
Harvard Study: Biggest Factor in Divorce Is Husband's Employment Status - Jerry2
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-28/don-t-blame-divorce-on-money-ask-did-the-husband-have-a-job?utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-business
======
KKKKkkkk1
If we realize that the legal system has made the wife essentially a
stockholder who is entitled to a stream of dividends from her marriage, and
who has a right to sell when she sees fit, it's no surprise that women choose
to sell when there is a sustained decline in earnings.

~~~
zeofig
I used to be bothered by lots of stuff. All the dying, the diseased, the
suffering, the doomed... Luckily, this is all just a product of our political
system, and if you have a problem with that then you're quite simply a goddamn
communist.

~~~
DefaultUserHN
You have disagreed with me, so you're a racist.

------
koolba
> The big factor, Harvard sociology professor Alexandra Killewald found, is
> the husband's employment status. For the past four decades, she discovered,
> husbands who aren’t employed full time have a 3.3 percent chance of getting
> divorced in any given year, compared with 2.5 percent for husbands employed
> full time. In other words, their marriages are one-third more likely to
> break up.

Interesting. I'd be curious to see how the hours spent at work impact that
number.

Specifically, do longer hours away at the office lead to a more stable
marriage? Will having a second (or third!) job increase my chances of
maintaining a nuclear family?

~~~
ethanbond
I imagine there are a lot factors.

Time spent together skyrocketing, financial instability causing stress, and
the fact that a lot of men tie their identity to their employment so strongly.

Becoming unemployed is immensely turbulent in pretty much every way.

~~~
MollyR
I was wondering why men tie their identity to employment so much. Is it
because society expects them to be providers, and ridicules men who don't ?

~~~
ethanbond
I'd assume so. As much as HN likes to ridicule the notion of "the patriarchy,"
this is a component of it that's awfully harmful to men.

~~~
tomp
HN ridicules the notion of patriarchy because the word itself implies it's
somehow men's fault. Which it isn't. Social toles are enforced by most of the
society, so we might as well call it "matriarchy", but that would piss
feminists off, so we don't.

~~~
ethanbond
I don't think there's that implication at all. I think what's happening is
that this component of patriarchy isn't really a rallying point for many
people. That is, there are a lot of people who are vocally upset about _other_
components of patriarchy in which men actually _are_ the primary antagonists,
e.g. rape culture. That does not, however, imply that man are the antagonists,
_nor that women are the victims_ of every component of patriarchy.

I think more people should be pissed off about this component, too. A man
shouldn't feel obligated to be masculine, nor a provider, nor a protector, nor
anything he doesn't want to be. Truthfully, more of HN should empathize with
this as well. I would be surprised if a very large portion of us didn't grow
up being called a variety of epithets for being less athletic, more booky,
less masculine and therefore less valuable than the general population.

Ironically enough, it's exactly _this_ component of patriarchy that leads to
the aggressive anti-feminist views seen all over this board.

You can call it matriarchy if you want, I don't really care, except that a) no
one will know what you're talking about and b) we don't live in a matriarchal
society so it doesn't make sense.

~~~
makomk
What's happening is that, as you point out, people who claim to be fighting
the patriarchy are _not_ in fact interested in fighting against problems where
men are the ones being hurt rather than the antagonists. However, they lump
both categories together under one "patriarchy" label as a way of demanding
that they be treated as though they were tackling both, arguing that because
men's problems are caused by the patriarchy and they're attacking it, they're
the ones really trying to solve those problems.

In fact, I've seen them go even further and accuse people who make a fuss
those problems of being the ones who don't actually care about them, because
if they really cared they'd recognise that feminism was the movement that was
actually trying to solve those problems and copy its approach of refusing to
do anything about them. That, in fact, this proves that said activists are
misogynists who are just out to attack feminism.

~~~
ethanbond
That's fair. I've never felt that I was being blamed for anything and every
feminist I know (including myself) explicitly includes these types of issues
in their scope of problems.

Obviously it seems Tumblr-inas get awfully large soapboxes to stand upon, but
my personal experience indicates they are outliers.

------
maxxxxx
From personal experience I can confirm that finding. During the tech crash in
2002 I was unemployed for a year and it took several more years for me to get
back to the salary and position I had had before the crash. I was frustrated
and depressed by my failure to provide and my wife was frustrated with me too.
This time damaged my marriage a lot and things never got back to how they had
been previously.

