Culture The Decline in Divorce

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
So this is apparently a thing and a good thing. For so long, marriages automatically ending in divorce is such a pervasive trope that people seem to take it for granted as a fact now when apparently over the past decade or so it's actually declined.


 

JasonSanjo

Your Overlord and Jester
Can't help but notice the notice at the bottom of the first graph in the article:
"Notes: Married population include those who are separated." Furthermore, that the 2008-2018 numbers are estimates based on a particular survey as opposed to actual demographic data based on registered marriages and divorces.
... in other words, there is a distinct possibility that the decrease is mostly - perhaps even entirely - due to people simply separating and living apart, perhaps with new partners, without bothering to officially divorce, for whatever reason. Or faulty estimates based on a skewed survey (i.e.: people who view themselves as "less successful" are less likely to answer truthfully or even at all, which would skew the divorce rates in such a survey sharply downward... and that's assuming there are no problems with how the survey was carried out or worded, or how its gathered data is being presented).

This would also neatly explain the second graph showcasing the percentage of children living with married biological parents; if the parents are living apart with new partners (or alone), but are not legally divorced (truthfully or not, as the numbers are based on survey data), they still count as married as per the previous graph, and if the number of people who simply separate without legally divorcing has risen, then that would naturally lead to an uptick in the number of children who live with "married" parents.

The second graph also mentions the 2018-2019 estimates are based on "projections", i.e. assumptions based on previous data. In other words, the later numbers could be very, very far from reality.

Now, these factors don't necessarily mean the conclusions in the article are false, but they do raise massive red flags, as presenting potentially skewed data is a standard tactic for intentional misrepresentation, particularly in the media. For the graphs in the article - and thus its conclusions - to have any sort of validity whatsoever one would have to replace the survey numbers with actual marriage registration data and also compare the numbers in the first graph with those for "married" people who have also separated, and what number of separated people who have also moved on with new partners, and the second graph would have to have its "projections" removed and replaced with actual empirical data. Otherwise, the graphs and conclusions in the article are sadly useless as they stand.
 
Last edited:

JagerIV

Well-known member
That is my gut instict on this. I recall hearing that children born to single parent, ai, just the mother, is also way up. So, given how easily available abortion is, woman are choosing to have babies without even trying to get the father to marry them. There's more single motherhood as a choice, rather than accident or a bad marriage falling apart.

So, shotgun wedding, which I'm sure were a fairly substantial portion of unhappy marriages between two imature, irresposnsible people, simply dont happen anymore.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
That is my gut instict on this. I recall hearing that children born to single parent, ai, just the mother, is also way up. So, given how easily available abortion is, woman are choosing to have babies without even trying to get the father to marry them. There's more single motherhood as a choice, rather than accident or a bad marriage falling apart.

So, shotgun wedding, which I'm sure were a fairly substantial portion of unhappy marriages between two imature, irresposnsible people, simply dont happen anymore.


There was a reason why we had extended familys to help raise children through out most of human history. Its because raising kids is hard. Its hard to do with two people deciding that you can raise a child all by yourself with out help is incredbidly arrogant.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
That is my gut instict on this. I recall hearing that children born to single parent, ai, just the mother, is also way up. So, given how easily available abortion is, woman are choosing to have babies without even trying to get the father to marry them. There's more single motherhood as a choice, rather than accident or a bad marriage falling apart.

So, shotgun wedding, which I'm sure were a fairly substantial portion of unhappy marriages between two imature, irresposnsible people, simply dont happen anymore.
As someone who is on dating apps. The amount of single mothers on there is immense, and astounding. Almost always saying "Searching for something real, not for hookups" and are also picky as hell.

Divorce rates are down because, as someone pointed out, less people are getting married
 

Robovski

Well-known member
As a divorced person, I was separated for 5 years before I had a reason to make it final. I was married for 12 years, so it's not for lack of commitment. I'd say I stuck at it too long, to be honest, should have got out 5 years previous.
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
As someone who is on dating apps. The amount of single mothers on there is immense, and astounding. Almost always saying "Searching for something real, not for hookups" and are also picky as hell.

Divorce rates are down because, as someone pointed out, less people are getting married
That's... not how math works?

The Divorce Rate is the Percent of Marriages that are terminated by Divorce, not the total number of Divorces. The number of marriages in existence has no bearing on what the rate of those marriages ending is. If there are, say, 1000 married couples and 100 get divorced that means there's a divorce rate of 10%. The next year, with no new marriages, there's now 900 married couples and say 90 get divorced, there's 10 fewer divorces, but that's still a 10% divorce rate. Conversely, let's say that in that second year we get 200 new marriages, so that now there are 1100 married couples, and 100 get divorced that year, that's the same NUMBER of divorces as the first year, but it is an ~9% divorce rate, lower than the prior year.

Thus a lower divorce rate means that a smaller percentage of marriages are ending in divorce. And while the fact less people are married plays a role in that, it's not the core reason for it.
 

bintananth

behind a desk
There was a reason why we had extended familys to help raise children through out most of human history. Its because raising kids is hard. Its hard to do with two people deciding that you can raise a child all by yourself with out help is incredbidly arrogant.
There isn't a single failed marriage amongst my siblings and one of my sisters is married to a gay man from East St. Louis who knows that her kids aren't his.
 

