7 ms·

It seems to me like the effects of "normative" family structures might be different and better in countries that tolerate divorce. Where divorce is tolerated an

It seems to me like the effects of "normative" family structures might be different and better in countries that tolerate divorce. Where divorce is tolerated and non-stigmatised, those families that remain "normative" are, almost by definition, the most stable and healthy ones. If divorce were forbidden or stigmatized, then many more families would remain together where parents are always in conflict or where there is spousal abuse. So it is possible that the apparent benefits of normative family structures are only apparent in societies that tolerate "non-normative" family structures, and would disappear in less tolerant societies.

refurb 4y ago
I would imagine that broadly applies to most social norms - you need to the find the "sweet spot" that reinforces positive behavior, without introducing rules that end up being counter-productive and creating new problems. You can see that in action in terms of drug use - the ideal is that people don't use drugs in a socially (as well as individually) harmful way. Putting people in prison for using drugs likely causes more harm than good (even beyond the person in jail). Having an entirely permissive approach where showing up at work intoxicated probably causes more harm than good as well (again, even beyond the person intoxicated). So the question is at what point can society get the most optimal outcome? Not an easy question to answer and likely one that changes over time (since there are feedback loops and changes to underlying, but related social beliefs).
- vladvasiliu 4y ago
  While I agree with your point, I think we already have examples of this particular issue being solved: alcohol. It's legal for me to go and buy alcohol, and it's also probably legal for my employer to fire me if I show up drunk to work. There's of course nothing preventing me from drinking so much that I die, but then again I can also jump out the window of my apartment, no substance required. I can see that being the same with other drugs. Maybe even mandate testing for certain jobs (operating heavy machinery, driving a bus, etc).
  - giantg2 4y ago
    With over 50k alcohol related deaths each year in the US and the number of alcoholics, I don't think we can say that we've actually solved it. I'm not advocating for ban, but saying that there are likely additional educational, technological, and treatment interventions that could be taken. Interesting side note, if an employer is aware of a substance problem, they have to offer to help you get help before they can fire you. Also, just about any job can be dangerous or cause destruction. How about programming at a bank, or defense contractor, or industrial machine manufacturer? Even things like working in a ast food kitchen can be dangerous to yourself and other. It's hard to draw a line for testing when the vast majority of jobs could involve injuring others or massive losses if done incorrectly.
    - lupire 4y ago
      > an employer is aware of a substance problem... No, they have to grant you one unpaid medical leave for rehab before firing you, not "help you". It's illegal, for any company that works with the Federal Government, to tolerate drug use or intoxication at work.
      - giantg2 4y ago
        Any sources to back up your claims? And yes, by help I mean not fire and provide accommodations and/or time to attend rehab. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/worklife/reference-materials/alcoholism-in-the-workplace-a-handbook-for-supervisors/ https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/worklife/reference... https://corporate.findlaw.com/human-resources/what-are-an-employer-s-obligations-toward-alcoholic-employees.html https://corporate.findlaw.com/human-resources/what-are-an-em...
  - amalcon 4y ago
    Alcohol abuse is both common and tremendously destructive, though. Drunk driving accidents in the US alone killed more than 10,000 people in 2019[0]. We might be at something of a local maximum in terms of policy -- I don't know, I'm not a policy expert -- but I'd want to see some evidence before calling it "solved". [0]-https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving
- AussieWog93 4y ago
  >Putting people in prison for using drugs likely causes more harm than good (even beyond the person in jail). I hear this a lot, but Singapore has extremely harsh laws for drug posesssion and use, yet some of the lowest rates of harm caused by drugs on Earth. Perhaps it's more than just finding the "sweet spot" in terms of social norms, but ensuring that they are enforced uniformly and fairly rather than used as a rod for beating society's "undesirables" with.
  - refurb 4y ago
    I mean Singapore executed someone for smuggling in half a kilo of marijuana. Can someone argue that less harm was done in that situation? A human life ended versus people smoking marijuana?
    - AussieWog93 4y ago
      >Can someone argue that less harm was done in that situation? Yeah, one can. Killing the one guy who had the balls to smuggle in half a kilo of weed probably prevented half a ton from reaching the city.
Nursie 4y ago
