I've seen many possible explanations mentioned. Most common seems to be that raising daughters is more stressful than raising sons (for various reasons) leading to more arguments etc. Most intriguing might be that sons conceived into tenuous marriages don't even make it out of the womb. I'll add one more: mother/daughter friction. I can't even count the number of families I've seen in which a mother feels betrayed when her daughter doesn't follow her example in everything, and lets those feelings show. I've seen the same with father/son, though less so perhaps because mothers tend to be more active parents. It would also be foolish to ignore the issue of daughters growing into their adult bodies and becoming sexually active right when many mothers are feeling insecure about their own attractiveness. We can argue about causes, but the effect is real.
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
...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'
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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! :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.