~~~
ktRolster
_This time damaged my marriage a lot and things never got back to how they had
been previously._

Wow, that sounds drastic. What happened?

~~~
Xunxi
Same boat, I was picking up almost any job to keep the family afloat, one time
I got home and my partner was lying in the couch and crying. I thought it was
the impending hardships we were going through so i cuddled and talked her into
believing good times were ahead.

Her response was "baby I'm pregnant and I'm not sure its yours"

The rest is history. Luckily I bounced back, the boy was mine but phew..!

~~~
MollyR
That doesn't sound like a healthy relationship.

~~~
zaroth
For what definition of "healthy"? Few marriages are perfect, and many are
quite broken in many respects. Stress drives people to do all sorts of things
they might later regret. But if an affair is unhealthy, by that definition
literally _most_ marriages are.

~~~
MollyR
Stress doesn't absolve you of responsibility for your actions. Most marriages
being degrees of unhealthy doesn't equate to most marriages having affairs in
them. If my husband had an affair, child or no child, It would be an instant
divorce. I could never trust him again.

~~~
gozur88
I agree with you. No relationship is roses all the time, and cheaters will
eventually find an excuse to cheat.

~~~
zaroth
I think "cheaters gonna cheat" is overly reductive and crass. The point is
that if most marriages are unable to deal with infidelity, then most marriages
will fail. But the divorce rate has been declining for some time now, perhaps
due to more modern approaches to human fallibility.

Again, this has nothing at all to do with excusing an affair, or abdicating
responsibility. It's really examining and appreciating that many marriages are
faced with these very serious challenges, and perhaps it's a sign of
_strength_ , dare I say _health_ , in a marriage that it can continue on after
an affair rather than collapsing at the mere thought.

EDIT: Keep in mind we can also speak more generally about affairs both
romantic or sexual. It is interesting how many people just equate it to a sex
act.

~~~
gozur88
>I think "cheaters gonna cheat" is overly reductive and crass.

I disagree, obviously. It's trendy to expect people are merely the sum of
their circumstances, and that they'll cheat if a and b and c are true. I don't
believe it. People with character don't cheat on their spouses. It's really
that simple. You can be a marriage with "very serious challenges" and not
cheat, even when the opportunities are all around. Millions of people do it.

>...and perhaps it's a sign of strength, dare I say health, in a marriage that
it can continue on after an affair rather than collapsing at the mere thought.

Yes, the "mere thought" and _action_ of the ultimate betrayal. I'm not buying
it. Whatever they say, people who stay together after an affair are making a
calculation. It's for the kids, or it's over money, or the cheated-on spouse
is afraid to be alone. Oh, _sign me up_.

------
rustynails
It's a disappointing article in that it makes many narrowly focused and
unfounded assumptions and one conclusion.

I've recently been doing an indepth study of sexism in Australia starting at
1970.

I've poured over archives (and I'm documenting it) to see how Australia went
off the rails with its sexist attitude (eg. Domestic Violence is male only, or
a revised false history of voting-who could and when).

What I have noticed is that there were plenty of ads and articles back in the
early 70s (eg. One bank advertised its female branch manager with a large
photo, quite proudly) that are inclusive, unlike today. TV adverts had plenty
of representation in work, sport, etc. watch the "life be in it" as an
example.

I know that there was an inclusive attitude back in the early 70s that we have
lost. As an example, check out Science Week, aimed at kids, that has several
girls only events and competitions. This sort of sexism was unprecedented from
1970-2000 (and possibly earlier). Also add that all of my female ancestors
from 1900 onward held good jobs and were largely financially independent
(which contradicts the article saying it didn't really happen before 1975).
I've never been able to reconcile the modern story compared to my own family's
history. It might be luck.

So, the article concluded that the difference is that women can now work. It
ignores depression, stress (non financial), Boredom, lack of self-worth etc.
if a person defines themself by a career and that career vanishes, it can turn
an individual and their family upside down. I'm not surprised the authors
focussed on housework and financial independence and ignored almost everything
else as it seems to be the modern trend (ala domestic violence is male only).

I'm curious to see if any media outlets in Australia pick up on the blatant
sexism of Science Week (targeted at kids). The last 10 years are proving to be
the most sexist (by far) that I've ever seen. I'm doing some research by
looking at government, education (which is largely government) and media. I
will include photos, videos and loads of references - but it's a big job. It
will take time when I am committed to work and family too.

~~~
cname
Aiming STEM programs at girls isn't sexist. That just isn't what "sexist"
means. Those programs exist to correct an imbalance caused by actual sexism.

~~~
cperciva
_Aiming STEM programs at girls isn 't sexist. That just isn't what "sexist"
means._

To the contrary, it perfectly fits the dictionary definition: Discrimination
on the basis of gender.

It happens to be a form of discrimination which is (generally) considered to
be acceptable since it is aiming to ameliorate a disadvantaged group; but it
is discrimination nonetheless. The relevant question isn't "is this sexist",
but rather "is this sexist in a way that society does not condone".