Yeah I've had this argument in the past. "Kids do best when the parents are married" "OK" "So we must force people to get/stay married for the best outcomes for kids" "Nope, doesn't follow" It's a correlation/causation issue, a gap in the logic that some folks seem blind to. Kids may well do best with a stable family life with married parents, I can well believe it. But that' not to stay that forcing people to remain together creates the same circumstances. What they're often proposing may well make things even worse for families that aren't that stable in the first place. As the child of a family situation where the parents basically agreed to put up with each other and be miserable until the kids were grown up, I feel qualified to say "YMMV" on that one. I certainly did not get an example of a loving, respectful relationship out of the arrangement. I can't say whether it would have been better or worse had they divorced, of course, because I didn't see the alternate universe in which that happened. But I can say it might have been nice if they had been happy, at least some of the time.
- lazyier 4y ago
  There are good reasons to get divorced and there are bad reasons to get divorced. If kids are going through a divorce for a bad reason, then they suffer. If kids are going through a divorce for a good reason then that still is terrible, but it is better then the alternative. Simply hating or disliking your partner isn't a good reason. "Falling out of love" isn't a good reason either. Especially if you have kids. This is what responsibility means to a functional adult. Lots of times divorces happen just through lack of maturity. Being selfish, not giving their partners a chance, not just taking a break and giving it a couple years to get through differences, etc. People who expect that they can live and love each other like horny 22 year olds until they are 85 are just not having a realistic view of what marriage actually is. They just need to grow up a bit more. There is more than one type of happiness. There is more than one type of love. You don't have to like somebody to love them, etc. However if there is betrayal in the relationship then that is a good reason to get divorced. Things like adultery, abuse, theft, criminal activity, substance abuse, etc. When people are destructive, behaving in an evil manner, and is this is creating significant risks for the family than that is a good reason to get a divorce.
  - 4y ago
AussieWog93 4y ago
While what you're saying makes sense from a logical standpoint, I don't think it adequately explains why so many children of divorced couples are absolutely cut up and bitter to the core about what happened to their family.
- yowlingcat 4y ago
  It makes sense for them to be absolutely cut up and bitter, but I guess the question is whether they wouldn't have ended up cut up and bitter to the same degree (and just a different direction) if the parents had stayed together while the same underlying issues which caused the divorce ultimately remained. Perhaps that would be true for some families and not for others.
- kibwen 4y ago
  Nobody's saying that it's totally impossible for any given divorce to be worse for the children. What people are saying is that it is possible for a given divorce to be better for the children. I am a child of divorce. It was a defining moment of my childhood, but with the benefit of years I can conclude that I had better relationships with each of my parents after their divorce than before it. Ironically, my parents also had a better relationship with each other after their divorce, though perhaps this is atypical. If people want to help children of divorce, then make it so that having divorced parents isn't socially stigmatized, and implement social safety nets to reduce the economic uncertainty that accompanies divorce. But trying to keep parents together by any means necessary--no matter the cost--that doesn't help children, because when they grow up thinking that a toxic relationship is normal that only helps to perpetuate the cycle of marital misery that itself has a damaging effect on the well-being of children.
  - helpfulmandrill 4y ago
    Your experience definitely reflects my own. It was so much nicer seeing having my parents become good platonic friends rather than married enemies.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  A loss of stability and safety in what is supposed to be the most safe and stable part of a child’s life.
hammock 4y ago
What evidence is there that American families were worse off in the dozen or so generations prior to widespread no-fault divorce?
- e67f70028a46fba 4y ago
  There is none. Things are significantly worse for everyone, and for children in particular. This is obvious to anyone with eyes but will not be studied (source?!?) because the arsonists are the investigators.
  - jjj123 4y ago
    Not for gay children!
- helpfulmandrill 4y ago
  Many things which affect family stability and happiness have changed since then, aside from no-fault divorce. Completely uncontrolled experiment.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
pyuser583 4y ago
The author mentions “stability” again and again. Stability means consistency over time. Divorce, almost by definition is destabilizing. It’s possible to have a divorce without a change in living and childcare arrangements for the kids. But that’s very rare, and frankly I can’t imagine he point. “Stability” is agnostic to family structure, or whether the structure is normative.

