On Parenting and Divorce

Alysia Ames

Alysia lives in central Iowa with her husband and two daughters where she works as an accountant

Related Post Roulette

82 Responses

  1. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    I’m old enough to remember hearing the furious debates about all the issues surrounding the 1960s Sexual Revolution- No Fault Divorce, the Pill, premarital sex, feminism, gay rights and so on.

    I’ve noted this here before, that the dystopia predicted by conservatives never came true. But what is not commonly discussed is the reason why.

    As it turns out, dystopia was averted because in many ways, the conservatives were right.

    That is, there is something deeply rooted in human nature that causes us to seek out long term monogamous relationships, and to build family units with children and extended clan ties.

    Removing the governmental controls didn’t affect this at all. As it turns out, for the most part people can be trusted to run their private lives in complete freedom.Report

  2. LeeEsq
    Ignored
    says:

    My mom is a generally very liberal person. One of her few conservative beliefs that she holds deeply is that divorce is bad for kids and will mess them up in some way even if the parents work things out with maximum rationality and calmness.Report

    • InMD in reply to LeeEsq
      Ignored
      says:

      I agree with the OP that the law should stay as it is, i.e. allowing no fault divorce.

      However I will say nothing has made me feel more reactionary as I have moved from the age of people getting married to the age of people getting divorced than hearing about a recent divorcee’s excitement for an upcoming tinder date. It’s almost always accompanied by news, either directly or through the grapevine, of that person’s child suddenly having some issue or another at school, as if the two things aren’t almost certainly connected.Report

      • Dark Matter in reply to InMD
        Ignored
        says:

        RE: as if the two things aren’t almost certainly connected.

        This is a logical flaw. Autism and Vaccines are both connected to time, but not to each other.

        My kid has problems, my ex played a big role in them, but the divorce itself played no role.

        My kids all supported me in my divorce. But that was trivial because they’d also all cut contact with my ex before I filed.Report

        • InMD in reply to Dark Matter
          Ignored
          says:

          I certainly can’t speak to your particular situation. The anecdotes I am talking about involve younger children than it sounds like yours are. It’s also certainly possible that some issue would have manifested regardless. Nevertheless it’s clear to me that no matter how amicable the chaos dial gets turned up at least a little and the parent is prioritizing personal things rather than their children. It has an impact and I don’t think anyone is going to convince me otherwise.Report

          • Dark Matter in reply to InMD
            Ignored
            says:

            There is a vast difference between “divorce from someone who otherwise functional and the adults aren’t happy together” and “divorce from someone who is so crazy/dysfunctional/abusive even the children view them as a massive negative they want to avoid”.

            The younger the kid harder it is to prove that second case, and the more likely it is the kid is being used as a weapon between the adults.

            The older the kid the more likely it is the kid is right and will likely get to have her will known.

            My youngest is a Junior but was a lot younger when she decided she wanted nothing to do with her mom.Report

            • InMD in reply to Dark Matter
              Ignored
              says:

              I certainly don’t think anyone needs to try to save a marriage for the children when it is clear that the divorce is the lesser of two evils. There are absolutely times where that is the case, though I think it is still the responsibility of the parent in those situations to redouble their efforts as a parent even at the expense of their own happiness. I have also seen situations where children are weaponized and there’s nothing uglier.

              Overall it sounds like we are talking about pretty different situations. I am mindful that no one ever really knows what goes on behind the closed doors of others, but most of the divorces in my social orbit have been about things like finances, or vague lifestyle or interpersonal issues. When you get married you promise to navigate stuff like that no matter what and when you have children you have a moral duty to do so.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Because of Covid the “local” family court does a lot online. While waiting for my case I did a fair bit of lurking in the background listening to others.

                My unscientific experience with a small sample size is that the Judge sees a lot of game playing, weaponization of the process, addiction, and functional people fighting over their kids.

                People who get divorced and are willing to function in good faith with their ex might be more common, but they also need the law and the court a lot less.

