Ironworks Gaming Forum - Girl's cause divorces....

Ironworks Gaming Forum (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/index.php)

- General Discussion (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=36)

- - Girl's cause divorces.... (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=78719)

Hmmm, what do you guy's think of this?

Quote:

Oh, No: It's a Girl!
Do daughters cause divorce?
By Steven E. Landsburg

If you want to stay married, three of the most ominous words you'll ever hear are "It's a girl." All over the world, boys hold marriages together, and girls break them up.

In the United States, the parents of a girl are nearly 5 percent more likely to divorce than the parents of a boy. The more daughters, the bigger the effect: The parents of three girls are almost 10 percent more likely to divorce than the parents of three boys. In Mexico and Colombia the gap is wider; in Kenya it's wider still. In Vietnam, it's huge: Parents of a girl are 25 percent more likely to divorce than parents of a boy.

Ever since the economists Gordon Dahl (at the University of Rochester) and Enrico Moretti (at UCLA) established these facts a few months ago, they and their colleagues (and not a few of their colleagues' friends and families) have been spinning hypotheses about what's behind the numbers.

Children of divorce usually stay with the mother, so the question comes down to this: Why do fathers stick around for sons when they won't stick around for daughters? (Or alternatively, why do mothers stay married so their sons can have a father when they won't do the same for their daughters?) Do fathers prefer the company of sons? Do parents think a boy needs a male role model? Do they worry that boys cope less successfully with the emotional consequences of divorce? Or do they believe that an emotionally devastated daughter is somehow less of a tragedy than an emotionally devastated son?

Dahl and Moretti make the extremely helpful observation that all theories fall into one of two categories: Either sons improve the quality of married life (say by being more available for an evening game of catch) or sons exacerbate the pain of divorce (say by falling apart emotionally when the father leaves). Theories of the first sort suggest that a boy child is a blessing; theories of the second sort suggest that the same boy child is a curse—or at least has the potential to become a curse if the marriage starts to crumble.

So, before we decide which theory to believe, we should look for external evidence on the demand for sons versus the demand for daughters. Do most parents prefer boys or girls?

Of course we all know the answer in China, with its ongoing history of female infanticide. But what about the United States? Dahl and Moretti offer several reasons to believe that American parents also have a strong preference—though not as strong as the Chinese preference—for boys over girls.

Here's some of their evidence: First, divorced women with girls are substantially less likely to remarry than divorced women with boys, suggesting that daughters are a liability in the market for a husband. Not only do daughters lower the probability of remarriage; they also lower the probability that a second marriage, if it does occur, will succeed.

Next, parents of girls are quite a bit more likely to try for another child than parents of boys, which suggests that there are more parents hoping for sons than for daughters.

Once again, the effect is strong in the United States but even stronger elsewhere. In the United States, Colombia, or Kenya, a couple with three girls is about 4 percent more likely to try for another child than a couple with three boys; in Mexico it's closer to 9 percent, and in Vietnam it's 18 percent. In China, before the one-child policy was imposed in 1982, the number was an astounding 90 percent!

One of Dahl and Moretti's most striking bits of evidence comes from shotgun marriages. Take a typical unmarried couple who are expecting a child and have an ultrasound, which more often than not reveals the child's sex. It turns out that such couples are more likely to get married if the child is a boy. Apparently, for unmarried fathers, the prospect of living with a wife and a son is more alluring than the prospect of living with a wife and a daughter.

So, what's the bottom line? Dahl and Moretti are quick to acknowledge that they've found no smoking guns; if you're sufficiently clever you can probably concoct alternative explanations for everything they've observed. But the most natural way to interpret their data is that parents, on average, prefer boys to girls. The preference is stronger elsewhere in the world, but it's plenty strong in the United States too.

That seems to answer one question: Boys preserve marriages by making marriages better, not by making divorces worse. But it also raises a new question: What's so great about a boy? Why do parents prefer boys to girls?

Maybe boys grow up to be better economic providers for their parents' old age. (This would explain why the preference for boys is stronger in countries where men hold more economic power.) Maybe boys are just more fun to have around. Maybe parents want a child who can carry on the family name. Or maybe there's something deep in our psyches that tells us a family just isn't a family without a son. Which is it?

Dahl and Moretti wisely decline to speculate, and I will follow their example. I don't know any evidence that could settle this question. All we know is that for some reason, parents prefer boys—by enough that boys hold a lot of shaky marriages together.