~~~
cname
You might say that programs that encourage girls are "discriminatory" in some
pedantic sense, but they don't keep boys from learning about math and science,
nor do they discourage boys from going into STEM fields.

The difference between this and actual sexism is that sexism _discourages_ and
systematically _excludes_ people, typically girls/women, based on gender.
Programs that target girls do nothing at all to discourage boys, because no
one is saying, "These kinds of activities, careers, etc are only for girls
now."

Generally speaking, when any disadvantaged group gets together to discuss
issues and take action on issues affecting them, they are not being racist,
sexist, etc.

------
DominikR
I don't know what the laws are in the US regarding divorce but there's an
astonishing imbalance in favour of women in many EU countries that causes
marriages to be an unacceptable risk for me and many other men.

You can get divorced for no cause (no infidelity, financials are fine and you
didn't do anything else wrong) and you'll be forced to hand over 40% of your
net income to your ex-wife for the rest of your life. (even if there are no
children - if there are, you get to pay even more)

I'm fine with women leaving for no cause (it's her business) and also with
financially supporting children (as probably most men are) but I'm not going
to sign a contract that could potentially leave me financially broke for no
cause.

So even though the Harvard study might give some insight to married men on
what they could do better I doubt that marriage under the current framework
will even exist in a few decades.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> I'm fine with women leaving for no cause (it's her business) and also with
> financially supporting children (as probably most men are)

My mother's parents divorced acrimoniously.

She told me that her mother was constantly fighting to receive child support
checks. They were always late, any disputes that could be raised were raised,
etc.

When she went off to college, the checks were assigned to her rather than her
mother. And, like magic, they arrived on time and in full, with never a word
of complaint.

I think a majority of men are indeed quite willing to support their children
financially, even children they don't see much. But money extracted from you
by a court and handed over to your ex-wife to be spent however she sees fit is
something a little different.

------
sverige
I have personally witnessed couples where the cause of the job loss was
marital stress. Husband's job performance suffered because of things going on
at home, company decides to cut back jobs, stressed husband is on the low end
of performance and gets cut. It just adds to the mess at that point. Often the
wife felt that the husband was less than he was before without his job, and
ditched him.

I've also seen men in that situation who bounce back professionally _after_ a
divorce. Usually not immediately, but relatively short term (1 to 5 years).

The correlation is not that surprising, but I agree with others here who note
that it is not provable as causation. Too many factors.

~~~
tpro
>I've also seen men in that situation who bounce back professionally after a
divorce. Usually not immediately, but relatively short term (1 to 5 years).

That makes a lot of sense. That 1 to 5 year period may be due to depression,
despondency and general lack of motivation. If they get through that there may
well be strong motivation to rebuild yourself. Plus, if you no longer have a
spouse and children waiting at home there is no one to complain if you start
putting in extra hours.

------
lmmlzxx
I'm not working right now and my wife is supporting me. To be brief, I'm
taking time to be healthier mentally and my wife can see that I'm making a
concerted effort. I let her know frequently how much I appreciate it, and I'm
also accomplishing a lot and putting myself in a position to be successful
again in the near future. I've supported her financially at times in the past
as well.

Because of this, we're actually in a very good place in our relationship. I
had put a lot of stress on her by being manic, obsessive, paranoid (not about
her or our relationship), constantly using, etc. We've both noticed the
improvement and have been more introspective and open about what causes us to
argue. Anyway, just a counter-anecdote to the top comment.

~~~
zepolen
constantly using?

~~~
reefoctopus
He is likely referring to hard drugs of some sort. "Using" connotes
methamphetamines or heroin.

~~~
lmmlzxx
No meth or heroin for the last many years. I never liked either much anyway.
I've referring mostly to psychedelic drugs and marijuana, which normally are
considered soft, but I've consumed them to a degree that would probably shock
most people.

------
ImTalking
It can go the other way as well. It would be interesting to study any change
in the percentage of divorces in households where incomes/assets increased. In
my case, I sold a business for a tidy sum, which then allowed us to divorce
without financial difficulties. It is true that a lot of marriages unhappily
continue because either party is unable to financially support themselves
alone, especially when kids are involved.

