Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Harvard Study: Biggest Factor in Divorce Is Husband's Employment Status

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 188 posts

Re: Harvard Study: Biggest Factor in Divorce Is Husband's Employment Status

#41

Post by toyg »

mjevans wrote: post #17
skylan_q wrote: post #3

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…

> Men haven't had that liberation

Liberation from what? The "burden to provide" comes with a lot of benefits, and I know I wouldn't trade them all for "liberated" homesteading.

In many ways, what you call "the true form of feminism" for men is just a long way down, a fall from grace, in the same way as Enlightenment was for aristocrats. It's not surprising that most turkeys refuse to vote for Christmas.

Re: Harvard Study: Biggest Factor in Divorce Is Husband's Employment Status

#42

Post by T2_t2 »

rustynails wrote: post #39

It's a disappointing article in that it makes many narrowly focused and unfounded assumptions and one conclusion. 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…

Love to see that when you finish it, but why not blog along the way?

Re: Harvard Study: Biggest Factor in Divorce Is Husband's Employment Status

#45

Post by DominikR »

I don't know what the laws are in the US regarding divorce but there's an astonishing imbalance in favour of women in many EU countries that causes marriages to be an unacceptable risk for me and many other men.

You can get divorced for no cause (no infidelity, financials are fine and you didn't do anything else wrong) and you'll be forced to hand over 40% of your net income to your ex-wife for the rest of your life. (even if there are no children - if there are, you get to pay even more)

I'm fine with women leaving for no cause (it's her business) and also with financially supporting children (as probably most men are) but I'm not going to sign a contract that could potentially leave me financially broke for no cause.

So even though the Harvard study might give some insight to married men on what they could do better I doubt that marriage under the current framework will even exist in a few decades.

Re: Harvard Study: Biggest Factor in Divorce Is Husband's Employment Status

#47

Post by jbritton »

It would be interesting if one could predict a likelihood of divorce based upon a number of inputs, like credit scores, age differences, education levels, income, hours worked, number of children, smoking, etc. I suppose the possible set of criteria could be large.

Re: Harvard Study: Biggest Factor in Divorce Is Husband's Employment Status

#48

Post by bdrool »

mjevans wrote: post #17
skylan_q wrote: post #3

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…

> Men haven't had that liberation; a large part of society still believes in specific roles and responsibilities for men that coupled females are (at their option) exempted from.

It's probably going to stay that way for the foreseeable future. As it stands right now, women have nearly all the power in heterosexual relationships, so they are able to see to it that progress is made in removing their own shackles while keeping them firmly in place on men. This is not some evil conspiracy, it's just a natural consequence of self-interest combined with a power imbalance. (Incidentally, one of the other rigid expectations of society is that this power imbalance is never discussed out in the open, so I fully expect a harsh negative reaction to this comment.)

The only things which could change this situation are technological emergences which directly impact the power dynamic: realistic sex robots, artificial wombs, AI strong enough to put everyone permanently out of work, etc. Some of these might balance things out to a more equal level, while some of them might tip the scales wildly in one direction or another. It remains to be seen how things will play out as technology advances, but it is doubtful that things will stay as they are now over the long term, even if they do in the near / foreseeable term.

Re: Harvard Study: Biggest Factor in Divorce Is Husband's Employment Status

#49

Post by cname »

rustynails wrote: post #39

It's a disappointing article in that it makes many narrowly focused and unfounded assumptions and one conclusion. 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…

Aiming STEM programs at girls isn't sexist. That just isn't what "sexist" means. Those programs exist to correct an imbalance caused by actual sexism.

Re: Harvard Study: Biggest Factor in Divorce Is Husband's Employment Status

#50

Post by T2_t2 »

toyg wrote: post #41
mjevans wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Men haven't had that liberation Liberation from what? The "burden to provide" comes with a lot of benefits, and I know I wouldn't trade them all for "liberated" homesteading. In many ways, what you call "the true form of feminism" for men is just a long way down, a fall from grace, in the same way as Enlightenment was for aristocrats. It's not surprising that most turkeys refuse to vote for Christmas.

I think the idea is "Liberation from set expectations", i.e. the MUST in "must be a in a provider". At least, that WAS the idea at some point, not sure it has stood the test of time, and modern rhetoric seems to have gone to a bizarre place.

The idea is that we should be free of societal expectations, and free to choose our own path, is liberation I can get behind. It is the part of the modern, western world I embrace and am happy for, that I am free to chose my own path. Neither I nor anyone else should be judged against a sense of universal criteria, because my happy life might be someone else's living hell, and the multitude of lifestyles possible is something I like.

Sometimes, I think all sides get this wrong. Feminism that doesn't value stay at home mothers who freely make that choice from personal preference is just enforcing a different norm, not a freedom from norms. Ditto the reverse and a view women should only be SAHM, or that men should be providers, or strong, or whatever.

I have no idea if any of that is possible at scale and, quite frankly, I don't care. I am going to live my life how I see fit, grant everyone else the same privilege, and let ideologues argue amongst themselves about what people should do.

Post reply on HN