                Personally my ex didn’t want to get divorced at all and told the judge that multiple times. She’s attractive, intelligent, and charismatic. She’s super focused on her family. That sounds great on paper. Very fixable.

                In practice she wanted me to pay for her to live with her boyfriend in another state in a house that she’d agreed to sell more than a dozen times. Any agreement I make with her needs to be enforceable by the law or it’s not going to happen.

                It is in the best interests of the children to have a good relationship with their mother but that’s impossible.

                None of the children are willing to talk with her because she doesn’t let them have their own opinions or make their own choices. She wants all of them to move back in with her. Her idea of family therapy was all of us will be educated that she’s right.

                This is some combo of bad faith and mental illness. The laws need to be written with the understanding that if I could deal with it by myself then I would have.Report

              • InMD in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                I am sorry to hear that, and it definitely sucks that people do these sorts of things.

                A close friend of mine’s wife left him a bunch of years back, and I recall she had this big campaign of trying to get people to provide statements to the court that he was an alcoholic and a danger to their son despite no one ever being witness to anything suggesting that was true. From the outside looking in I think the real issue was that their standard of living took a hit due to a decision to make a career change. Not that I really know, though he says to this day he wanted to make it work.

                Anyway it got tied up in the courts for way longer than it had any reason to be and there’s a joint custody settlement that is still a source of tension.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                RE: despite no one ever being witness to anything suggesting that was true

                My lawyer told me he used to do criminal law, and people lie a lot more in family court.

                Watching a few cases, I was impressed with the Judge. Multiple lawyers answered questions with evasive bullshit and she called them on it.

                I seriously don’t envy her that job.Report

              • Michael Cain in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                When I was on the state legislature budget staff here, during the summer interim between sessions the staff would go see field work within the agencies in each of our portfolios. I sat in the back of the room while a case worker had her monthly meeting with a family where she was trying to make the family court’s arrangement work. Two kids. Mom wasn’t there because she was in drug rehab again. Dad wasn’t there because he was in jail after breaking someone’s face in a bar brawl. Two sets of grandparents who obviously despised each other. After the session, the case worker told me I should attend all of their meetings, the family was much better behaved with the guy in a coat and tie sitting in the back. Then I went out to my car and cried for a bit before I went back to the office.

                The next day someone asked me what I had learned. “I don’t know without looking it up what we pay our case workers. It’s not enough.”Report

      • Donna Gratehouse in reply to InMD
        Ignored
        says:

        I think newly divorced or widowed parents should not see themselves as single for awhile if they have minor kids. They really need to put the stability of the grieving kids ahead of moving on with their own love lives but too many don’t. They assume their kids are fine as long as they (the parents) are happy but those kids are dealing with the loss of their former life and their parents as they understood them. It’s not a great time to push a new stepparent on them and def not to introduce new half or stepsiblings into the picture.Report

    • pillsy in reply to LeeEsq
      Ignored
      says:

      One of her few conservative beliefs that she holds deeply is that divorce is bad for kids and will mess them up in some way even if the parents work things out with maximum rationality and calmness.

      Relative to having parents who don’t feel the need to divorce? Almost certainly.

      Relative to having the parents who do feel the need to divorce but don’t? The answer is much, much less obvious.

      There’s a wide range of scenarios encompassed by the latter, and if there’s a reliable way for outsiders to determine which side of the “bad for the kids” line a given divorce falls, I have no idea where it might be. This includes hearing, either through the grapevine, or directly, that the reasons for the divorce were relatively mild.

      People have all sorts of reasons for being less than transparent about their exes’ shortcomings, and many of those are amplified when there are kids in the picture.

      Obviously the converse is also true: it almost doesn’t need mentioning that some people are happy to exaggerate their exes’ flaws, or invent new ones out of whole cloth.

