Do daughters cause divorces? - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Chiwas · 10-06-2003, 11:16 PM

Oh, No: It's a Girl!
Do daughters cause divorce?
By Steven E. Landsburg
Posted Thursday, October 2, 2003, at 6:29 AM PT

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.

Complete article

LRB · 10-06-2003, 11:33 PM

I don't know about all cases, but I can definitely say that my fomer in-laws having a daughter contributed to my divorce. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

LRB · 10-06-2003, 11:33 PM

triple post

LRB · 10-06-2003, 11:33 PM

double post

Drbio · 10-06-2003, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: LRB
I don't know about all cases, but I can definitely say that my fomer in-laws having a daughter contributed to my divorce. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

hahahaha

dallas_esq · 10-06-2003, 11:46 PM

What a terrible thing to say! Why is it so much higher in Viet Nam? There is much more to it than "it's a girl"

MFFL · 10-07-2003, 09:08 AM

I have a teenage girl living in the house right now and it's tough. Really tough. Really, really tough.

Murphy3 · 10-07-2003, 09:09 AM

my sister made things 10 times worse on my parents as a teenager than any of the 4 boys..

u2sarajevo · 10-07-2003, 09:47 AM

No.

That is absurd.

Murphy3 · 10-07-2003, 09:50 AM

why is it absurd?

u2sarajevo · 10-07-2003, 10:13 AM

It is absurd to make a blanket statement that girls cause divorces. There is no logic in that.

You can say that arguments caused between a wife and husband are perpetuated by a daughter, but to make the claim that is the reason the couple split is absolutely absurd. If a man and a woman are fighting because of a daughter and end up splitting up, it is more than likely that the problems lie much deeper than the "problem" brought about by the daughter.

Has it happened in the past? I'm certain of it. Is it prevalent? Not as this article would leave you to believe.

That's like me finding 100 couples with Nissan Altimas, and 100 couples without Nissan Altimas, finding out which group ended up splitting up more than the other and then saying either "If you buy a Nissan Altima you might get divorced" or "If you don't buy a Nissan Altima you might get divorced."

It's just ignorant.

Murphy3 · 10-07-2003, 10:18 AM

i like the Maxima better. Can we do a study on Nissan Maximas?

LRB · 10-07-2003, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: u2sarajevo
It is absurd to make a blanket statement that girls cause divorces. There is no logic in that.

You can say that arguments caused between a wife and husband are perpetuated by a daughter, but to make the claim that is the reason the couple split is absolutely absurd. If a man and a woman are fighting because of a daughter and end up splitting up, it is more than likely that the problems lie much deeper than the "problem" brought about by the daughter.

Has it happened in the past? I'm certain of it. Is it prevalent? Not as this article would leave you to believe.

That's like me finding 100 couples with Nissan Altimas, and 100 couples without Nissan Altimas, finding out which group ended up splitting up more than the other and then saying either "If you buy a Nissan Altima you might get divorced" or "If you don't buy a Nissan Altima you might get divorced."

It's just ignorant.

Well there is the historical precedent of Henry VIII. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

Rhylan · 10-07-2003, 10:22 AM

To backup what U2 said, the cardinal rule for ANY study is this:

Correlation does NOT equal causation.

Murphy3 · 10-07-2003, 10:29 AM

rhylan, i think the title of the article might be a bit deceiving as to what the article says (well, i didn't go to the link..only read what's on this site).

i believe the article throws out a question based upon the results that they found. i don't believe the results are necessarily intended to prove that the title is correct, though

Rhylan · 10-07-2003, 10:40 AM

yup, but my little rule of thumb is what nobody in the media ever mentions, because it makes things sound less exciting. it goes without saying, but without saying it, people start to think oxygen causes cancer.

Murphy3 · 10-07-2003, 10:41 AM

of course..they have to draw you into the article somehow..but, you find out that the title and the article don't necessarily fit together.

u2sarajevo · 10-07-2003, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Murphy3
of course..they have to draw you into the article somehow..but, you find out that the title and the article don't necessarily fit together.

The article is a bunch of fluff. You are right, they obviously wanted to draw in more readers, then sort of back pedal... But some of the conclusions support the idiocy of the article as a whole:

Quote:

.....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?

And then with this statement I have another question:

Quote:

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.

That would seem to suggest that this study was of shaky marriages. That was the first mention of shaky marriages being a prerequisite.

Call it poetic license I guess, but that would seem to be an important fact that should have been given in the beginning.

Chiwas · 10-07-2003, 11:52 AM

The rest of the article:

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.

Murphy3 · 10-07-2003, 11:54 AM

too long, brief synopsis please

Chiwas · 10-07-2003, 11:56 AM

Daughters cause divorces.

[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

MFFL · 10-07-2003, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Rhylan
To backup what U2 said, the cardinal rule for ANY study is this:

Correlation does NOT equal causation.

Correlation does NOT equal causation without more research. There was a time when lung cancer was not believed to be CAUSED by cigarette smoking. And we know how that turned out.

I would be interested in followup research focusing on income levels, education levels of the couple, and age of the child when the breakup took place.

LRB · 10-07-2003, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: MFFL

Quote:

Originally posted by: Rhylan
To backup what U2 said, the cardinal rule for ANY study is this:

Correlation does NOT equal causation.

Correlation does NOT equal causation without more research. There was a time when lung cancer was not believed to be CAUSED by cigarette smoking. And we know how that turned out.

I would be interested in followup research focusing on income levels, education levels of the couple, and age of the child when the breakup took place.

The more studies and more information included in the studys the better we can understand.

Chiwas · 10-07-2003, 01:25 PM

Quote:

I would be interested in followup research focusing on income levels, education levels of the couple, and age of the child when the breakup took place.

That's why they refered to Mexico, Vietnam and other places. It's a fact that culture, education and other circumstances would lead to the correlation and maybe causation. In the past many cultures killed the female infants.