4 ms·

I would like to see some stats for children of a happy couple that have been together for 10 years, both married and unmarried to see if they differ. As far as

by Loocid 3y ago

I would like to see some stats for children of a happy couple that have been together for 10 years, both married and unmarried to see if they differ. As far as I can tell all she is saying is that happy couples are more likely to be married, and children of happy couples are more likely to succeed. Seems like this has everything to do with having happy, loving parents and nothing to do with having married parents despite the title.

ARandomerDude 3y ago
> Their book suggests that many women don't marry the father of their child not because they reject the concept of marriage, but because they do not see him as a reliable source of economic security or stability. They appear to have a higher bar for a potential spouse than their partners, or the fathers of their children, have met.
yowzadave 3y ago
Precisely. Matt Bruenig wrote a pretty compelling analysis of why the statistics in the book are either misleadingly presented or so banal as to be useless: https://mattbruenig.com/2023/09/20/doing-the-marriage-thing-again/ https://mattbruenig.com/2023/09/20/doing-the-marriage-thing-...
- ajju 3y ago
  I understand his critique of the stats, but I wonder if Mr. Bruenig disagrees with the author’s points of view. In particular I wonder what he thinks would be best for his own kids. He seems to be, per wikipedia, married to a high-school friend (sweetheart?) for almost a decade with two kids. While I do not think his personal actions have any bearing on the accuracy of his statistical critiques of the author, it does seem like his revealed preferences support the author’s points of view. I would be shocked if he believes the health of his marriage has no bearing on the overall wellbeing of his kids. Regardless, I wish him and his wife a long and happy marriage, because I believe that would be the best outcome for both of them and their kids.
  - ajju 3y ago
    Like Matt, I am a supporter of the state providing a solid safety net on basic needs (food, health care, self-improvement, safety) to ALL its and pay for it by taxing the well-off citizens more than the average although unlike him, I would not describe myself as a socialist. Marriage is many things, but amongst them, it is also a safety net for the children of that marriage. At its best, it brings the resources of two extended families and friend networks together to support the couple and the children. I wonder if Matt would agree with the view that Marriage is the most “atomic” form of socialism (which he seems to support)
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > Marriage is many things, but amongst them, it is also a safety net for the children of that marriage. At its best, it brings the resources of two extended families and friend networks together to support the couple and the children At its best, it is exactly the same in that regard as coparenting without marriage is at its best. Having had both married and unmarried parents in committed (also, in other cases, failed—both married and unmarried) relationships in my extended friends and family network, the degree of support I’ve seen them get doesn’t seem to be very different.
      - ajju 3y ago
        Where we probably agree: I would agree that it is the commitment that matters. Where we may agree: Social norms really do impact human behavior. Marriage is a social norm supporting long term commitment. In communities where it has been replaced with another social norm supporting commitment (eg my well-off friends in Europe), it has become less relevant. I also posit that adults in committed coparenting relationships constitute a small minority of unmarried adults in America (vs. France for example where a majority of my friends with kids match your description). Where we probably disagree: In my observations of close friends in loving relationships with children, previously in loving marriages, are now divorced and in respectful and functional coparenting but not cohabitating relationships. For a considerable amount of time, they are functionally single parents. In most cases parents and siblings of one ex-spouse are unlikely to want to support the other ex-spouse with in-person child support. The bright exception to this rule seems to be divorced co-parents who live in close proximity or in one instance in the same duplex and are good friends.
hackeraccount 3y ago
If you're in a happy committed relationship why not make a declaration that you'll remain in it even if at some point you are not happy? It's a good move because if both parties make that commitment (they could do it in public to increase the pressure to keep it) there's a better chance that there will in fact be long term happiness. Or as Shakespeare would say, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
  Personal perspective from stable 15 years long relationship, 2 children, not married. Because it's a farce. There is nothing permanent or guaranteed from marriage, so all that's left is commercialization of my affection, which is not for me, and a big bill which can be used for other life goals which I find more appealing. I won't go into more details for the "ceremonial part", because there is an alternative: sign a piece of paper harshly and be done. This is cheap and effective, sharing finances simplify managing them and in case of medical emergencies you are "allowed in" as husband/wife. Here, Canada, after living together for 1 year it's equivalent to being married, so we have literally lost any incentive to do so: we can skip all legal costs. Actually we joke about it, saying "I'll merry you" in moments of affection, but that's about it.
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  social and economic expectations that come with making the marriage happen, and then the social and legal challenges if/when it ends. common law rules are quite strong where I live, so there isn't really much of a reason to jump through those hoops. needless effort, familial drama, legal wrangling, and for what? doesn't mean they'll love me more or less. doesn't mean they're more likely to put away the dishes, or get paid more.