      As with many other reactionary impulses, while I acknowledge that it’s applicable in some cases, actually applying it to any specific real world divorcing parents involves a degree of knowledge and involvement in other people’s relationships that I don’t have and don’t want.Report

  3. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    There’s this whole “if by whiskey” thing that feels like it’s always going on in these discussions.

    If you’re not familiar with the speech by Noah S. “Soggy” Sweat, Jr., you’re in for a treat:

    My friends, I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. All right, here is how I feel about whiskey:

    If when you say whiskey you mean the devil’s brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair, and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.

    But, if when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman’s step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, life’s great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.

    This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.

    If by divorce, we’re talking about a spouse getting away from an emotionally abusive partner, one who is a threat not only to their spouse but also their children, then I am for it.

    If by divorce, we’re talking about grownups getting sick of having responsibilities with and for another person and just wanting to go back to their imagined heyday of hanging out with beautiful people at college and not being tied down, then I fully support couple’s therapy until heads are removed from backsides.

    This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.Report

  4. Dark Matter
    Ignored
    says:

    Making divorce harder is an attempt to wish away someone else’s problems.
    How do we make them make the right choices, i.e. the choices we want them to make.

    I could not get my wife (divorced one month ago) to make good choices. Making it harder to divorce her wouldn’t have changed that.Report

    • Donna Gratehouse in reply to Dark Matter
      Ignored
      says:

      I wish you all the peace and comfort at this time. It must have been so hard.

      Most of the calls for ending no-fault divorce come from the Ben Shapiro crowd and are aimed at preventing wives leaving abusive husbands. So you are right: it will not change bad behavior. Quite the opposite and that’s the intention.Report

    • Burt Likko in reply to Dark Matter
      Ignored
      says:

      I feel your pain. Oh man, do I feel your pain.

      There is happiness again. For me, so far, it’s a bit different than the happiness that I used to enjoy. But there is happiness again.Report

  5. Burt Likko
    Ignored
    says:

    As most of y’all who have met me personally or who follow my writings here know, my own divorce hurt me. A LOT.

    It never once even occurred to me that I, or the law, should in any way should have stopped it from happening. And I will resist efforts to modify at-will, no-fault divorce with at least as much zeal as I advocated for same sex marriage. Why?

    divorce exists for the same reason our culture has held on to marriage: IT MAKES PEOPLE HAPPIER.

    Fault-only divorce, or no-divorce, regimes exist because they are relics of a time that marriage was not about making people happy. If you think marriage is about something else, like fulfillment of rel8gious obligation, or cementing economic relationships, or even having and raising children, fine. But where the culture is at these days is about making people (including the kids) happier.

    If a marriage isn’t doing that, even if it did at one time in the past, then chances are good there will be more happiness if the marriage ends.

    Am I happier now that I’m divorced? I don’t think so — but I’m pretty sure that my ex-wife is, and I’m pretty sure she’d have been miserable if we’d had to stay together. And that, in turn, would have made me miserable too. Better, far better, that she be significantly happier than before, and I be a little less happy than before, as opposed to the no-divorce world in which we are both a LOT less happy than before. Even if I’m just being selfish, I’m better off now than I would have been in that no-divorce world.

    To me, it’s maybe a but perverse, but marriage and divorce are institutions that serve the same end: making people happy.Report

    • Greg In Ak in reply to Burt Likko
      Ignored
      says:

      So many divorcing people i’ve worked with don’t get this “but I’m pretty sure that my ex-wife is, and I’m pretty sure she’d have been miserable if we’d had to stay together. ”

      Even you could force a person to stay with you, you haven’t won anything but a long bitter home life. There will be cheating or murder or a craptastic life. You can’t restrain somebody into love. Though it seems many people, mostly men, think they can.Report

      • InMD in reply to Greg In Ak
        Ignored
        says:

        I’m actually going to push back and say this is an incredibly selfish, and narcissistic way of looking at the subject. When there are no children in the picture it doesn’t matter much what adults do. But when there are you make sacrifices. You accept that your personal feelings are not the center of the universe.