ParadiseLost

Well-known member
That's... not how math works?

And while the fact less people are married plays a role in that, it's not the core reason for it.

You're wrong, but that's because he didn't include all the facts.

The reason why a decrease in marriages is causing a decrease in the divorce rate is because the type of people who would've gotten divorced 10-30 years ago just aren't getting married today.

For example, lets change the numbers a bit. Lets say 1,000 people would've gotten married in 1980. 800 of those are reasonable people with a 30% divorce rate, and 200 of those are troublemakers with an 80% divorce rate. That leads to a divorce rate of 40%.

Today, however, those troublemakers just don't get married - this pushes the divorce rate down.

This is the reason why the decline in divorce is happening - people who would've gotten divorced simply don't get married in the first place, because social pressures to get married have decreased.
 

Robovski

Well-known member
Look, if the rate is a percentage of marriages, people who never get married are not a factor. If the rate is on a per capita basis, then people who never get married are a factor.
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
You're wrong, but that's because he didn't include all the facts.

The reason why a decrease in marriages is causing a decrease in the divorce rate is because the type of people who would've gotten divorced 10-30 years ago just aren't getting married today.

For example, lets change the numbers a bit. Lets say 1,000 people would've gotten married in 1980. 800 of those are reasonable people with a 30% divorce rate, and 200 of those are troublemakers with an 80% divorce rate. That leads to a divorce rate of 40%.

Today, however, those troublemakers just don't get married - this pushes the divorce rate down.

This is the reason why the decline in divorce is happening - people who would've gotten divorced simply don't get married in the first place, because social pressures to get married have decreased.
Those are certainly potential variables going into it as well, and I was actually going to write up something regarding similar, but felt it would just confuse my main point that rate of divorce was not directly related to number of marriages, thus what his point was was kinda nonsensical.

As to what you're pointing out, I agree that that is probably a major factor, though I suspect there are other factors going into it too, it's not a simple issue with a single answer, and I would say that a "reduced social pressure to marry" is actually an overall BAD thing due to the negative effects single parenthood has on all parties involved, in fact, society should structure itself to DISCOURAGE single parenthood at all costs, as single parenthood is one of the single largest indicators of a child's success in life, with "being the child of a single parent" having a greater impact on their long term prospects than ANY OTHER FACTOR including parent's economic status, race, and everything else.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
For example, lets change the numbers a bit. Lets say 1,000 people would've gotten married in 1980. 800 of those are reasonable people with a 30% divorce rate, and 200 of those are troublemakers with an 80% divorce rate. That leads to a divorce rate of 40%.

Today, however, those troublemakers just don't get married - this pushes the divorce rate down.

It's a considerable oversimplifying to say that divorce is down because "troublemakers" aren't getting married, but yes, couples are in statistical terms a significantly non-homogenous population.

Historically, there was always a *ton* of cultural pressure on people to get married, have two and a half kids and a white picket fence and all that jazz, and then once you got married, there was a ton of cultural pressure to *stay* married even through infidelity, abuse, etc etc. That's still the norm and there is *still* a lot of cultural pressure for it, but not nearly as much as there used to be.
 

Jormungandr

The Midgard Wyrm
Founder
Marriage on the whole, IIRC, is on the decline, so this isn't a surprise.

For men, it's because marriage simply isn't worth it these days: If you marry, you proverbially have a Sword of Damocles over you, what with divorce-rape and ingrained bias in the courts. MGTOW has gone mainstream. Plus, paternity fraud these days is rife to the point where people are actually calling on mandatory paternity tests on birth and significant legal consequences for women attempting to commit paternity fraud.

For women, it's because of a few possible reasons:
  • They don't want to settle down and be tied to one guy. I'm not calling all women like this the "town bicycles", but there is a lot more promiscuity these days. They're encouraged to "explore themselves", which is actually detrimental once a potential partner, a non-fuck buddy one at any rate, finds out their histories
    • Men don't care if their love interest had a few romantic relationships or even casual hook-ups in the past -- what we do care about is if our potential love interest has a "body-count" in the double to triple digits before they're even 25.
  • They want to sleep around indiscriminately with Chads or Tyrones, have fun, then settle down with a nice "beta provider" once their golden years are over and done with (their twenties) -- sadly enough, there are guys out there that accept girls like this all the time
  • They want to marry and tie someone down but a) can't find a man willing, b) are toxic in some way e.g. "feminism" (not feminism), or c) have numerous kids from either the same ex or different fathers due to having "oopsie babies" or attempted entrapments -- dating a single parent is typically a lose-lose situation, and blended families, if it gets that far, often have crippling fault
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
Those are certainly potential variables going into it as well, and I was actually going to write up something regarding similar, but felt it would just confuse my main point that rate of divorce was not directly related to number of marriages, thus what his point was was kinda nonsensical.

