the first place.
No, it's about his wellbeing. He would be happier if he was happy to have me around. He'd be better off not spiting himself simply for the purpose of defiance.
Mine! Did you even read what I said? Y'all having trouble with that "generous interpretation" here.
> It never was about you in the first place.
No, it's about his wellbeing. He would be happier if he was happy to have me around. He'd be better off not spiting himself simply for the purpose of defiance.
You are entirely missing my point: he would likely be happy if you weren't around.
You say the problem is yours but then you right away foist it back on your step-child because he is the one that would be happier 'if he was happy to have you around'. But that is the root of the problem. Adults will be adults I guess. Best of luck there.
You say the problem is yours but then you right away foist it back on your step-child because he is the one that would be happier 'if he was happy to have you around'. But that is the root of the problem. Adults will be adults I guess. Best of luck there.
> You are entirely missing my point: he would likely be happy if you weren't around.
It kinda sounds like you're projecting your baggage on my situation, which you know nothing about. Before I arrived on the scene, my partner was at wits end, and didn't have the energy to be a good parent and also maintain a professional career. With me here, we can share parental and other household duties, pool financial resources, etc. The child has needs, but so do parents.
As for what makes young kids happy: it's nearly the opposite of what they actually need. He hates bedtime, he hates bathtime, he doesn't want to brush his teeth, he'd rather have dessert than vegetables, he'd rather watch TV than go to kindergarten, and it goes on and on. And that's about what he gets at the other household -- any rule is negotiable, and a tantrum always wins, because that parent is overworked and exhausted all the time. So naturally, he hates our household. Would he be happier if my partner was similarly exhausted? Maybe in the moment, but not in the long term.
He blames me for his parents' divorce, which happened over a year before I came around (but of course he can't remember that far back). And you know what? I was open to bailing on the scene, for his good, for the first year that I was around -- but the other parent isn't remotely interested in reconciliation. He thinks he'd be happy if I was gone and his bio-parents remarried, but he has trouble thinking 5 minutes in the future, let alone 15 years. If they were still together, he'd be stuck in the middle of their toxic relationship -- his life would be awful.
It kinda sounds like you're projecting your baggage on my situation, which you know nothing about. Before I arrived on the scene, my partner was at wits end, and didn't have the energy to be a good parent and also maintain a professional career. With me here, we can share parental and other household duties, pool financial resources, etc. The child has needs, but so do parents.
As for what makes young kids happy: it's nearly the opposite of what they actually need. He hates bedtime, he hates bathtime, he doesn't want to brush his teeth, he'd rather have dessert than vegetables, he'd rather watch TV than go to kindergarten, and it goes on and on. And that's about what he gets at the other household -- any rule is negotiable, and a tantrum always wins, because that parent is overworked and exhausted all the time. So naturally, he hates our household. Would he be happier if my partner was similarly exhausted? Maybe in the moment, but not in the long term.
He blames me for his parents' divorce, which happened over a year before I came around (but of course he can't remember that far back). And you know what? I was open to bailing on the scene, for his good, for the first year that I was around -- but the other parent isn't remotely interested in reconciliation. He thinks he'd be happy if I was gone and his bio-parents remarried, but he has trouble thinking 5 minutes in the future, let alone 15 years. If they were still together, he'd be stuck in the middle of their toxic relationship -- his life would be awful.
> He thinks he'd be happy if I was gone and his bio-parents remarried
That is the key. And until he is able to realize that it isn't necessarily true this situation will persist. Keep in mind that his parents may have had a toxic relationship but that he doesn't really see it that way: to him this was the time when his parents were together and he could see both of them, to him you are an obstacle on the way to achieving a re-run of that situation. Little kids are pretty good at knowing what they want, extremely good at being angry at anything and everything and not so good at realizing any of this so you have your work cut out for you.
That is the key. And until he is able to realize that it isn't necessarily true this situation will persist. Keep in mind that his parents may have had a toxic relationship but that he doesn't really see it that way: to him this was the time when his parents were together and he could see both of them, to him you are an obstacle on the way to achieving a re-run of that situation. Little kids are pretty good at knowing what they want, extremely good at being angry at anything and everything and not so good at realizing any of this so you have your work cut out for you.
> Sounds kinda like sexism is the wedge driven between the father, and his wife and daughter.
That's a bit of a stretch. N of 1 but I (male) can easily see myself being more open about my daughters' personal choices than my wife. (Yes I read the article and saw the point about strife between fathers and daughters. If I had to guess my sense is that a dad's intent is not to be sexist, but to keep their daughters safe. Whether that's an effective approach is another question.)
That's a bit of a stretch. N of 1 but I (male) can easily see myself being more open about my daughters' personal choices than my wife. (Yes I read the article and saw the point about strife between fathers and daughters. If I had to guess my sense is that a dad's intent is not to be sexist, but to keep their daughters safe. Whether that's an effective approach is another question.)
> If I had to guess my sense is that a dad's intent is not to be sexist, but to keep their daughters safe.