------
Gustomaximus
Whenever someone I know is breaking up I ask, "Money or sex?". It's always one
of these reasons.

~~~
zaroth
Yeah, I've heard this before from recent divorcees. But in a more stricter
form of; marriages end in divorce when the wife doesn't get enough money or
the man doesn't get enough sex. Horribly stereotypical, sexist, and crude but
does seem to aptly describe the proximate cause of many divorces.

~~~
tomp
I can see "stereotypical", but why "sexist"?

------
jbritton
It would be interesting if one could predict a likelihood of divorce based
upon a number of inputs, like credit scores, age differences, education
levels, income, hours worked, number of children, smoking, etc. I suppose the
possible set of criteria could be large.

------
lifeisstillgood
The couples income and wife's economic independence did _not_ correlate to
divorce (post 1970s). Which implies that the lack of a full time job is not a
proxy for "money worries" but instead seems to be a proxy for something else -
potential the husbands behaviour, wife / social perceptions of husband etc.

Basically I infer that couoles pull together when faced with external
financial stress, but if the husbands a dick about his job it's a different
matter

~~~
wutbrodo
> if the husbands a dick about his job it's a different matter

I'm not sure why you're convinced that the husband's behavior is the causal
link (if there is one: the headline implies there is though the study only
shows a correlation). I find it just as easy to imagine that, just as gender
roles downplay women's potential contributions in the workforce, they reduce
men to workhorses in family and relationships. It could just as easily be the
wife being a dick about having an unemployed husband (as the article mention,
financial strain per se was controlled for). I personally had a friend in high
school who had really rich parents and whose dad retired early and was a stay-
at-home dad (his mom was employed as an executive at a big bank). I would hear
about him getting shit for being stay-at-home dad despite the fact that
everybody in the family (himself included) was really happy with the
arrangement.

------
alex-
Maybe people in unhappy marriages find the strain leaks into their
professional lives?

------
skylan_q
Poor journalism, yet again.

Factor implies causal link. It's just a correlation in this case.

~~~
mjevans
I view it as the study went looking for X, and to it's surprise didn't see X,
but happened to see statistical significance in Y. However the study did not
have the scope to determine why Y occurred.

I think the most likely thing that changed over time is Z: the first wave(s)
of feminism began to liberate females from the traditional limitations of
roles in society. However the true from of feminism is a recognition and
reconstruction based around /all/ gender roles being bad for mental health,
emotional health, and positive relations among individuals.

Men haven't had that liberation; a large part of society still believes in
specific roles and responsibilities for men that coupled females are (at their
option) exempted from. This probably leads to increased stress to both
individuals and also an increased risk of negative feedback loops for the
situation and everyone involved.

The inherent bias in society is even reflected in the premise of the study.
It's tracking a specific type of male/female relationship and a specific
correlation of role towards problems. Instead a more balanced study would look
at the starting condition, determine what percentage of the population
(restricting to males and females alone is OK, but including all sets of
couples is better) fits different configurations, and tracking for outcomes as
well as associated economic, emotional, mental, and physical health in the
related intervals would be a better study design. The study might also have a
follow-up for 'marriage failure' cases where isolation of the root causes is
performed.

~~~
exstudent2
> Men haven't had that liberation; a large part of society still believes in
> specific roles and responsibilities for men that coupled females are (at
> their option) exempted from. This probably leads to increased stress to both
> individuals and also an increased risk of negative feedback loops for the
> situation and everyone involved.

Sadly that role restructuring, when driven by men, is still almost universally
derided. Look at the men's rights movement or mgtow. The trope of the basement
dwelling virgin is immidately deployed to minimize their concerns. Feminism
isn't the tool needed. Men need to drive their role in society. Society just
isn't ready for it.

EDIT: heavily down voted, almost makes my point for me.

~~~
bruceb
I would say you are getting down voted because the MRM seems to be not limited
to trying to make things better for men but also endless attacking women and
creating stawman(woman) feminism.

Men do face many challenges. Some men have dangerous jobs which they die
providing for society (fishing, war, etc). This doesn't get enough
acknowledgement. But one doesn't have to be a total jerk to make this point
and tear others down.

~~~
enave
> the MRM seems to be not limited to trying to make things better for men but
> also endless attacking women

?? Are you implying that feminism _is_ limited to just helping women? Surely
you're not that naive. If we were to play a game where each time you post a
crazy thing an MRA has said, I have to post two crazy things feminists have
said, I'll win that game. I'll win it easily. I'll win it with politicians and
academics and people who have real power in our society while you'll be
scouring fringe websites. And if ever I run low on important people, I still
have the Tumblr feminists.

So yeah, I don't really know what point you thought you were making, unless
the point was to demonstrate the totally different standard that you hold
these groups to.

If you think feminism has legitimacy (and it most certainly does) it's because
you're choosing to listen to the points that have merit, and disregard those
that don't. It's selection bias, sure, but I do it too.

Consider trying the same thing with three MRM

~~~
int_19h
The points that have merit constitute the bulk of the message coming from
people self-identifying as feminists. Sure, there's all kind of weird stuff -
TERFs, separatist and even supremacist feminists etc - but they're a minority
compared to the mainstream.