Years ago on the schoolyard, we used to chant that girls are good but boys are better. It looks like our parents agreed with us.

having a now teenage sister, I am increasingly seeing just how true this is...

Please discuss ;)

I'll go on record to say that I have two daughters and the next baby we have in three to four years will be our last...and I do not care if it is a boy or a girl. I love my girls and would love to have a third.

My teenage daughter is challenging, but my spousal unit has endeared much greater a battle. Or, was it a well desrved break?
Anyhow, I have found the lack of deployments, and wars to fight to be way more taxing than ever a girl named Tina could be!

::adjusts Mistress of Language spectacles:: The plural of girl is girls, Hive...

It's certainly food for thought, though. I think I'll bring this up in my psych of gender class... It'll make for interesting conversation.

Quote:

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar:
::adjusts Mistress of Language spectacles:: The plural of girl is girls, Hive...

You missed "guy's".

Quote:

Originally posted by LennonCook:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar:
::adjusts Mistress of Language spectacles:: The plural of girl is girls, Hive...

You missed "guy's". [/QUOTE]::winces:: It's bad, but not as bad as an error in the topic of a post... forcing me to see it every time I look at the page.

Hogwash! I have 1 daughter who is 20 and 2 daughters who are 17. I've been married for 23 years - no plans for divorce here. ;)

Look, first off some of the percentages, such a 5%, are not major deviations.

Second, the reasoning for this is simple. It's not that sons glue marriages together, it's that one woman is hard enough to live with, let alone multiple ones... each with their own "issues".... and both of them tending to fight fairly often, as women - especially mothers and daughters - are apt to do.

Well, I have to agree with machinehead that their speculation seems to be a bunch of poppycock.

My wife and I planned on having two children and - just like Larry - we didn't care what gender we got. After we had two boys, people kept saying "You should try for a girl", but we weren't planning on having any more. "Besides" my wife said "with my luck I would end up with "My Three Sons". And sure enough, that is exactly what happened. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

The only part of the article I saw that seemed fairly logical was the point that single women might not feel the "need" to remarry as strongly if they have a daughter instead of a son. I DO think the suggestion that women feel their sons would need a male role model is correct. Of course, the same would be true for single fathers with daughters. This is a much rarer occurance, but it does happen.

I believe any single parent with an opposite gender child would be worried about whether they could meet all of the childs emotional needs, whereas they would feel more comfortable and confident they could meet the needs of a same-gender child.

Quote:

Originally posted by Cerek:


The only part of the article I saw that seemed fairly logical was the point that single women might not feel the "need" to remarry as strongly if they have a daughter instead of a son. I DO think the suggestion that women feel their sons would need a male role model is correct. Of course, the same would be true for single fathers with daughters. This is a much rarer occurance, but it does happen.

I believe any single parent with an opposite gender child would be worried about whether they could meet all of the childs emotional needs, whereas they would feel more comfortable and confident they could meet the needs of a same-gender child.

the unfortunate problem is we have seen that the opposite sex parent is JUST AS IMPORTANT, if not more so, to the child especially when determining their future relationships with the opposite sex.

it is the reason why i have been working, or trying to work, hard at my relationship with nathan, to provide my girls with the best possible mother *and* father. i don't think one parent can be better than the other, if one is failing then the other is too. the relationship between parents needs to be as nurturing as the one between a parent and child.

One of my best friends is one of three girls and her parent's never divorced! Her dad died a few years ago but til his dying day he was happy in his marriage so I'd have to say their family goes against the article's assumptions.

My dad's parent's had a girl too and never divorced, and that aunt of mine had four BOYS and she divorced. My husband's parents had a girl and are still married....sooo, dunno, mine did but hey, that's only one for 4 in my experience!

ROTFL at this part

Quote:

Maybe boys grow up to be better economic providers for their parents' old age. (This would explain why the preference for boys is stronger in countries where men hold more economic power.) Maybe boys are just more fun to have around.

I'd read somewhere long ago that GIRLS are much more likely to provide care and nurture for parents in their old age than boys and are much more likely to be there when needed. In fact, from my own extended family experience, I'd have to say this is proving to be the case, so I guess they were right that we can find other explanations for most of their 'findings'!