As to what you're pointing out, I agree that that is probably a major factor, though I suspect there are other factors going into it too, it's not a simple issue with a single answer, and I would say that a "reduced social pressure to marry" is actually an overall BAD thing due to the negative effects single parenthood has on all parties involved, in fact, society should structure itself to DISCOURAGE single parenthood at all costs, as single parenthood is one of the single largest indicators of a child's success in life, with "being the child of a single parent" having a greater impact on their long term prospects than ANY OTHER FACTOR including parent's economic status, race, and everything else.
I somewhat agree, but discouraging single parenthood does not necessarily equate to increasing pressure to marry in general.
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
I somewhat agree, but discouraging single parenthood does not necessarily equate to increasing pressure to marry in general.
Ehh... long term studies have shown that being married is one of the biggest impacts on long term happiness and contentment for people. It leads to much greater economic success, social success, and just about everything else, even ignoring children. That said, IIRC there's also evidence that EARLY marriage (IE while still teens) as was often practiced in the 19th century and earlier isn't as good for long term marriage prospects, with something like mid 20s being the optimal time to marry for long term success.

I do think we need to renormalize marriage and children in our culture though. People are bombarded with messages about how after marriages things get worse... you get less sex, you don't have time for yourself, etc. Some of these are to a degree true (though the sex one isn't according to studies, married couples on average have more sex than equivalent singles...), but they ignore the massive benefits being married brings. Sure, you can't just do whatever you like on Friday night anymore, BUT you no longer have to do all your household maintenance by yourself, nor do you have to carry emotional burdens alone, which are massive benefits for a person.

The only class of people whom marriage is a "burden" to, are those who do not have to worry about day to day maintenance of their lives and highly desirable (read: rich and beautiful). Funny how that describes a lot of the media elites? They project their dislike of marriage as an institution because they are the minority whom it holds back from living as they want, and so see it in terms of holding them back...
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Ehh... long term studies have shown that being married is one of the biggest impacts on long term happiness and contentment for people. It leads to much greater economic success, social success, and just about everything else, even ignoring children. That said, IIRC there's also evidence that EARLY marriage (IE while still teens) as was often practiced in the 19th century and earlier isn't as good for long term marriage prospects, with something like mid 20s being the optimal time to marry for long term success.
Different culture, different economy, this won't possibly be back anytime soon, if ever.

I do think we need to renormalize marriage and children in our culture though. People are bombarded with messages about how after marriages things get worse...
Definitely a good idea, and there is an element of that, but i think it goes much deeper than mere messages in the media. I think a necessary start would be a massive campaign to totally eradicate feminism, in all its manifestations, symptoms and forms, in particular the latter wave elements of it, from the culture, media, politics and even the legal system, including relevant parts of practice of marriage and divorce law. Without that it would be a completely wasted and probably also doomed effort.
 

Jormungandr

The Midgard Wyrm
Founder
Different culture, different economy, this won't possibly be back anytime soon, if ever.


Definitely a good idea, and there is an element of that, but i think it goes much deeper than mere messages in the media. I think a necessary start would be a massive campaign to totally eradicate feminism, in all its manifestations, symptoms and forms, in particular the latter wave elements of it, from the culture, media, politics and even the legal system, including relevant parts of practice of marriage and divorce law. Without that it would be a completely wasted and probably also doomed effort.
Feminism isn't the problem -- feminism is wanting equal pay for the job done if they can do it, regardless of gender. Feminism is not forcing an uncomfortable dress code on people if they don't want to wear it e.g. heels for women, skirts. Feminism is where women have the choice to do what they want, be it going into the workforce, going for further education, having education, and not being seen as just baby factories.

Those goals, barring outliers like religious nutjobs, have been achieved. Women can do all those things! Hell, it's normal culture now.

"Feminism", however, is what people equate to feminism these days. And it's what the movement has evolved into.

It's as toxic as fuck, misandrist to the extreme, and deludes women into thinking that, yes, sleeping around like a common whore won't attach a stigma to you socially, when in reality it does.

Oh, they're not the problem, they're not allowed to slut-shame, after all! /s

Job standards should not be lowered so women can gain entry to them e.g. police, fire fighters, military. Hiring someone just because they're a woman should not be allowed.

But, yeah. "Feminism", not feminism, needs to be eradicated.

Bias in the courts towards mothers, even if they're junkies selling their cooches to dealers for their next fix in comparison to the ex-husband who is, well, a normal person? Needs to stop.

Divorce-rape needs to stop. Prenups aren't a surefire safeguard, as they've been overturned in courts before. Asking for one will just cause problems in the relationship (which is understandable, even if it's a good precaution).

Paternity fraud needs to be stamped out: Mandatory tests on birth should be conducted, and since it'd not be the boyfriend/husband asking for one, the woman-in-question can't use the "you don't trust me/do you really think I'd cheat on you!" cards. Consequences should be harsh on the mother. If the boyfriend/husband knows the kid isn't his beforehand, then there shouldn't be any consequences as he knows what he's signing up for by agreeing to raise another man's kid.

As it stands, there's little for men in marriage: Women hold all the cards and can pull the trigger at any time. Hell, even long-term relationships aren't worth it anymore.

There's a reason why MGTOW has gone mainstream.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top