refurb 4y ago

I would imagine that broadly applies to most social norms - you need to the find the "sweet spot" that reinforces positive behavior, without introducing rules that end up being counter-productive and creating new problems. You can see that in action in terms of drug use - the ideal is that people don't use drugs in a socially (as well as individually) harmful way. Putting people in prison for using drugs likely causes more harm than good (even beyond the person in jail). Having an entirely permissive approach where showing up at work intoxicated probably causes more harm than good as well (again, even beyond the person intoxicated). So the question is at what point can society get the most optimal outcome? Not an easy question to answer and likely one that changes over time (since there are feedback loops and changes to underlying, but related social beliefs).

vladvasiliu 4y ago
While I agree with your point, I think we already have examples of this particular issue being solved: alcohol. It's legal for me to go and buy alcohol, and it's also probably legal for my employer to fire me if I show up drunk to work. There's of course nothing preventing me from drinking so much that I die, but then again I can also jump out the window of my apartment, no substance required. I can see that being the same with other drugs. Maybe even mandate testing for certain jobs (operating heavy machinery, driving a bus, etc).
- giantg2 4y ago
  With over 50k alcohol related deaths each year in the US and the number of alcoholics, I don't think we can say that we've actually solved it. I'm not advocating for ban, but saying that there are likely additional educational, technological, and treatment interventions that could be taken. Interesting side note, if an employer is aware of a substance problem, they have to offer to help you get help before they can fire you. Also, just about any job can be dangerous or cause destruction. How about programming at a bank, or defense contractor, or industrial machine manufacturer? Even things like working in a ast food kitchen can be dangerous to yourself and other. It's hard to draw a line for testing when the vast majority of jobs could involve injuring others or massive losses if done incorrectly.
  - lupire 4y ago
    > an employer is aware of a substance problem... No, they have to grant you one unpaid medical leave for rehab before firing you, not "help you". It's illegal, for any company that works with the Federal Government, to tolerate drug use or intoxication at work.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      Any sources to back up your claims? And yes, by help I mean not fire and provide accommodations and/or time to attend rehab. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/worklife/reference-materials/alcoholism-in-the-workplace-a-handbook-for-supervisors/ https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/worklife/reference... https://corporate.findlaw.com/human-resources/what-are-an-employer-s-obligations-toward-alcoholic-employees.html https://corporate.findlaw.com/human-resources/what-are-an-em...
- amalcon 4y ago
  Alcohol abuse is both common and tremendously destructive, though. Drunk driving accidents in the US alone killed more than 10,000 people in 2019[0]. We might be at something of a local maximum in terms of policy -- I don't know, I'm not a policy expert -- but I'd want to see some evidence before calling it "solved". [0]-https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving
AussieWog93 4y ago
>Putting people in prison for using drugs likely causes more harm than good (even beyond the person in jail). I hear this a lot, but Singapore has extremely harsh laws for drug posesssion and use, yet some of the lowest rates of harm caused by drugs on Earth. Perhaps it's more than just finding the "sweet spot" in terms of social norms, but ensuring that they are enforced uniformly and fairly rather than used as a rod for beating society's "undesirables" with.
- refurb 4y ago
  I mean Singapore executed someone for smuggling in half a kilo of marijuana. Can someone argue that less harm was done in that situation? A human life ended versus people smoking marijuana?
  - AussieWog93 4y ago
    >Can someone argue that less harm was done in that situation? Yeah, one can. Killing the one guy who had the balls to smuggle in half a kilo of weed probably prevented half a ton from reaching the city.