LOL as for 'being more fun to be around'....um, I know soooooooooooo many parent's of 20+ boys who would love to kick their sons out of the house to find work and be productive on their own.... LOL

Now, that's not to say that there aren't any good boys or unpleasant daughters out there that fit the 'findings' too, just that I'm not seeing as much in my own experience to back it up! :D

[ 07-05-2005, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: Cloudbringer ]

If these numbers mean anything (and TL is right that 5% is statistically insignificant assuming the standard methodology), that meaning isn't really hard to extrapolate imo. There is a worldwide gender bias that varies culturally, and less precisely, nationally. That isn't really a matter of debate, is it? We could go through cultural differences in kinship, expectations, rights to work, vote, etc by gender, but I'm counting that as a safe assumption at the moment.

Note, for example, just from the nations given, more gender equality makes for a lower gender bias for divorces. Why is Vietnam divorce by gender so high, and the US's is insignificant? I'd say, if the numbers check out, gender bias is an imprecise but entirely feasible assertion. I think, without being given the actual report, the numbers shouldn't be dismissed outright from individual experience.

Individual accounts don't matter until you get several thousand diverse respondants, so comparing it to your known reality, even the hundreds of people that you know, will be misleading.

Note that when I say gender bias...that's a general term representing social inequality, nothing so stupid as "Boys are more fun to have around." lol [img]smile.gif[/img]

Boys can carry down the family name. Girls can not. This is very important in some cultures like mine. That's why upon several birth if the wife still couldn't give birth to a boy the husband parents will force him to divorce the wife and marry another.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kakero:
Boys can carry down the family name. Girls can not. This is very important in some cultures like mine. That's why upon several birth if the wife still couldn't give birth to a boy the husband parents will force him to divorce the wife and marry another.

Quote:

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Kakero:
Boys can carry down the family name. Girls can not. This is very important in some cultures like mine. That's why upon several birth if the wife still couldn't give birth to a boy the husband parents will force him to divorce the wife and marry another.

This isn't an attack on your culture, simply curiosity.. I know that sort of thing happened in history, but does that still go on today? 'Cause... you know... scientists now know that the man determines the baby's sex, not the woman. [/QUOTE]Yes, this thing still goes on. That's why at the age of 27 I still reluctant to marry my gf or the girl my parents want me to marry. Being in a extreme tradisional and status minded family I know things will be very tough for my future wife if she can't "perform" to my parents expectation.

[ 07-05-2005, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: Kakero ]

Illumina, you said what I was just going to say! It isn't the woman who determines the gender of the child so it's been pretty ironic that historically she's been blamed when a boy child isn't born!

Kakero, best of luck in your situation. Just one thing though, keep in mind that the older your prospective bride gets, the harder it will be to conceive at all, never mind the chosen gender preference. If she's the same age you are, things get much harder in about 3 yrs as fertility rates drop significantly for many women after 30.

PS: Lucern, an individual's experience is just as valid to that person as vague statistics without any backup. [img]smile.gif[/img] I think it is as valid to those experiencing it, at any rate! :D Besides, some researcher somewhere will just use our situations to prove the rule- exceptions and all that jazz! :D

[ 07-06-2005, 08:54 AM: Message edited by: Cloudbringer ]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cloudbringer:
If she's the same age you are, things get much harder in about 3 yrs as fertility rates drop significantly for many women after 30.

How do we love exceptions! My mom was 46 when I was born.

I was a surprise [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kakero:
Boys can carry down the family name. Girls can not. This is very important in some cultures like mine.

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Kakero:
[qb] Boys can carry down the family name. Girls can not. This is very important in some cultures like mine.

This makes very little sense historically. Some cultures actually had familial succession following the FEMALE -- including royal succession. Why? Because you KNOW a child born to a woman is a child of that woman, but (without a DNA test) you DON'T KNOW who the father is.[/QUOTE]It does makes sense Timber. Have you ever been in East Asia country? Yes? No? Do you know that a couple child takes after the father surname? For example

Chiu Ci Bei(man) marry Mo Nen Nen(woman)
The chidren will have the Chiu surname.

Tell me is it different where you live? I really wonder...

[ 07-06-2005, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: Kakero ]

No, it is the same where we live, except the surname is last. My children, for instance, will be Loftis's -- despite the fact that Rain has no last name. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cloudbringer:
Illumina, you said what I was just going to say! It isn't the woman who determines the gender of the child so it's been pretty ironic that historically she's been blamed when a boy child isn't born!

Kakero, best of luck in your situation. Just one thing though, keep in mind that the older your prospective bride gets, the harder it will be to conceive at all, never mind the chosen gender preference. If she's the same age you are, things get much harder in about 3 yrs as fertility rates drop significantly for many women after 30.