        Also are we really going to say it’s either pack up or potentially murder(!) someone and that such an act might somehow be understandable? Absent violence that sounds way crazier than saying people generally need to find ways to live up to their commitments through the ups and downs of life. What you’re saying is that it’s fine to abandon your spouse and children to bang your coworker or for some ennui driven journey of personal discovery with the broken pieces of the people who need you most left behind. Yea people do it but it’s dishonorable and it definitely ain’t right, even if it makes them happy for a time.Report

        • Pinky in reply to InMD
          Ignored
          says:

          OT has talked recently about how news coverage makes us think that crime is worse than it is – there are a ton of “wife kills husband” podcasts that might be distorting our thinking.Report

        • Burt Likko in reply to InMD
          Ignored
          says:

          Some people are like that, yes. I’m not a parent to know for sure.

          But I do think the OP makes a powerful point that it’s not doing your children a service to demonstrate that marriage is about unhappily fulfilling obligations. If you show your kids that thriving and joy are things that happen outside of the family, that’s going to teach them that they ought not want to form families and have children of their own in the future.

          This seems sub-optimal.Report

  6. KenB
    Ignored
    says:

    Some years ago I was listening to Prairie Home Companion, and in the section where Keillor reads the “dedications” submitted by the audience, one was “In gratitude to my wife for 30 years of married bliss, on this our 40th wedding anniversary.” It got a big laugh — it’s a good line in general but also it’s a “funny because it’s true” thing. It’s entirely normal to hit difficult times in a relationship, and those can last quite a while; but a lot of people find that if they stick to their commitment and ride out the storms, they’re happier on the other side of it. Some non-trivial percentage of people who divorce might have otherwise found that the reward for sticking with it was worth the struggle.

    If you’re a pure libertarian then of course the idea that the state would legislate against divorce even for good reasons will not be attractive, but if you’re an average liberal then you’ve already embraced the idea that the state can interfere with our freedoms for overall benevolent purposes, even if that harms a minority of people who don’t fit the average. At that point it becomes a policy question about the size and shape of the speed bumps to put around divorce based on how we think the numbers shake out, but I don’t see why even for a liberal it should be off the table, and not just because of the impact on children (though that’s certainly a factor).Report

  7. Michael Drew
    Ignored
    says:

    Divorce is bad for kids – yes, worse than the slow burn, if only because divorce finalizes the fact that there won’t be an improvement in that child’s intact family life. Continuing the marriage preserves the possibility of improvement by the father and mother – which is the entire point of the marriage in the first place. You’re not supposed to get into it thinking that you’ll find out if you’re good at it, and if you’re not then you get out. The whole idea of the institution is that the parties work to learn to become better at it.

    BUT – I don’t believe the state telling and forcing people to stay in marriages (for the kids) is the way to advocate for this decision, if only because it is not a change that is going to occur in many states, and the discussion about doing so will only distract and alienate people from the message who need hear it.

    Rather than the state telling people to stay in their marriages for the kids, I believe *I* should be the one to do it. And you should. That should be the message we all focus on telling one another and people we think need to hear it. This is a question of social responsibility and social norms, and really always was. Only-fault divorce fell promptly when people decided divorce (with kids) wasn’t such a bad idea and they wanted the social and legal freedom to do it. It’s all just a question of what we decide to do. The no-fault conversation is a big diversion of energy from the conversation that’s necessary for that shift in norms to occur.

    Stay together for the kids. (Do whatever is right for you if no kids.) Yes, an unhappy marriage better for them than two homes or estrangement from a parent.Report

    • Dark Matter in reply to Michael Drew
      Ignored
      says:

      an unhappy marriage better for them than two homes or estrangement from a parent.

      There’s both an element of truth to this but also a serious logical flaw.

      If we’re using divorce the way we should, then when we select for divorces we’re also selecting for bad situations.

      Ergo when we select for people that tough it out for the kids, we’re selecting for situations that weren’t that bad.

