Parents of daughters are more likely to divorce than those with sons

[everythingthelighttouches]

From the Economist.

I can’t believe what a load of tripe I’m reading. Can someone tell me what the bloody hell is going on here?!

The Economist article is behind a paywall but you can read the first part.

www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2021/02/06/parents-of-daughters-are-more-likely-to-divorce-than-those-with-sons?utm_campaign=editorial-social&utm_medium=social-organic&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1AP5cX1h8MMeNRLhN1NSXzVGueVYzQL638AmmCFio2D4RzHQwdlP5s-fw

I’ve also found the recent academic article from which the story was written. You can click on the pdf link on the journal webpage.

academic.oup.com/ej/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ej/ueaa140/6055681

This seems to me to be the epitome of correlation is not equal to causation, but I need to give the paper a better read.

Here is the key part of the text:

Work published in the Economic Journal, however, debunks that particular idea. In “Daughters and Divorce”, Jan Kabatek of the University of Melbourne and David Ribar of Georgia State University, in Atlanta, confirm that having a female first-born does indeed increase the risk of that child’s parents divorcing, in both America and the Netherlands. But, unlike previous work, their study also looked at the effect of the girl’s age. It found that “daughter-divorce” risk emerges only in a first-born girl’s teenage years (see chart). Before they reach the age of 12, daughters are no more linked to couples splitting up than sons are. “If fathers were really more likely to take off because they preferred sons, surely they wouldn’t wait 13 years to do so,” reasons Dr Kabatek. Instead, he argues, the fact that the risk is so age-specific requires a different explanation, namely that parents quarrel more over the upbringing of teenage daughters than of teenage sons.

Taken over the years, the daughter effect, though real, is small. In the Netherlands, by the time their first-born is 18, 20.12% of couples will have divorced if that child is a son, compared with 20.48% if she is a daughter—an increase in probability of 1.8%. But in the five years when the firstborn is between the ages of 13 and 18, that increase goes up to 5%. And it peaks, at 9%, when the child is 15. In America, for which the data the researchers collected were sparser than those in the Netherlands, the numbers are roughly double this.

It's a very small effect. Also goes away if the dad was brought up with sisters.

Thank you for that chickenkatsu.

By the way, this is the picture the Economist have used to illustrate the article.

Oops, trying again

I wonder why the Economist went with that title (same as my thread title) and that picture??

Aren't more divorces initiated by women than by men? I wonder if some of the difference (if it is causative at all) is to do with not wanting a daughter to believe that a difficult relationship is normal. So the mother being a role model for the daughter in expecting a reasonable standard of respect in a relationship.

I've seen stats that state that women are usually the ones that petition for divorce usually citing unreasonable behaviour . Funny old world.

I read another explanation, which is nothing to do with what fathers prefer. It's that the women with daughters (possibly subconsciously) feel like they will be supported and will be helped by them, whereas women with sons (again subconsciously) don't feel that way. So women with daughters are more likely to leave an unhappy marriage.

My first assumption would be that the effect would be caused by women initiating the divorce because they don’t want their daughter to see them in a difficult relationship/being badly treated.

Of course it’s sad that the reverse effect implies that women may think it’s fine for their sons to see this.

I wouldn’t have assumed from the headline that the daughter is the cause of the divorce.

Teenage girls can be very difficult. In all honesty I can see how having a stroppy teenager might put additional pressure on a relationship that is already under strain.
From my own experience teenage boys are easier to handle. Admittedly this is anecdotal rather than data. That's not to say teenage girls are responsible for parental divorce - obviously they are not, but maybe there is something in the idea that they could add an additional layer of strain.

Tbh, I worry that my teenage daughter might be the end of my marriage. DH struggles dreadfully with her and tbh she is a complete shit to him sometimes.

But re. that statistic, I suspect women are more likely to risk losing their sons in a divorce, so may opt to stay together. Or as pp have pointed out, women don't want their daughters growing up to accept bad male behaviour as normal.

I think there are men who can't be arsed to bond with daughters, they see sons as potential mini me's but daughters are the wife's domain.

So if a woman is on the brink of a divorce, she's possibly less likely to take a son away from a Dad who shows interest in him, whereas taking an ignored daughter away would be a positive thing.

It would be fascinating to know who is initiating and the reasons stated for divorce when first child is girl vs boy...

There is also a point in the paper that this effect is completely a lates when the fathers have sisters. What could be the reason for this?

Could a boy growing up with a sister affect the relationship dynamics in his family when that boy becomes a father himself??

I find it interesting that the focus is on the daughter and the mother (e.g. speculation they are more likely to divorce)

What about the men and their behaviour? What is going on with them?

Why isn’t the headline for this new research “Marriages with female children less likely to end in divorce if men grew up with sisters”
??

So sorry
a lates = ablated

e.g. speculation they are more likely to divorce

e.g. speculation women are more likely to divorce, to set a better example for their daughters OR as they think they will have more support from their daughters

The effect seems so small as to be a fluke of statistics. Why have they not controlled for number of children as well?
Also maybe it's a cultural difference but where I'm from teenage girls are heaven - polite, obedient and focus on their studies. While boys go around being stroppy.

I listened to a podcast on this and it was exactly as @MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously says,
moody teenage girls.
That was the last straw, but if the man had sisters it reduced the divorce rate.
They discussed different parenting styles fathers being more firm with their approach women more laid back with behavior.

So confused with these statistics.
Taken over the years, the daughter effect, though real, is small. In the Netherlands, by the time their first-born is 18, 20.12% of couples will have divorced if that child is a son, compared with 20.48% if she is a daughter—an increase in probability of 1.8%.. Or an increase of 0.36% of the TOTAL, which is much smaller. That makes more sense to me than presenting the relative % diff between two percentages.

But in the five years when the firstborn is between the ages of 13 and 18, that increase goes up to 5%. And it peaks, at 9%, when the child is 15.
You got me- how can a cumulative gap of 1.8% by the time dd is 18 (using the 1.8% relative % change approach) actually be 5% between 5 & 18? And then 9% at 15? Do they frantically remarry each other in the years before first born daughter turns 13? Or parents of boys never divorce when the boy is 15?

I find it interesting that the focus is on the daughter and the mother (e.g. speculation they are more likely to divorce)

I read in the Family Law Week for Jan 2021 that there were 822 divorces among same-sex couples in 2019, nearly twice the number in 2018 (428 divorces). Of these, nearly three-quarters (72%) were between female couples. (It helps if you know the proportions getting married in the first place. According to Wiki between March 2014 - October 2015, 55% female couples and 45% male couples).