It can be both. Infantilizing, being overprotective, on the basis of gender is an expression of sexism. I'm sure that it's well intentioned, but if one only examines their intentions and not impact, then they're not actually reducing harm
It can be both. Infantilizing, being overprotective, on the basis of gender is an expression of sexism. I'm sure that it's well intentioned, but if one only examines their intentions and not impact, then they're not actually reducing harm
The world is more dangerous in many ways for women. Is a father seeking to therefore protect a daughter differently than a son sexist? There are certainly things that a father would do only with a son for the same reasons.
The girl will perceive it as unfair and will react accordingly.
Also, father needs to make sure he is protecting her from actual danger rather then imaginary. For example, if you are controlling your daughter "for her own good" against imaginary dangers and teaching her to accept control like that, you are priming her for controlling abusive relationship.
And the actual danger to her is exactly that - a guy who is controlling and later abusive. If she interprets early warning red flags as "caring" or "protection", she will get exactly that.
Also, father needs to make sure he is protecting her from actual danger rather then imaginary. For example, if you are controlling your daughter "for her own good" against imaginary dangers and teaching her to accept control like that, you are priming her for controlling abusive relationship.
And the actual danger to her is exactly that - a guy who is controlling and later abusive. If she interprets early warning red flags as "caring" or "protection", she will get exactly that.
“It can be” is not the same as “it always is”. Devil is in the details. Infantilising someone or putting someone on a pedestal, rather than communicating and understanding their lived experiences, is how I currently distinguish sexism from usefully accounting for real differences.
(I can’t judge my own success in this regard, but it’s where I’m at right now).
(I can’t judge my own success in this regard, but it’s where I’m at right now).
The world is more dangerous in many ways for women.
Women have something of a tendency to live longer than men. Men are more likely to take dangerous jobs, like fire fighter or infantry member. Men are more likely to go to jail. Women are more likely to attempt suicide and survive it. Men are more likely to succeed at killing themselves when they attempt suicide.
There are lots of shitty things that go on in the world and the world likes to sexually harass women, sexually assault women, treat them like whores who were "asking for it" when they end up raped, pregnant out of wedlock, etc. etc. But it's questionable logic to claim that the world is more dangerous for women.
Women have something of a tendency to live longer than men. Men are more likely to take dangerous jobs, like fire fighter or infantry member. Men are more likely to go to jail. Women are more likely to attempt suicide and survive it. Men are more likely to succeed at killing themselves when they attempt suicide.
There are lots of shitty things that go on in the world and the world likes to sexually harass women, sexually assault women, treat them like whores who were "asking for it" when they end up raped, pregnant out of wedlock, etc. etc. But it's questionable logic to claim that the world is more dangerous for women.
He currently doesn't want (you) to be a part of his life
Considering he's not even in elementary school yet, I wouldn't worry too much about it right now. I'm not a parent, but it seems to me like 4-5 year olds or younger aren't the most rational or emotionally-developed people.
Just be a good person/parent and I imagine he'll warm up to you as he gets older.
Considering he's not even in elementary school yet, I wouldn't worry too much about it right now. I'm not a parent, but it seems to me like 4-5 year olds or younger aren't the most rational or emotionally-developed people.
Just be a good person/parent and I imagine he'll warm up to you as he gets older.
Pretty sure a cornerstone of gender studies is the idea that patriarchy is self-perpetuating - that is women learn and suffer from norms which they then push on other women. Is it not just as likely a wife was taught "the way women should dress and act to be "happy"" and tries to force it on her daughter despite opposition from the father?
> I have friction with my stepchild. He doesn't want me to be a part of his life. [...] he's not even in elementary school yet
Just be an adult, keep working at the relationship. Spend time being there, available for the play that children enjoy. Be open, let the child lead the stories and tell you things. If there is a preschool, visit and volunteer. It can be easier if the other parent is not there while you play.
> I wonder if one-sided interpersonal problems like this can be addressed by giving the adult MDMA and the child a placebo...
Had to laugh at this, you know what you are doing, it will work out.
Just be an adult, keep working at the relationship. Spend time being there, available for the play that children enjoy. Be open, let the child lead the stories and tell you things. If there is a preschool, visit and volunteer. It can be easier if the other parent is not there while you play.
> I wonder if one-sided interpersonal problems like this can be addressed by giving the adult MDMA and the child a placebo...
Had to laugh at this, you know what you are doing, it will work out.
You've described this as a one sided issue, which makes it sound like you see your worldview as correct and are seeking a way to get the child to adjust his viewpoint.
Some empathy, rather than drugging the child, might help. Try and understand where he is coming from and be honest with yourself about whether there are things that you are doing that could be contributing to a rift.
Some empathy, rather than drugging the child, might help. Try and understand where he is coming from and be honest with yourself about whether there are things that you are doing that could be contributing to a rift.
If you read carefully, you might notice that I'm suggesting that the parent is the one who needs more empathy; that the parent is the one who I'm willing to entertain the thought of "drugging".
When mothers and daughters fight, it always puts fathers in a difficult position. A dad who consistently sides the mother might get credit for being a good co-parent (usually not) but be alienated from their own child. A dad who consistently sides with the daughter is likely to lose all contact with either due to divorce. All this, regardless of who's right or wrong between the two. Again, a bit of this happens when fathers and sons are in conflict, but it doesn't seem quite as severe and has different potential outcomes because of how "family" court works.
That's just one possible factor, affecting some cases, but it seems worth mentioning along with all the others.