      Truly bad situations also have negative affects on the kids. So when we select for divorce we’re also selecting for that.

      Again, assuming we’re using divorce correctly.Report

  8. Pinky
    Ignored
    says:

    We’ve mostly been talking about the effect that no-fault divorce has on the already married and their kids. I’m sure that making divorce harder would prevent a decent share of bad-idea marriages. It’d also discourage some people from getting married.Report

  9. Damon
    Ignored
    says:

    How much of my parents divorce was the driving factor in me not wanting to get married, I’ll never know, but it’s a significant amount. How much of my parents situation was caused by people changing over 30 years and/or/both their parents disfunctions I’ll never know either. The same above can be applied to my desire to never have kids. I was firm on never being married and no kids by my early 20s. I agreed to marry my then long term girlfriend because I discovered she REALLY WANTED TO GET MARRIED, however, the condition was no kids. Sadly, I didn’t know much about women, and the marriage was dissolved. One of the topics I don’t think is covered much in marriage and staying married, is understanding women (from the male side). That’s key.Report

  10. CJColucci
    Ignored
    says:

    As Felix Frankfurter once said: “Wisdom often never comes, so one ought not reject it merely because it comes late.:Report

  11. Marchmaine
    Ignored
    says:

    I haven’t read what those rascally Texans are up to, so this isn’t a comment on any specifics in that law. But, to steelman an alternate approach to the (secular) no-fault regime I’d point to these things:

    It’s about justice for an aggrieved party, not about making divorce harder or not possible. No-fault Divorce is already hard; it’s hard in every possible way. I think it’s a category error to suggest that the point of changing the current regime is to make it harderer.

    If both parties agree to a divorce, it proceeds with all the usual acrimony (or not) and negotiations over assets, children and future support. Nothing changes.

    If one party ‘elects’ to divorce, then the aggrieved party ‘ought’ to be entitled to greater compensation or consideration of how the family structure proceeds post divorce.
    – This might be categorized as one spouse abandoning a partner for a younger version, or a spouse abandoning a partner to ‘find oneself’ or the like. The abandoned spouse ought to be entitled to additional considerations.

    If one party has ’cause’ to divorce, then that party is also the aggrieved party (in this case the ‘unwilling to divorce’ partner is in fact the one who has ‘abandoned’ the marriage) and ought to be entitled to greater compensation or consideration of how the family structure proceeds post divorce.
    – This might be categorized as a spouse suffering abuse (self or others), serial infidelity, dangerous criminal activity, etc, etc.

    In none of the scenarios is the difficulty of divorce made impossible, it just means that the legal structure assumes that the Marriage Contract as stipulated has been broken by one party and the aggrieved party has recourse short of forcing the other party to remain in the marriage. It’s a matter of small ‘j’ justice… not cosmic big ‘J’ Justice.

    Will the serial philanderer who want to trade-up for a newer model still get their divorce? Yes. Could it be ‘mutual’ and arbitrated the way most are today? Sure… will the abandoned spouse have new leverage to negotiate a better settlement and family structure to their liking during arbitration? Also yes, because the possibility of a contested divorce exists.

    In the case of abuse, it is already the case that even with no-fault divorce, the ‘battle’ happens with child custody and one spouse has to ‘prove’ to the court that the other is an abuser to have the family structure altered to protect the vitcim(s). No-Fault and Fault in this case already looks similar because one party is extremely motivated to prove fault.

    Every divorce is fraught. Having a category for the aggrieved party in contract law is not some novel ideal; the penalty for breaking the contract isn’t death; sometimes it’s better to break the contract, pay the penalties and move on. Sometimes the cost is higher than you’d like to pay so you reconsider; and, if both parties are unhappy with the contract you can go to arbitration or renegotiate or settle out of it.

