3 ms·

> ... what kind of society would destroy families on the slightest pretext ... The kind that likes to pretend that family stability isn't itself a good thing.

> ... what kind of society would destroy families on the slightest pretext ... The kind that likes to pretend that family stability isn't itself a good thing. It's tragic when families are torn or broken apart, but minimizing the consequences doesn't make the effects go away. Across all demographics, children do better when they live in stable homes with two parents. The data backs this up 100%. We can talk philosphically about whether the costs are worth it to achieve various goals (equality, freedom, etc.) but it's irrational to act like there are no downsides to avoiding or leaving marriage. The data even indicates that it's a net negative, on average. Maybe not for the people who hang out on HN, but certainly for poorer people with fewer opportunities. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/marriage-america-s-greatest-weapon-against-child-poverty http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/marriage-am...

kazagistar 11y ago
It seems like the causal link on those statistics might be wrong. Sure, happy families might do better then divorced single parents. But how do unhappy couples forced to stay togather compare to single parents?
- humanrebar 11y ago
  That's an interesting hypothesis. How would you do a longitudinal study on which couples are forced to stay together? I think we skipped some empirical work and jumped straight to a narrative in the way we reformed family structure over the decades. Ironically, women and children (especially boys) seem to be the hardest hit, at least statistically. This is distressing since they were supposed to be the reason we started rethinking family structure in the first place. Regardless, the census statistics are for all single households versus all married households. The never-married are also included in the statistics, so trapped-in-a-relationship certainly doesn't always apply. Here's an LA Times column breaking down a few more studies: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1027-goldberg-family-structure-20151027-column.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1027-goldberg-fam...

kazagistar 11y ago

It seems like the causal link on those statistics might be wrong. Sure, happy families might do better then divorced single parents. But how do unhappy couples forced to stay togather compare to single parents?

humanrebar 11y ago
That's an interesting hypothesis. How would you do a longitudinal study on which couples are forced to stay together? I think we skipped some empirical work and jumped straight to a narrative in the way we reformed family structure over the decades. Ironically, women and children (especially boys) seem to be the hardest hit, at least statistically. This is distressing since they were supposed to be the reason we started rethinking family structure in the first place. Regardless, the census statistics are for all single households versus all married households. The never-married are also included in the statistics, so trapped-in-a-relationship certainly doesn't always apply. Here's an LA Times column breaking down a few more studies: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1027-goldberg-family-structure-20151027-column.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1027-goldberg-fam...