PS: Lucern, an individual's experience is just as valid to that person as vague statistics without any backup. [img]smile.gif[/img] I think it is as valid to those experiencing it, at any rate! :D Besides, some researcher somewhere will just use our situations to prove the rule- exceptions and all that jazz! :D

I believe also statistically men are more likely to produce girls as they grow older.

Quote:

Originally posted by Cloudbringer:

PS: Lucern, an individual's experience is just as valid to that person as vague statistics without any backup. [img]smile.gif[/img] I think it is as valid to those experiencing it, at any rate! :D Besides, some researcher somewhere will just use our situations to prove the rule- exceptions and all that jazz! :D

Oh I agree Cloudy. My objection was on scientific grounds, and to be clear, I definately wasn't commenting on anyone posting personal experiences. What else would we do! I was objecting to the use of personal experience to dismiss research. It is tempting and natural to measure new information against what you know from your personal life, but from perspective of understanding humanity in a broader sense, it's misleading. Our experiences do matter, but in social science, groups of 1000's randomly picked experiences matter much much more [img]smile.gif[/img]

I read elsewhere that the claims of the researchers were wholly incongruous with this article's exploration. They say, and they have every right to based on the numbers they have, that they found a 'correlative' link between divorce and the gender of children. That simply means that the numbers show a relationship within the (unknown from this article) parameters. It doesn't reveal the nature of that relationship, just that there is one. They specifically say there are no grounds for a causal relationship between the two based on the data they have. What's the title of that article? "Do Daughters Cause Divorce?" Hmph. :D The causal relationship is not established. Perhaps more variables like number and ages of children, and average family income would reveal similar correlations that are more informative together. I really doubt the usefulness of any single variable in explaining causes of the termination of such complex relationships.

And it's uncommon to cite contradictory information to support your conclusions, contrary to the common phrase ;)

As a brother of three girls (two older,one younger) and now living with another two young girls I know that girls tend to argue and fight A LOT! Seriously every other family with daughters I know of also fight alot while the boys tend to not fight. Girls are more demanding it seems

Most of this gender 'research' is subject to agenda based distortion... I take the vast majority of it with a grain of salt.

I'd love to have a girl, my wife is happy with two boys. She believes girls are harder to raise, and maybe she's right but I think that perhaps most of her opinion is based on her difficult relationship with her mother. I wonder if the (well documented) problems many women have with their mothers isn't the root cause of these sorts of 'reports', although for the life of me I can't see how mother/daughter conflict would significantly affect the divorce rate. Perhaps the husband sides with the daughter once too often and it's splitsville. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
Look, first off some of the percentages, such a 5%, are not major deviations.

Second, the reasoning for this is simple. It's not that sons glue marriages together, it's that one woman is hard enough to live with, let alone multiple ones... each with their own "issues"....

Preach it Timber Preach it ;)

Can't live with 'em, can't chop em up in little pieces and bury 'em in the rose garden. [img]smile.gif[/img]

But then on the flip side a woman never shot a man while he was washing dishes. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cloudbringer:
I'd read somewhere long ago that GIRLS are much more likely to provide care and nurture for parents in their old age than boys and are much more likely to be there when needed. In fact, from my own extended family experience, I'd have to say this is proving to be the case, so I guess they were right that we can find other explanations for most of their 'findings'!

Miss Cloudbringer Ma'am, What's the old wives tale: "A son's a son until he takes a wife, a daughter's a daughter all her life."

Sometimes them thar old wives hit the nail on the head.

Lordy, lordy ,lordy it's basic common sense girls's cause die-vorces.

If'n thar taint no girls's thar sure as "Hale" taint no marry-ages, after one generation.

Quote:

Originally posted by John D Harris:
Lordy, lordy ,lordy it's basic common sense girls's cause die-vorces.

If'n thar taint no girls's thar sure as "Hale" taint no marry-ages, after one generation.

Dude, what chu be smokin??? [img]graemlins/bonghit.gif[/img]

Quote:

Originally posted by Hivetyrant:
Dude, what chu be smokin??? [img]graemlins/bonghit.gif[/img]

What ever I can get away with ;)

Quote:

Originally posted by John D Harris:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Hivetyrant:
Dude, what chu be smokin??? [img]graemlins/bonghit.gif[/img]

What ever I can get away with ;) [/QUOTE]Shweeet, I want some :D