On the other hand, when looking at the MRA scene (again, going by self-
identification of the speakers), the mainstream seems to consist of "incels",
red pillers, and the like. So, as far as most people are concerned, the label
is firmly associated with that sort of stuff. Consequently, suggestion to
listen to "points that have merit", when they come in a binder with "MRA" on
the cover, is not going to fly. If you want to be heard, you'll have to break
the association by using a different label - or by finding enough like-minded
vocal associates to reclaim the label (and at this point it would need to be a
supermajority with a hefty margin before we can seriously start talking about
this).

You might object that this is unfair, because the label is descriptive and
appropriate, and all those misogynists have misappropriated it. Tough luck -
descriptive labels get misappropriated all the time. For example, if you
happen to be a socialist and a civic nationalist at the same time, a common
sense descriptive label would be "national socialist" \- but you really
shouldn't be using it for obvious reasons.

~~~
home_boi
What "message" are you talking about?

I've associated feminism with "women make $0.67 for every dollar that a man
makes for the same job, working the same hours" and equal gender ratio over
equal opportunity.

~~~
d4nte
Based on numerous conversations I've had with self-identifying feminists, I
would say the primary message seems to be that a person's gender (regardless
of what it is) shouldn't decide their opportunities in life. Opinions on the
extent or existence of systemic societal discrimination against women tend to
depend largely on individual experience (and admittedly, on occasion,
misinterpreted and badly gathered statistics) I think. And of course, there
are as many versions of feminism as there are feminists because no two people
are exactly alike.

------
toodlebunions
Anecdotally, every household I know who has gotten divorced had one of two
deciding factors; either they didn't get along, or there was infidelity.

~~~
wutbrodo
"They didn't get along" hides a lot of complexity, since a lot of concrete
things can put strain on a relationship and then the couple "doesn't get
along". In fact, this practically reduces to a tautology, since deciding to
get a divorce means that you're goiong through something severe enough that
staying together isn't considered to be the better option.

------
proc0
Well we know women choose men based on how likely they'll be to commit and
properly provide to her offspring. So I guess it's not much of a surprise
there. What I think is surprising, is that it seems society looks at women as
the victim of a divorce, when this is telling a different story where women
have a plan of when to exit.

------
kaitai
I find the correlation-causation discussion a bit troubling.

What if, for instance, men who want a divorce manage to quit working/become
involuntarily unemployed because they don't want their incomes going toward
alimony for a spouse they now dislike?

Or what if it's like those initial studies linking low body weight with high
mortality, which we found were mixing together healthy skinny people and
people who'd lost a lot of weight due to cancer? Maybe men who are
involuntarily unemployed are drawn from a mix of guys with bad luck and guys
with traits that cause them to be less stably employed?

How do these decisions fluctuate or not with the national unemployment rate?

It seems like this is an interesting exploratory study but not yet very
specific.

------
Tomrn
"Results from models with alternative cutpoints at 1980 and 1985 are shown in
the online supplement."

Does anyone have a link to the online supliment?

Also would it be normal practice for a study like this to make the raw data
aviailable? I'd love to take a look. As it's not totally clear how the 3.3%
figure was arrived at.

This sentence struck me as a little odd: "For example, I use employment from
1985, reported in survey year 1986, to predict marital dissolution in 1987"

I would have thought unemployment in the actual year of divorce would be more
important when looking for a corellation? Not looking at the husband's
unemployemnt two years previously?

------
johnking
Anyone have a link to the actual study?

~~~
AlexCoventry
[http://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/attach/journals/au...](http://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/attach/journals/aug16asrfeature.pdf)

~~~
johnking
Thanks Alex!

------
zaroth
Here's the worst thing about this... if you are married, and working on your
pre-revenue startup as a solo founder out of the house... that is another
description of a person that we call "unemployed". Whoops, yeah that part of
building a business, we do not talk about so much. :-/

------
rezashirazian
A man without a job is much more unbearable than a man without money.

------
invertOfControl
Solid proof that there's little loyalty beyond whatever's attached to a
wallet.

Love is a plaything for deluded teenagers.

------
jaequery
How am I not surprised?

~~~
tamana
To quantify it, yes.