    Will fewer people divorce if we change underlying framework with regards divorce? I suspect no, not really. Maybe a number of folks will reconsider that the severe mental anguish of minor things isn’t worth the cost of abandoning the marriage; but similarly some number of people may decide that the benefit of divorcing the serial philanderer for cause might be worth it. In the end, since divorce is already difficult, I don’t think we’re altering numbers, just adjudicating outcomes.Report

    • InMD in reply to Marchmaine
      Ignored
      says:

      States vary but in practice a form of this is what already happens through the court imposed mediation processes. I guess you could try to alter it to mandate windfalls for the spouse that didn’t renege on the vows but there’s no guarantee that person is in the economically stronger position (or that either party/the marital property has/includes anything of sufficient value to re-apportion to that effect to begin with). The driver of the decision making is really economic and the most important interest in play is in preventing anyone from becoming a ward of the state, which when one considers that the courts are organs of the state, has a rational logic to it.Report

      • Marchmaine in reply to InMD
        Ignored
        says:

        Sure, laws vary by state… so maybe TX is doing a GREAT thing… but yes, I’d say in my limited experience the primary interest was in preventing the aggrieved party from becoming a ward of the state.

        It was quite an education to see how 21st century enlightened divorce laws/settlements worked in Blue Massachusetts & Minnesota.

        If I, a card carrying member of the Patriarchy were to design a system to benefit the Patriarchy, that would be where I’d draw the line.Report

        • InMD in reply to Marchmaine
          Ignored
          says:

          Heh, re: the patriarchy it depends on who you ask! On the one hand it can amount to ‘as long as you pay this wergild you can get out of a responsibility that deep down we all know money can’t compensate for, and even then it’s not like we can get blood from a stone.’

          On the other there are plenty of guys out there that say the whole thing is a sham that operates on long outdated, sentimental notions of the relationship a mother has with her child.Report

  12. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    Related, from NYT:
    ‘I Said, What’s Your Plan About Marriage and Dating? And There Was Silence.’

    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/26/opinion/brad-wilcox-marriage-conservatives.html

    Jane Coasten talking to David Wilcox on marriage.Report

    • Marchmaine in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      “I was talking to a graduate student recently. He had a very clear sense of his plan for schooling and work, and then I said, what’s your plan about marriage and dating? And there was silence. He didn’t really have a plan. I think that’s part of the challenge — that people are not being intentional enough about seeking opportunities to meet, date and marry young adults in their world.”Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Marchmaine
        Ignored
        says:

        “If I had a plan about dating, I’d probably have graduated with a bachelor’s and, you know, gotten a job.”Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Marchmaine
        Ignored
        says:

        Same guy:
        Brad Wilcox: “Part of the story here is the emergence of what I call a Midas mind-set, where too many Americans, too many young adults especially, are either explicitly or implicitly assuming that life is about education, money and especially work. One Pew study found that for Americans in general, 71 percent thought having a job or career they enjoy is the path toward fulfillment, and getting married was the path for only 23 percent.
        We’ve also seen the falling fortunes of men, especially men who don’t have college degrees. They’re much less connected to the work force and they’re less attractive for that reason in part.”Report

        • LeeEsq in reply to Chip Daniels
          Ignored
          says:

          Are these young people wrong? Marriage used to be a necessity for survival, but the West always had a relative big portion of the population that never married of both genders. This was not just because of Catholic celibacy vows. Even Protestant countries could have a lot of bachelor uncles and maiden aunts and Catholic countries had lay people that never married. Now marriage isn’t so much as a necessity and the type of risk taking, plus tolerance for under the influence sex, that led to a lot of causal encounters during the Sexual Revolution, are less tolerated. So people need to be more deliberate about these things and that’s tough.Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to LeeEsq
            Ignored
            says:

            I don’t recall any young people asking me a G-D thing about their plans for dating and marriage.

