31–40 of 188 posts
Anecdotally, every household I know who has gotten divorced had one of two deciding factors; either they didn't get along, or there was infidelity.
Poor journalism, yet again. Factor implies causal link. It's just a correlation in this case.
I view it as the study went looking for X, and to it's surprise didn't see X, but happened to see statistical significance in Y. However the study did not have the scope to determine why Y occurred. I think the most likely thing that changed over time is Z: the first wave(s) of feminism began to liberate females from the traditional limitations of roles in society. However the true from of feminism is a recognition a…
Sadly that role restructuring, when driven by men, is still almost universally derided. Look at the men's rights movement or mgtow. The trope of the basement dwelling virgin is immidately deployed to minimize their concerns. Feminism isn't the tool needed. Men need to drive their role in society. Society just isn't ready for it.
EDIT: heavily down voted, almost makes my point for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My interest lies in why is the baseline so high in the first place? 2.5%/y sounds like an unacceptable risk , considering how devastating divorce is for men by design (in the USA, at least)
That the average for all marriages, but certain groups account for a disproportionate amount of divorces. The rate is a lot lower if you take out groups like that: under 20 when married, shotgun weddings, the already divorced, poorly educated, etc. IIRC, latinos who marry under the age 18 have an 80% 5-year divorce rate. I'd heard people say a 20% lifetime chance of divorce if you are a middle class, educated, non-di…
Anecdotally, every household I know who has gotten divorced had one of two deciding factors; either they didn't get along, or there was infidelity.
> The big factor, Harvard sociology professor Alexandra Killewald found, is the husband's employment status. For the past four decades, she discovered, husbands who aren’t employed full time have a 3.3 percent chance of getting divorced in any given year, compared with 2.5 percent for husbands employed full time. In other words, their marriages are one-third more likely to break up. Interesting. I'd be curious to see…
Based only on intuition, my guess is no. It seems more likely that husbands not working full time are more likely to have financial instability, which would be a cause of stress on the relationship.
Poor journalism, yet again. Factor implies causal link. It's just a correlation in this case.
I view it as the study went looking for X, and to it's surprise didn't see X, but happened to see statistical significance in Y. However the study did not have the scope to determine why Y occurred. I think the most likely thing that changed over time is Z: the first wave(s) of feminism began to liberate females from the traditional limitations of roles in society. However the true from of feminism is a recognition a…
I believe this in the same sense that all food and your metabolism is bound to kill you in the long term. Utopian social engineering at this scale and depth rarely pans out. It's usually built on very shaky epistemological foundations -- usually a narrative about how utterly terrible the current social order is and a vague sense that there should be something better possible. This is not to say that all utopian social engineering is bad or wrong.
Utopian social engineering experiments are a lot like startups. There are generally a lot of them popping up all the time. Often, they seem wonderful and magical to a small number of people for awhile. Sometimes, they scale and stay around for awhile, appearing to be magical and of-the-future for somewhat more people for a while longer. It's only rarely they become forces that change society and really last.
Exactly what empirical data is this assertion based on? -- "/all/ gender roles being bad for mental health"
The couples income and wife's economic independence did not correlate to divorce (post 1970s). Which implies that the lack of a full time job is not a proxy for "money worries" but instead seems to be a proxy for something else - potential the husbands behaviour, wife / social perceptions of husband etc. Basically I infer that couoles pull together when faced with external financial stress, but if the husbands a dick…
I'm not sure why you're convinced that the husband's behavior is the causal link (if there is one: the headline implies there is though the study only shows a correlation). I find it just as easy to imagine that, just as gender roles downplay women's potential contributions in the workforce, they reduce men to workhorses in family and relationships. It could just as easily be the wife being a dick about having an unemployed husband (as the article mention, financial strain per se was controlled for). I personally had a friend in high school who had really rich parents and whose dad retired early and was a stay-at-home dad (his mom was employed as an executive at a big bank). I would hear about him getting shit for being stay-at-home dad despite the fact that everybody in the family (himself included) was really happy with the arrangement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't think there's any causal link?
There may be, but it also may be that there is a third factor which makes the husband more likely to be unemployed and also a less valuable mate.
I've recently been doing an indepth study of sexism in Australia starting at 1970.
I've poured over archives (and I'm documenting it) to see how Australia went off the rails with its sexist attitude (eg. Domestic Violence is male only, or a revised false history of voting-who could and when).
What I have noticed is that there were plenty of ads and articles back in the early 70s (eg. One bank advertised its female branch manager with a large photo, quite proudly) that are inclusive, unlike today. TV adverts had plenty of representation in work, sport, etc. watch the "life be in it" as an example.
I know that there was an inclusive attitude back in the early 70s that we have lost. As an example, check out Science Week, aimed at kids, that has several girls only events and competitions. This sort of sexism was unprecedented from 1970-2000 (and possibly earlier). Also add that all of my female ancestors from 1900 onward held good jobs and were largely financially independent (which contradicts the article saying it didn't really happen before 1975). I've never been able to reconcile the modern story compared to my own family's history. It might be luck.
So, the article concluded that the difference is that women can now work. It ignores depression, stress (non financial), Boredom, lack of self-worth etc. if a person defines themself by a career and that career vanishes, it can turn an individual and their family upside down. I'm not surprised the authors focussed on housework and financial independence and ignored almost everything else as it seems to be the modern trend (ala domestic violence is male only).
I'm curious to see if any media outlets in Australia pick up on the blatant sexism of Science Week (targeted at kids). The last 10 years are proving to be the most sexist (by far) that I've ever seen. I'm doing some research by looking at government, education (which is largely government) and media. I will include photos, videos and loads of references - but it's a big job. It will take time when I am committed to work and family too.
From personal experience I can confirm that finding. During the tech crash in 2002 I was unemployed for a year and it took several more years for me to get back to the salary and position I had had before the crash. I was frustrated and depressed by my failure to provide and my wife was frustrated with me too. This time damaged my marriage a lot and things never got back to how they had been previously.
This time damaged my marriage a lot and things never got back to how they had been previously. Wow, that sounds drastic. What happened?
Her response was "baby I'm pregnant and I'm not sure its yours"
The rest is history. Luckily I bounced back, the boy was mine but phew..!