Nursie 4y ago

Yeah I've had this argument in the past. "Kids do best when the parents are married" "OK" "So we must force people to get/stay married for the best outcomes for kids" "Nope, doesn't follow" It's a correlation/causation issue, a gap in the logic that some folks seem blind to. Kids may well do best with a stable family life with married parents, I can well believe it. But that' not to stay that forcing people to remain together creates the same circumstances. What they're often proposing may well make things even worse for families that aren't that stable in the first place. As the child of a family situation where the parents basically agreed to put up with each other and be miserable until the kids were grown up, I feel qualified to say "YMMV" on that one. I certainly did not get an example of a loving, respectful relationship out of the arrangement. I can't say whether it would have been better or worse had they divorced, of course, because I didn't see the alternate universe in which that happened. But I can say it might have been nice if they had been happy, at least some of the time.

lazyier 4y ago
There are good reasons to get divorced and there are bad reasons to get divorced. If kids are going through a divorce for a bad reason, then they suffer. If kids are going through a divorce for a good reason then that still is terrible, but it is better then the alternative. Simply hating or disliking your partner isn't a good reason. "Falling out of love" isn't a good reason either. Especially if you have kids. This is what responsibility means to a functional adult. Lots of times divorces happen just through lack of maturity. Being selfish, not giving their partners a chance, not just taking a break and giving it a couple years to get through differences, etc. People who expect that they can live and love each other like horny 22 year olds until they are 85 are just not having a realistic view of what marriage actually is. They just need to grow up a bit more. There is more than one type of happiness. There is more than one type of love. You don't have to like somebody to love them, etc. However if there is betrayal in the relationship then that is a good reason to get divorced. Things like adultery, abuse, theft, criminal activity, substance abuse, etc. When people are destructive, behaving in an evil manner, and is this is creating significant risks for the family than that is a good reason to get a divorce.
- 4y ago

AussieWog93 4y ago

While what you're saying makes sense from a logical standpoint, I don't think it adequately explains why so many children of divorced couples are absolutely cut up and bitter to the core about what happened to their family.

yowlingcat 4y ago
It makes sense for them to be absolutely cut up and bitter, but I guess the question is whether they wouldn't have ended up cut up and bitter to the same degree (and just a different direction) if the parents had stayed together while the same underlying issues which caused the divorce ultimately remained. Perhaps that would be true for some families and not for others.
kibwen 4y ago
Nobody's saying that it's totally impossible for any given divorce to be worse for the children. What people are saying is that it is possible for a given divorce to be better for the children. I am a child of divorce. It was a defining moment of my childhood, but with the benefit of years I can conclude that I had better relationships with each of my parents after their divorce than before it. Ironically, my parents also had a better relationship with each other after their divorce, though perhaps this is atypical. If people want to help children of divorce, then make it so that having divorced parents isn't socially stigmatized, and implement social safety nets to reduce the economic uncertainty that accompanies divorce. But trying to keep parents together by any means necessary--no matter the cost--that doesn't help children, because when they grow up thinking that a toxic relationship is normal that only helps to perpetuate the cycle of marital misery that itself has a damaging effect on the well-being of children.
- helpfulmandrill 4y ago
  Your experience definitely reflects my own. It was so much nicer seeing having my parents become good platonic friends rather than married enemies.
toomuchtodo 4y ago
A loss of stability and safety in what is supposed to be the most safe and stable part of a child’s life.

hammock 4y ago

What evidence is there that American families were worse off in the dozen or so generations prior to widespread no-fault divorce?

e67f70028a46fba 4y ago
There is none. Things are significantly worse for everyone, and for children in particular. This is obvious to anyone with eyes but will not be studied (source?!?) because the arsonists are the investigators.
- jjj123 4y ago
  Not for gay children!
helpfulmandrill 4y ago
Many things which affect family stability and happiness have changed since then, aside from no-fault divorce. Completely uncontrolled experiment.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

pyuser583 4y ago

The author mentions “stability” again and again. Stability means consistency over time. Divorce, almost by definition is destabilizing. It’s possible to have a divorce without a change in living and childcare arrangements for the kids. But that’s very rare, and frankly I can’t imagine he point. “Stability” is agnostic to family structure, or whether the structure is normative.