            I’m more interested in why anyone else thinks there are “too many” young people making whatever choices about dating and family formation.Report

            • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels
              Ignored
              says:

              It’s an awkward topic in a liberal, secular society but the dirty secret of the modern state is that it relies on a certain minimal level of population stability, which in turn requires people doing that thing we do to create new people. We also have an interest in those new people being raised with some minimal level of decency and stability, given our duties as people but also for the reasons I believe you have mentioned, which is that we are all going to have to deal with them in some way or another whether we like it or not. Point being we may need to find a way to get a lot more comfortable talking about it than we are currently.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Why should I think that young people aren’t already doing that thing we do to create new people?
                And raising their offspring with decency and stability?Report

              • pillsy in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Why should I think that young people aren’t already doing that thing we do to create new people?

                On the one hand, there’s been a striking decline in birth rates in the US (much like the rest of the developing world).

                On the other hand, the vast majority of the drop happened prior to 1975, so the issue is less “young people today” and more “everybody today”.

                While there are indeed problems there, I’m extremely skeptical of the impulse to project those problems onto a generation of young adults who are doing pretty much what their parents (and grandparents!) did.

                Also, divorce rates have been declining for a while now — people are just less likely to get married in the first place. Not really sure this whole, “Let’s make marriage an even more costly commitment!” program is really gonna do a lot to stem that particular tide, either.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to pillsy
                Ignored
                says:

                Almost all the levels of social ills like addiction, abuse, crime and so forth are trending in a good direction.

                So I’m not sure where all this handwriting over these kids today is coming from.Report

              • InMD in reply to pillsy
                Ignored
                says:

                Just to be clear, I think ‘let’s make marriage an even costlier commitment’ is the exact wrong way to approach this issue.

                However I do have some concerns about where we are going structurally. Which should not be construed as meaning I think we should be aiming for a pre-1970s birthrate or making some crazy attempt to turn back the clock. I’m also not sure it’s projecting (at least from me) given that my motivation is more like:

                ‘Damn this has been tough for me as a Xennial. My wife and I both did everything right before starting a family and our reward was her biological clock being on the cusp of expiration, which has in turn been the source of all manner of heartache. Now the next generation(s) is/are facing even stronger headwinds against family creation and the happiness that comes with it. We should think about why that is and if there’s anything we can do about it.’

                I guess I could alternatively just not care but the funny thing about having kids is finding yourself feeling a little more invested in the future, including the future after you’re gone. It’s also easy enough to look at east Asian countries where demographic crisis is already biting and concluding we should probably see if we can avoid that.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                What if I told you there was an immediate solution to a potential American demographic crisis that would cost nothing and in fact only requires we stop blocking it?Report

              • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Heh, well for one thing I’d say the reason it’s a political issue is more about what isnt being blocked than what is.

                But I’d also say it’s fundamentally unresponsive. Immigrants can do a lot of good things but they can’t get married and have kids for you.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                I thought you were talking about a demographic crisis.

                Immigration solves that perfectly.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Especially immigrants who WANT to come to the US and become Americans.Report

              • InMD in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                And all of them will assimilate into the existing economic and social forces that have led to the situation all over the decloped world, probably way faster than any of us would ever predict.Report

              • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Re-read my comment. Especially the third paragraph.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Who is it that needs to have kids?Report

              • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                People who want them of course. I hate doing the battle of the links here but it’s easy enough to find articles from credible media outlets with polls suggesting people are ending up with fewer than they (at least say they) want.Report

              • pillsy in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                There are two related sets of problems. One is the “demographic crisis”, and the other is that people are generally dissatisfied (if you ask/poll them) with the number of children they have (or are able to have).

                Solving the latter set of problems will likely assist with demographic challenges, but it’s not so wild to think that the latter problems are problems independent of demographics.