by Loocid 3y ago

ARandomerDude 3y ago

> Their book suggests that many women don't marry the father of their child not because they reject the concept of marriage, but because they do not see him as a reliable source of economic security or stability. They appear to have a higher bar for a potential spouse than their partners, or the fathers of their children, have met.

yowzadave 3y ago

Precisely. Matt Bruenig wrote a pretty compelling analysis of why the statistics in the book are either misleadingly presented or so banal as to be useless: https://mattbruenig.com/2023/09/20/doing-the-marriage-thing-again/ https://mattbruenig.com/2023/09/20/doing-the-marriage-thing-...

ajju 3y ago
I understand his critique of the stats, but I wonder if Mr. Bruenig disagrees with the author’s points of view. In particular I wonder what he thinks would be best for his own kids. He seems to be, per wikipedia, married to a high-school friend (sweetheart?) for almost a decade with two kids. While I do not think his personal actions have any bearing on the accuracy of his statistical critiques of the author, it does seem like his revealed preferences support the author’s points of view. I would be shocked if he believes the health of his marriage has no bearing on the overall wellbeing of his kids. Regardless, I wish him and his wife a long and happy marriage, because I believe that would be the best outcome for both of them and their kids.
- ajju 3y ago
  Like Matt, I am a supporter of the state providing a solid safety net on basic needs (food, health care, self-improvement, safety) to ALL its and pay for it by taxing the well-off citizens more than the average although unlike him, I would not describe myself as a socialist. Marriage is many things, but amongst them, it is also a safety net for the children of that marriage. At its best, it brings the resources of two extended families and friend networks together to support the couple and the children. I wonder if Matt would agree with the view that Marriage is the most “atomic” form of socialism (which he seems to support)
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Marriage is many things, but amongst them, it is also a safety net for the children of that marriage. At its best, it brings the resources of two extended families and friend networks together to support the couple and the children At its best, it is exactly the same in that regard as coparenting without marriage is at its best. Having had both married and unmarried parents in committed (also, in other cases, failed—both married and unmarried) relationships in my extended friends and family network, the degree of support I’ve seen them get doesn’t seem to be very different.
    - ajju 3y ago
      Where we probably agree: I would agree that it is the commitment that matters. Where we may agree: Social norms really do impact human behavior. Marriage is a social norm supporting long term commitment. In communities where it has been replaced with another social norm supporting commitment (eg my well-off friends in Europe), it has become less relevant. I also posit that adults in committed coparenting relationships constitute a small minority of unmarried adults in America (vs. France for example where a majority of my friends with kids match your description). Where we probably disagree: In my observations of close friends in loving relationships with children, previously in loving marriages, are now divorced and in respectful and functional coparenting but not cohabitating relationships. For a considerable amount of time, they are functionally single parents. In most cases parents and siblings of one ex-spouse are unlikely to want to support the other ex-spouse with in-person child support. The bright exception to this rule seems to be divorced co-parents who live in close proximity or in one instance in the same duplex and are good friends.

hackeraccount 3y ago

If you're in a happy committed relationship why not make a declaration that you'll remain in it even if at some point you are not happy? It's a good move because if both parties make that commitment (they could do it in public to increase the pressure to keep it) there's a better chance that there will in fact be long term happiness. Or as Shakespeare would say, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
Personal perspective from stable 15 years long relationship, 2 children, not married. Because it's a farce. There is nothing permanent or guaranteed from marriage, so all that's left is commercialization of my affection, which is not for me, and a big bill which can be used for other life goals which I find more appealing. I won't go into more details for the "ceremonial part", because there is an alternative: sign a piece of paper harshly and be done. This is cheap and effective, sharing finances simplify managing them and in case of medical emergencies you are "allowed in" as husband/wife. Here, Canada, after living together for 1 year it's equivalent to being married, so we have literally lost any incentive to do so: we can skip all legal costs. Actually we joke about it, saying "I'll merry you" in moments of affection, but that's about it.
red-iron-pine 3y ago
social and economic expectations that come with making the marriage happen, and then the social and legal challenges if/when it ends. common law rules are quite strong where I live, so there isn't really much of a reason to jump through those hoops. needless effort, familial drama, legal wrangling, and for what? doesn't mean they'll love me more or less. doesn't mean they're more likely to put away the dishes, or get paid more.