                Another way to put it, in the terms @in-md used, is that immigrants can get married and have kids for us, but they can’t really do that for you.Report

              • InMD in reply to pillsy
                Ignored
                says:

                I think it’s worth adding that none of this implies any great reinvention of society on reactionary grounds whether regarding immigration or womens’ rights. Most of the demographic issues would be mitigated if the families having 1 child had 2 and the families having 2 had 3 which is basically the world of the 80s and 90s. Most importantly it is consistent with what people say they want but cite various reasons they can’t or it isn’t practicable.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to pillsy
                Ignored
                says:

                Is this true, though, that people (plural, generally) are unhappy with their family size?Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                The studies show that women persistently report having fewer children than the would like to have.

                This is a well studied aspect of family sociology globally. It isn’t phrased as happy/unhappy.Report

            • CJColucci in reply to Chip Daniels
              Ignored
              says:

              I never planned to get married. I assumed I probably would because that’s what usually happened. but men have a wider variety of satisfying single lives than women, so if that had been how it worked out that would have been fine.
              My views on children were much the same when I thought it would be up to me.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
              Ignored
              says:

              How many 25-year olds do you work with?

              I know that I work with friggin’ *TONS* and we’ve been in enough situations where I’ve had opportunity to talk to 3-4 young people about their plans for dating/marriage.

              Granted, this being Colorado Springs, most of the discussions revolve around the Evangelical Variant of plans for dating/marriage… but, at the end of the day, all of the overlap seems to be some variant of “I didn’t meet anyone in college and now I don’t know how to meet new people outside of the dry well of people I already see regularly.”

              And even with my introverted self talking to these kids, *I* have some things to recommend beyond “go to Applebee’s on $1 Margarita night and hope for the best.”Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Do they return the favor and explain to you why you are living your life wrong and give helpful advice on how you should change?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Huh. We’ve evolved from “talking to young people about their plans for dating/marriage” to “telling them why they are living their life wrong”.

                Did you notice that you did that?

                Because I noticed that you did that.

                In any case, my complaints about my life are closer to “I miss my hair” and “when I bend over to pick something up off the floor, my back sounds like microwave popcorn”.

                They know better than to give advice about the former but, yep, they explain crap like “yoga” for the latter.

                I ain’t doing yoga. “Namaste”, my aunt fanny.Report

              • Michael Cain in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                At some point in the last few years, a discussion like this here on the site concluded that qualifying to be a belay person at the local climbing club was not an unreasonable thing.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Michael Cain
                Ignored
                says:

                Yes! That’s one of the things I tell them!

                “Dude, the skew at the climbing gym is completely turned around! You’ll be in the gender minority there!”Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                “And when you’re on belay don’t have to apologize for staring at her ass!”Report

        • Marchmaine in reply to Chip Daniels
          Ignored
          says:

          No Idea what’s triggering you…

          You know that Brad Wilcox is a research professor of Sociology at UVA with a PhD from Princeton?

          You know all the times people point to “studies say” and that we should listen to the experts?

          He’s an expert that does the studies that people say we should listen too.

          Not just ‘some guy’ giving life advice on the internet.Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to Marchmaine
            Ignored
            says:

            Does he present reasons why he thinks “too many young people are either explicitly or implicitly assuming that life is about education, money and especially work”?Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
              Ignored
              says:

              Let’s see if the sentence immediately following the sentence you quoted has a reason for why he thinks that. Note: This is a copy/paste:

              Part of the story here is the emergence of what I call a Midas mind-set, where too many Americans, too many young adults especially, are either explicitly or implicitly assuming that life is about education, money and especially work. One Pew study found that for Americans in general, 71 percent thought having a job or career they enjoy is the path toward fulfillment and getting married was the path for only 23 percent.

              Does that count as him presenting a reason?Report

            • Marchmaine in reply to Chip Daniels
              Ignored
              says:

              Like only in the sense that it is his professional life’s work to try to figure out why.

              https://ifstudies.org/Report

  13. DensityDuck
    Ignored
    says:

    Arguing against no-fault divorce is like arguing against late-term abortions. Maybe it doesn’t seem like a good idea to you, but if someone’s gotten to the point where it seems like the best possible idea, then making it harder isn’t going to solve any problems.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *