Should anyone care about historical hate speech by senior Church leadership?

[MustardSeed]

7 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

increased divorce rate

? 
 

 

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

has been associated with this

I disagree strongly.  Your lack of curiosity and openness to alternative possibilities has me questioning your attitude about women and what opportunities they should be afforded. 
 

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, John L said:

Technology has helped push forward "equality" more than anything a woman has done in the past 150 years. The truth of the matter, if all electricity was  turned off and we had to live like our ancestors 200 years ago, we would end up back in the "traditional" man and woman roles that everyone seems to complain about. The majority of women would stay at home taking care of the house and children and older relatives while the men would go out to find food and barter for goods. 

Wrong.

[Raingirl]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You keep saying this but you haven't been able to show yet that the bolded is true.

The divorce rate has been going down for decades, even as the number of women in the workforce has increased.

I had a child and was working outside the home when I divorced. I divorced because my husband was beating the living daylights out of me every chance he got. But it was my having a job that destroyed my marriage. 🤦‍♀️

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Did you forget the source I shared with you where several studies had shown this to be the case? 

Those sources were discussed and they didn't show what you claimed they show.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

I had a child and was working outside the home when I divorced. I divorced because my husband was beating the living daylights out of me every chance he got. But it was my having a job that destroyed my marriage. 🤦‍♀️

I'm so sorry you had to deal with that.  Such a horrible thing.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Buckwheat said:

What would equality look like? 

Do you enjoy seafood? 92% of the people who go out on boats to fish for us are men.

Do you enjoy beef? 84% of people in the cattle industry are men.

Do you enjoy electricity?? 97% of coal miners are men, 93% of dam builders are men, 96% of nuclear reactor operators are men.

Do you enjoy paved roads? 90% of road builders are men.

Have you rode around most of your life in a car with a combustible engine? Thank a man because 96% of oil workers are men. Oh, and a man invented the automobile. 

Do you enjoy indoor plumbing that works? Thank a man because 98% of plumbers and pipe layers are men.

Do you enjoy a climate controlled environment inside your house? Thank a man because 98% of hvac workers are men.

Do you enjoy an automobile that operates correctly? Thank a man because 97% of mechanics are men. 

Do you enjoy curbside garbage pick up? Thank a man because 96% of garbage picker uppers are men. 

Do you enjoy cell service? Thank a man because 97% of cell tower technicians are men.

If women want to be seen as "equals" then women need to prove they're capable of doing what men have been doing for many many years. We live a cushy life style here in North America because of what men do on a daily basis. 

Oh shut up with your chest beating machismo. Women are often hounded out of those professions by the men in them. When the people in the profession and the leadership and owners actively discriminate against women why would you be surprised women instead go into professions that are less hostile? You are whining that men do all the ‘hard work’ while women are actively pressured out of doing the ‘hard work’.

[The Nehor]

15 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Did you forget the source I shared with you where several studies had shown this to be the case? 

Yeah, your collection of clipped quotes from obsolete studies collated by an activist site is very convincing. 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Exactly.

And when one includes how sealings extend out to the sides as well through siblings sharing in family sealings, it becomes horizontal as well as vertical chains or an analogy I prefer, a celestial web or net.

Or "tapestry," perhaps.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

Edited: thought better of it.

 

Edited February 3 by Rain

[Grug the Neanderthal]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Those sources were discussed and they didn't show what you claimed they show.

This is not true. Only one person even acknowledged having opened the link and looking at it, which was bluedreams. However, she didn't discuss the evidence that it contained, she just dismissed it out of hand because it was a compellation of information from studies and not an actual study and because she claimed that the information was "outdated." None of these are valid reasons for dismissing it out of hand. This is nothing more than a very weak attempt at deflecting and trying to avoid having to address the actual evidence. 

Here are some quotes from the sources that you claim don't support my claim that women working leads to a higher divorce rate:

A study from the Netherlands consistently found that the more hours the husband works, and the less hours the wife works [paid employment], the less likely they were to divorce.  “[L]ow marital interaction time does not explain the destabilizing influence of a wife’s working hours.” Anne-Rigt Poortman, “How Work Affects Divorce:  The Mediating Role of Financial and Time Pressures, “Journal of Family Issues 26 (2005):  168-195. 

Dutch scholars report that “full-time working women have 29% higher odds of divorce than nonworking women.”  On the opposite side, “the more hours the husband works, the less likely a divorce.” Matthus Kalmijn, Paul M. De Graaf, Anne-Rigt Poortman, “Interactions Between Cultural and Economic Determinants of Divorce in The Netherlands,” Journal of Marriage and Family 66 (2004):  75-89.

Compared to traditional marriages with stay-at-home mothers who assumed the expressed role of homemaker, nontraditional marriages emphasizing “role-sharing and egalitarianism” were more likely to end in divorce. Alan Booth, and Paul R. Amato, “Parental Gender Role Nontraditionalism and Offspring Outcomes,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 56, (1994):  865-87.

Women who adhere to feminist ideology (participation in women’s liberation groups, using one’s maiden name, voting for far-left political parties, etc.) have a 52 percent higher risk of divorce than do women with traditional values. Matthus Kalmijn, Paul M. De Graaf, Anne-Rigt Poortman, “Interactions Between Cultural and Economic Determinants of Divorce in The Netherlands,” Journal of Marriage and Family 66 (2004):  75-89.

Wives with more traditional sex-role attitudes were less likely to divorce.
Laura Sanchez and Constance Gager, “Hard Living, Perceived Entitlement to a Great Marriage, and Marital Dissolution,” Journal of Marriage and Family 62(2000): 708-722.

 

 

Edited February 3 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Raingirl said:

I had a child and was working outside the home when I divorced. I divorced because my husband was beating the living daylights out of me every chance he got. But it was my having a job that destroyed my marriage. 🤦‍♀️

😩 I'm so sorry, I'm so glad you're out of that situation, horrible. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Or "tapestry," perhaps.

Thanks,

-Smac

Lol, I was also going to use that as well, but I didn’t as I have heard Canadians call Canada a tapestry instead of a melting pot type of society, so it has some political connotations for me at times.

Edited February 3 by Calm

[Tacenda]

56 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

This is not true. Only one person even acknowledged having opened the link and looking at it, which was bluedreams. However, she didn't discuss the evidence that it contained, she just dismissed it out of hand because it was a compellation of information from studies and not an actual study and because she claimed that the information was "outdated." None of these are valid reasons for dismissing it out of hand. This is nothing more than a very weak attempt at deflecting and trying to avoid having to address the actual evidence. 

Here are some quotes from the sources that you claim don't support my claim that women working leads to a higher divorce rate:

A study from the Netherlands consistently found that the more hours the husband works, and the less hours the wife works [paid employment], the less likely they were to divorce.  “[L]ow marital interaction time does not explain the destabilizing influence of a wife’s working hours.” Anne-Rigt Poortman, “How Work Affects Divorce:  The Mediating Role of Financial and Time Pressures, “Journal of Family Issues 26 (2005):  168-195. 

Dutch scholars report that “full-time working women have 29% higher odds of divorce than nonworking women.”  On the opposite side, “the more hours the husband works, the less likely a divorce.” Matthus Kalmijn, Paul M. De Graaf, Anne-Rigt Poortman, “Interactions Between Cultural and Economic Determinants of Divorce in The Netherlands,” Journal of Marriage and Family 66 (2004):  75-89.

Compared to traditional marriages with stay-at-home mothers who assumed the expressed role of homemaker, nontraditional marriages emphasizing “role-sharing and egalitarianism” were more likely to end in divorce. Alan Booth, and Paul R. Amato, “Parental Gender Role Nontraditionalism and Offspring Outcomes,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 56, (1994):  865-87.

Women who adhere to feminist ideology (participation in women’s liberation groups, using one’s maiden name, voting for far-left political parties, etc.) have a 52 percent higher risk of divorce than do women with traditional values. Matthus Kalmijn, Paul M. De Graaf, Anne-Rigt Poortman, “Interactions Between Cultural and Economic Determinants of Divorce in The Netherlands,” Journal of Marriage and Family 66 (2004):  75-89.

Wives with more traditional sex-role attitudes were less likely to divorce.
Laura Sanchez and Constance Gager, “Hard Living, Perceived Entitlement to a Great Marriage, and Marital Dissolution,” Journal of Marriage and Family 62(2000): 708-722.

 

 

I decided to do a semi deep dive into the links you shared's website, and it took me here: https://www.ncfr.org/jmf

And then I noticed they have a Facebook account so I did some reading on there. And I think they are doing some excellent things to help families with both parents working or other different family units. This woman's post on their Facebook caught my attention. And appears to be very proactive of helping with women that work outside the family's home. See it below:

January 28, 2023 (Saturday)

Two relatively small things happened this week that strike me as being important, and I am worried that they, and the larger story they tell, might get lost in the midst of this week’s terrible news. So ignore this at will, and I will put down a marker.

At a press conference on Thursday, Representatives Jimmy Gomez (D-CA), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Daniel Goldman (D-NY), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Joaquin Castro (D-TX), Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), Joe Neguse (D-CO), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Colin Allred (D-TX), Mike Levin (D-CA), Josh Harder (D-CA), and Raul Ruiz (D-CA), and Rob Menendez (D-NJ), announced they have formed the Congressional Dads Caucus.

Ironically, the push to create the caucus came from the Republicans’ long fight over electing a House speaker, as Gomez and Castro, for example, were photographed taking care of their small children for days as they waited to vote. That illustration of men having to adjust to a rapidly changing work environment while caring for their kids “brought visibility to the role of working dads across the country, but it also shined a light on the double standard that exists,” Gomez said. "Why am I, a father, getting praised for doing what mothers do every single day, which is care for their children?"

He explained that caucus “is rooted in a simple idea: Dads need to do our part advancing policies that will make a difference in the lives of so many parents across the country. We’re fighting for a national paid family and medical leave program, affordable and high-quality childcare, and the expanded Child Tax Credit that cut child poverty by nearly half. This is how we set an equitable path forward for the next generation and build a brighter future for our children.”

The new Dads Caucus will work with an already existing caucus of mothers, represented on Thursday by Tlaib.

Two days before, on Tuesday, January 24, the Women’s Bureau of the U.S. Department of Labor released its initial findings from the new National Database of Childcare Prices. The brief “shows that childcare expenses are untenable for families throughout the country and highlights the urgent need for greater federal investments.”

The findings note that higher childcare costs have a direct impact on maternal employment that continues even after children leave home, and that the U.S. spends significantly less than other high-wage countries on early childcare and education. We rank 35th out of 37 countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) made up of high-wage democracies, with the government spending only about 0.3% of gross domestic product (GDP) compared to the OECD average of 0.7%.

These two stories coming at almost the same time struck me as perhaps an important signal. The “Moms in the House” caucus formed in 2019 after a record number of women were elected to Congress, but in the midst of the Trump years they had little opportunity to shift public discussion. This moment, though, feels like a marker in a much larger pattern in the expansion of the role of the government in protecting individuals.

When the Framers wrote the U.S. Constitution, they had come around to the idea of a centralized government after the weak Articles of Confederation had almost caused the country to crash and burn, but many of them were still concerned that a strong state would crush individuals. So they amended the Constitution immediately with the Bill of Rights, ten amendments that restricted what the government could do. It could not force people to practice a certain religion, restrict what newspapers wrote or people said, stop people from congregating peacefully, and so on. And that was the opening gambit in the attempt to use the United States government to protect individuals.

But by the middle of the nineteenth century, it seemed clear that a government that did nothing but keep its hands to itself had almost failed. It had allowed a small minority to take over the country, threatening to crush individuals entirely by monopolizing the country’s wealth. So, under Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant, Americans expanded their understanding of what the government should do. Believing it must guarantee all men equal rights before the law and equal access to resources, they added to the Constitution the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, all of which expanded, rather than restricted, government action.

The crisis of industrialization at the turn of the twentieth century made Americans expand the role of the government yet again. Just making sure that the government protected legal rights and access to resources clearly couldn’t protect individual rights in the United States when the owners of giant corporations had no limits on either their wealth or their treatment of workers. It seemed the government must rein in industrialists, regulating the ways in which they did business, to hold the economic playing field level. Protecting individuals now required an active government, not the small, inactive one the Framers imagined.

In the 1930s, Americans expanded the job of the government once again. Regulating business had not been enough to protect the American people from economic catastrophe, so to combat the Depression, Democrats under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt began to use the government to provide a basic social safety net.

Although the reality of these expansions has rarely lived up to expectations, the protection of equal rights, a level economic playing field, and a social safety net have become, for most of us, accepted roles for the federal government.

But all of those changes in the government’s role focused on men who were imagined to be the head of a household, responsible for the women and children in those households. That is, in all the stages of its expansion, the government rested on the expectation that society would continue to be patriarchal.

The successful pieces of Biden’s legislation have echoed that history, building on the pattern that FDR laid down.

But, in the second half of his Build Back Better plan—the “soft” infrastructure plan that Congress did not pass—Biden also suggested a major shift in our understanding of the role of government. He called for significant investment in childcare and eldercare, early education, training for caregivers, and so on. Investing in these areas puts children and caregivers, rather than male heads of households, at the center of the government’s responsibility.

Calls for the government to address issues of childcare reach back at least to World War II. But Congress, dominated by men, has usually seen childcare not as a societal issue so much as a women’s issue, and as such, has not seen it as an imperative national need. That congressional fathers are adding their voices to the mix suggests a shift in that perception and that another reworking of the role of the government might be underway.

This particular effort might well not result in anything in the short term—caucuses form at the start of every Congress, and many disappear without a trace—but that some of Congress’s men for the first time ever are organizing to fight for parental needs just as the Department of Labor says childcare costs are “untenable” strikes me as a conjunction worth noting.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 3 by Tacenda

[Peacefully]

I’ve been in the truss industry for 30 years. I don’t build them, but I could with a bit of training. I manage developers who do coding for reports and for saws that cut the boards and the tables that assemble the trusses. There weren’t many women when I started and still the majority are men but I have met some amazing female engineers, programmers, truss plant owners, engineering supervisors, heck, until recently the CEO of our billon dollar company was female. When I started my career as tech support some male customers didn’t want to talk to me because I was a woman. The higher ups had a good ol boy system going that included going to strip clubs at lunch so not very female friendly. One of the VPs told me some very private things about his relationship with his wife. I wasn’t even sure what to do with that. Unfortunately, male dominated industries haven’t always been friendly to women trying to break in. I was tenacious and hungry enough to stick with it but I don’t blame women who would rather not deal with that stuff. Women are still playing catch up from the inequalities of the past but we are making inroads. 

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I decided to do a semi deep dive into the links you shared's website, and it took me here: https://www.ncfr.org/jmf

And then I noticed they have a Facebook account so I did some reading on there. And I think they are doing some excellent things to help families with both parents working or other different family units. This woman's post on their Facebook caught my attention. And appears to be very proactive of helping with women that work outside the family's home. See it below:

January 28, 2023 (Saturday)

Two relatively small things happened this week that strike me as being important, and I am worried that they, and the larger story they tell, might get lost in the midst of this week’s terrible news. So ignore this at will, and I will put down a marker.

At a press conference on Thursday, Representatives Jimmy Gomez (D-CA), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Daniel Goldman (D-NY), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Joaquin Castro (D-TX), Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), Joe Neguse (D-CO), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Colin Allred (D-TX), Mike Levin (D-CA), Josh Harder (D-CA), and Raul Ruiz (D-CA), and Rob Menendez (D-NJ), announced they have formed the Congressional Dads Caucus.

Ironically, the push to create the caucus came from the Republicans’ long fight over electing a House speaker, as Gomez and Castro, for example, were photographed taking care of their small children for days as they waited to vote. That illustration of men having to adjust to a rapidly changing work environment while caring for their kids “brought visibility to the role of working dads across the country, but it also shined a light on the double standard that exists,” Gomez said. "Why am I, a father, getting praised for doing what mothers do every single day, which is care for their children?"

He explained that caucus “is rooted in a simple idea: Dads need to do our part advancing policies that will make a difference in the lives of so many parents across the country. We’re fighting for a national paid family and medical leave program, affordable and high-quality childcare, and the expanded Child Tax Credit that cut child poverty by nearly half. This is how we set an equitable path forward for the next generation and build a brighter future for our children.”

The new Dads Caucus will work with an already existing caucus of mothers, represented on Thursday by Tlaib.

Two days before, on Tuesday, January 24, the Women’s Bureau of the U.S. Department of Labor released its initial findings from the new National Database of Childcare Prices. The brief “shows that childcare expenses are untenable for families throughout the country and highlights the urgent need for greater federal investments.”

The findings note that higher childcare costs have a direct impact on maternal employment that continues even after children leave home, and that the U.S. spends significantly less than other high-wage countries on early childcare and education. We rank 35th out of 37 countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) made up of high-wage democracies, with the government spending only about 0.3% of gross domestic product (GDP) compared to the OECD average of 0.7%.

These two stories coming at almost the same time struck me as perhaps an important signal. The “Moms in the House” caucus formed in 2019 after a record number of women were elected to Congress, but in the midst of the Trump years they had little opportunity to shift public discussion. This moment, though, feels like a marker in a much larger pattern in the expansion of the role of the government in protecting individuals….

Although the reality of these expansions has rarely lived up to expectations, the protection of equal rights, a level economic playing field, and a social safety net have become, for most of us, accepted roles for the federal government.

But all of those changes in the government’s role focused on men who were imagined to be the head of a household, responsible for the women and children in those households. That is, in all the stages of its expansion, the government rested on the expectation that society would continue to be patriarchal.…

 

Very interesting post, Tacenda.  Thanks for sharing.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

This is not true. Only one person even acknowledged having opened the link and looking at it, which was bluedreams. However, she didn't discuss the evidence that it contained, she just dismissed it out of hand because it was a compellation of information from studies and not an actual study and because she claimed that the information was "outdated." None of these are valid reasons for dismissing it out of hand. This is nothing more than a very weak attempt at deflecting and trying to avoid having to address the actual evidence. 

Here are some quotes from the sources that you claim don't support my claim that women working leads to a higher divorce rate:

A study from the Netherlands consistently found that the more hours the husband works, and the less hours the wife works [paid employment], the less likely they were to divorce.  “[L]ow marital interaction time does not explain the destabilizing influence of a wife’s working hours.” Anne-Rigt Poortman, “How Work Affects Divorce:  The Mediating Role of Financial and Time Pressures, “Journal of Family Issues 26 (2005):  168-195. 

Dutch scholars report that “full-time working women have 29% higher odds of divorce than nonworking women.”  On the opposite side, “the more hours the husband works, the less likely a divorce.” Matthus Kalmijn, Paul M. De Graaf, Anne-Rigt Poortman, “Interactions Between Cultural and Economic Determinants of Divorce in The Netherlands,” Journal of Marriage and Family 66 (2004):  75-89.

Compared to traditional marriages with stay-at-home mothers who assumed the expressed role of homemaker, nontraditional marriages emphasizing “role-sharing and egalitarianism” were more likely to end in divorce. Alan Booth, and Paul R. Amato, “Parental Gender Role Nontraditionalism and Offspring Outcomes,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 56, (1994):  865-87.

Women who adhere to feminist ideology (participation in women’s liberation groups, using one’s maiden name, voting for far-left political parties, etc.) have a 52 percent higher risk of divorce than do women with traditional values. Matthus Kalmijn, Paul M. De Graaf, Anne-Rigt Poortman, “Interactions Between Cultural and Economic Determinants of Divorce in The Netherlands,” Journal of Marriage and Family 66 (2004):  75-89.

Wives with more traditional sex-role attitudes were less likely to divorce.
Laura Sanchez and Constance Gager, “Hard Living, Perceived Entitlement to a Great Marriage, and Marital Dissolution,” Journal of Marriage and Family 62(2000): 708-722.

 

 

I’m sure you’re not dumb (sure) but you do realize that correlation and causation are not the same thing right? I mean certainly you must know this? No one can be that out of touch with reality right? 

Edited February 3 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Raingirl]

46 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

😩 I'm so sorry, I'm so glad you're out of that situation, horrible. 

Thank you, Tacenda. Had I not had a job at the time, I would have had an even harder time getting out. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

you do realize that correlation and causation are not the same thing right?

Yes of course. But there has been a lot of research that shows that there is not only a correlation between women working and a higher a divorce rate, but that women working is among the causes of the higher divorce rate. To what degree women working causes the higher divorce rate compared to other causes is disputed by various researchers. Older research tends to hold that women working is a major factor in causing the higher divorce rate, while newer research tends dispute this by pointing to other possible factors that weren't fully explored in past studies. 

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Buckwheat said:

What are you referring to when you say "women typically do on a daily basis?" What profession or task?

I am wondering if you see it as probable that there would be little change to that lifestyle if the contribution of women had always been limited to caring for children and only children up to puberty.  That men fed, clothed, and otherwise completely cared for themselves and for their work.

Do you believe that these men would have had the same ability to contribute if the women in their lives were absent (even single men are often supported by women cooking and cleaning for them and otherwise freeing up their time and minds to work on inventing, etc.)?  If men’s lives were completely independent of women once birthed, do you believe progress to this cushy lifestyle we have would possible?  If we removed women from the work force, do you believe quality of life would be able to be maintained. 

It is only a correlation, but countries whose primary culture significantly restricts women to the home typically does not have as cushy of a general lifestyle as those who have women active in the public sphere. 

Would mankind still be hunters/gatherers without women inventing agriculture?  Talk about contributing to a cushy lifestyle. 
 

Mankind has been around for 200,000 years in its present biological form, only the last 12,000 of it included agriculture. It is not that hard to imagine a delay of 12,000 years.  Without agriculture, how many of those inventions would have ever taken place?

Edited February 3 by Calm

[Grug the Neanderthal]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

The divorce rate has been going down for decades, even as the number of women in the workforce has increased.

It’s true that statistically the divorce has been going down the past few years, but this is very misleading. The rate is going down statistically due to the fact that people are cohabiting much more and then when they split up it’s not recorded as a divorce. 

https://time.com/5434949/divorce-rate-children-marriage-benefits/

[BlueDreams]

5 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

This is not true. Only one person even acknowledged having opened the link and looking at it, which was bluedreams. However, she didn't discuss the evidence that it contained, she just dismissed it out of hand because it was a compellation of information from studies and not an actual study and because she claimed that the information was "outdated." None of these are valid reasons for dismissing it out of hand. This is nothing more than a very weak attempt at deflecting and trying to avoid having to address the actual evidence. 

Here are some quotes from the sources that you claim don't support my claim that women working leads to a higher divorce rate:

1.)A study from the Netherlands consistently found that the more hours the husband works, and the less hours the wife works [paid employment], the less likely they were to divorce.  “[L]ow marital interaction time does not explain the destabilizing influence of a wife’s working hours.” Anne-Rigt Poortman, “How Work Affects Divorce:  The Mediating Role of Financial and Time Pressures, “Journal of Family Issues 26 (2005):  168-195. 

2) Dutch scholars report that “full-time working women have 29% higher odds of divorce than nonworking women.”  On the opposite side, “the more hours the husband works, the less likely a divorce.” Matthus Kalmijn, Paul M. De Graaf, Anne-Rigt Poortman, “Interactions Between Cultural and Economic Determinants of Divorce in The Netherlands,” Journal of Marriage and Family 66 (2004):  75-89.

3.)Compared to traditional marriages with stay-at-home mothers who assumed the expressed role of homemaker, nontraditional marriages emphasizing “role-sharing and egalitarianism” were more likely to end in divorce. Alan Booth, and Paul R. Amato, “Parental Gender Role Nontraditionalism and Offspring Outcomes,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 56, (1994):  865-87.

Women who adhere to feminist ideology (participation in women’s liberation groups, using one’s maiden name, voting for far-left political parties, etc.) have a 52 percent higher risk of divorce than do women with traditional values. Matthus Kalmijn, Paul M. De Graaf, Anne-Rigt Poortman, “Interactions Between Cultural and Economic Determinants of Divorce in The Netherlands,” Journal of Marriage and Family 66 (2004):  75-89.

4.)Wives with more traditional sex-role attitudes were less likely to divorce.
Laura Sanchez and Constance Gager, “Hard Living, Perceived Entitlement to a Great Marriage, and Marital Dissolution,” Journal of Marriage and Family 62(2000): 708-722.

 

 

sigh...fine I looked at them. 4 out of 5 more in depth. 1 Was under a paywall. And the other 4 are really 3 articles....the quote one of the articles twice. I'm only willing to do this once...luckily since this is all the research you've given, that's pretty easy to do. For ease, I've numbered the different articles in blue to ID them from here one out. 

There is of course overarching problems with all of them. Some that were obvious to me just at a glance. For one, all of them are OLD. I mentioned this before, but in social science terms, these are positively ancient. As a general rule of thumb, when doing research I at best quoted 20 year old research for facts that had some staying power and very very rarely. Factors around reasons for divorce do not stay consistent, so I wouldn't quote any of this for more than one quote and/or to show historical understanding and evolution in research. Anything over 10 years old when writing a research paper was usually best not added for exploring recent trends. So none of this touches the most recent numbers to marry (millennials) and thus the bulk of most recent divorces and marital trends....which are both different from their predecessors on several fronts. Another weakness all of these had: None of these are meta-analysis. Meta-analyses are research that takes the body of research on a subject and synthesizes them to get overarching trends. Without that, what you have research wise is basically small data points....snap shots of the small population they study at the time they did and with the questions they had. In terms of research, these smaller studies are needed, but aren't great for making lofty claims like the site are making. And all of these are still correlative. Very little research in the social sciences are more causal...it's inferences based off of analysis and stats work. Lastly: All research is nuanced with very very caveated points, whereas the claims quoted and used were edited to give a very solid assertion. In almost all of these quotes there were important parts left out that reduce the potency of the initial message. I had one more point. But it's getting late and my brain is like a sieve. This in and of itself was enough for me to dismiss the work as these are really big problems. But I'll continue.

2 of these were a little more problematic.

#3 is about 30 years old. This means it would not only exclude all millenials and gen z and most of gen x, because they were all too young or not born. It's not at all translatable to the current era in divorce, particularly when reading parts of #4 or 2 I believe, that noted that traditional/non-trad attitudes were becoming less and less indicative over time in research.

#2 showed a bias in its wording. As mentioned, most research is tentative and quickly acknowleges where more research is needed and the limitations to their research. #2 was defensive, recognizing their potential limitations but quickly noting why they didn't think these limitations were significant or concerning. Some of the argumentation is really weak. For example, when discussing using behaviors from a feminist ideology (participation in women’s liberation groups, using one’s maiden name, voting for far-left political parties, etc), it poo-poos the problem that behavior is not always a good indication of ideology. But it ignores that these behaviors may indicate a very extreme end of an ideology and miss larger numbers with more moderate egalitarian views. For example, I consider myself a feminist....yet I've never participated in a women's lib group, gleefully got rid of my maiden name, and vote left of center to strong left but probably not the dutch definition of far left.  In other words, I'd likely not have been included in their assessment of women who adhere to feminist and/or egalitarian ideals in marriage. That's a big hole and not only does it dismiss, but it also shows a major blindspot, where a feminist becomes an extreme activist caricature.  Still, even with 2, the actual paper is still more nuanced than the 2 quotes from it. 

For example it mentions this: 

Quote

Our analyses also show that the cultural aspects of women’s and men’s roles should not be overlooked. Women with traditional value orientations toward family roles are less likely to divorce than are women with modern values, even after taking into account differences in the degree of specialization in market resources. The most important finding, however, is that the disruptive effects of women’s labor market resources depend on cultural values. Although wife’s labor force participation increases the probability of divorce for women with a traditional value orientation, there is no destabilizing effect of wife’s work for women with more egalitarian attitudes

 Note, the first part is in line with the quotes taken. BUT, the second half that they stat is most important strongly indicates that Women work effect is mitigated by the value orientation. Have more feminist or egalitarian values, and the role of work outside the home disappears. That means it's the values, not the factor of work that's a more important determinate to whether women working will be a problem in the marriage. This research also iterates more than once that it often conflicts with american research into this topis and is likely not universal in correlation/effects. Kinda a biggie, since most of us are not dutch.

#1) is so much more nuanced than this quote to the point that the quote is almost moot. For one the work a man does was more a stand in for financial stabiilty, since most male work paid more. Because this is a dutch study the average hours for men were around 39 hours. And when male work was sussed out, it's most important factor wasn't the hours, it was the financial stability they generally represented. Overtime or working too many hours was tied to both likelihood of some financial stressors and less marital time (neither good in terms of divorce). Because it was so indirect on the last part, it's not really mentioned in the conclusion even though it's clearly in her summary of the results...it's  assumed that because its indirect it's probably a weak factor or not-significant. I'm not sure why she started off her conclusion with such an oversimplistic statement that was what was then quote, as the bulk of the work was far far more nuanced. Likewise women's work, that was in efforts to try and pick up the slack of men's work often indicated financial stress. But this isn't discussed at all in the conclusion. Which is just weird. But since it wasn't tied to her hypothesis I guess she didn't find it important to include it(?)  

#4 is a little laughable in how oversimplified chopped this quote was. ALL of their hypotheses would come back with mixed support from their results and most of their research had nothing to do with traditional values or work....morereso hardships and their effects on marriage. This also ignores half the finding on what it quoted. Yes women's traditional views were correlated with lower divorce BUT men's traditional views were correlated with higher divorce. It gives a few potential reasons for this. I'd note that men struggled more with even minor disagreements in this research and women held less traditionalist views at this point in the research. Meaning if reality entailed flexibility, men would struggle with changes in roles moreso than women would. Women were more likely to let go of inequalities (ie have more values flexibility) as long as overall happiness in the relationship was there. 

This would be plenty for me to eyeroll the use of the research to bolster a point. Most of the research mentioned wasn't really trying to bolster the points being made. 

But while googling, I found another article that popped up from 2011 (just a few years older than the youngest article....I assume it referenced one of these articles, cuz I didn't purposely search for it) that actually directly studied work and how it effected decisions to leave a marriage. Here's part of the abstract:

Quote

We assess who left using each ex-spouse’s answer to a question that asked who had wanted the breakup more. We find that when men are not employed, either husbands or wives are more likely to leave. When wives report better than average marital satisfaction, their employment affects neither their nor their husbands’ exits. However, when wives report below average marital satisfaction, their employment makes it more likely that they will leave. 

In other words, as long as the marriage was happy women working had no effect on the marriage. 

 It also gives a really important illustration why pointing to just one research article...or even 4, is not enough to get a good picture of actual trend:

Quote

Most studies take whether or not the couple divorced as the dependent variable, failing to distinguish between divorces initiated by women and by men. Divorce has generally been found to be more likely when men’s earnings are lower (Hoffman and Duncan 1995; South and Lloyd 1995) or declining (Weiss and Willis 1997). In contrast, findings on the effects of women’s earnings are inconsistent. Some studies find that women’s earnings are positively related to divorce (Cherlin 1979; Heckert, Nowak, and Snyder 1998; Hiedemann, Suhomlinova, and O’Rand 1998; Moore and Waite 1981; Ono 1998; Rogers 2004; Ross and Sawhill 1975; Spitze and South 1985), especially when men’s earnings are lower (Heckert et al. 1998; Ono 1998), but others find no effect of women’s earnings (Greenstein 1995; Hoffman and Duncan 1995; Mott and Moore 1979; Sayer and Bianchi 2000; South and Lloyd 1995; Tzeng and Mare 1995), and a few suggest that women’s earnings, like men’s, stabilize marriage (Greenstein 1990; Hoffman and Duncan 1995; and for changes in earnings, Weiss and Willis 1997). Cooke’s (2006) analysis finds that, in the U.S., relative to dual earner couples in which the husband earns as much or more than the wife, the probability of divorce is elevated by either a traditional arrangement where the man but not the woman is employed and he does little housework, or a nontraditional arrangement in which the wife earns more than the husband.

 

And why more recent research can shift the picture on divorce and marital satisfaction research:

Quote

Women’s employment has been theorized to produce unhappy marriages, and data gathered before 1970 offered some support for this assumption, but more recent studies do not find that women’s employment, per se, reduces marital happiness (Rogers 1999; Spitze 1988). Indeed, a recent study by Schoen, Rogers, and Amato (2006) that uses longitudinal data finds that couples have a lower risk of divorce when the wife remains in or transitions into full-time employment between survey waves. Moreover, they found that wives’ full-time employment had no association with changes in either spouse’s assessments of marital satisfaction. Men’s nonemployment, by contrast, is associated with lower satisfaction for both partners (Conger, Rueter, and Elder 1999).

 

And it digs more into why women who are employed are more likely to leave a marriage. What really shouldn't be a surprise, it's because the marriages were already unhappy or dissatisfying ones and it gave greater abilty to vacate. It also pointed to the fact that because women more quickly shifted views around traditional roles to ones more flexible and egalitarian than men, it meant that men's more traditional views often ended up being a stumbling block to better compromise and thus satisfaction in the home-work balance. Women working had no effect on if a man called it quits. Here's the full paragraphs so you don't have to take my summaries for it:

Quote

One of the biggest changes in marriage over recent decades has been the rise of women’s employment. The theories considered all imply that women’s employment makes it more likely that women will leave marriages (Table 1), though the mechanisms differ. In the view of marriage as a gendered institution, the idea is that there is less social support for staying in the marriage when it transgresses the cultural norm that women will be homemakers. (The same prediction flows from Becker’s perspective, but not because women’s employment violates norms, but because it implies fewer specialization gains in production.) The institutionalist view does not see the elevation of odds of leaving from employment to be limited to cases of marital dissatisfaction; rather women’s employment undermines the rationale for marriage even if emotional quality is high. In contrast, the “women’s independence effect” posited by the bargaining/exchange view posits that resources from employment make an exit from marriage possible with less fall in economic status, but we have no reason to think that being able to support oneself well outside the marriage will motivate divorce unless marital satisfaction is low. Our finding about the effects of women’s employment on their own exits and its interaction with marital dissatisfaction fits the prediction made by bargaining/exchange theory: women’s employment doesn’t encourage exit for those more satisfied with their marriage than average, but among those with a dimmer assessment of the marriage, employment ups the odds of leaving (Figure 1). Why do these women use their resources to leave rather than to exchange or bargain to change the marriage to be more to their liking? We suggested that the asymmetric nature of gender change is such that bargaining (“voice”) is particularly difficult if women want men to take on some of the traditionally female tasks such as housework or routine child care. The devaluation of everything associated with women makes it stigmatizing for men to make these changes and leads to their resistance. If this is part of what women would otherwise bargain for, the exit alternative is more likely because the bargain is unlikely to be struck. Overall, the asymmetry of gender change leads women’s resources to be more usable as “exit” than “voice.”

What about the effects of women’s employment on men’s exit? The institutionalist perspective predicts that men (or women) are more likely to leave if women are employed because the marriage violates gender norms and thus receives less social support. (The economic specialization model has the same prediction but for a different reason: because women’s employment entails an absence of specialization that is seen to lower the productivity gains of marriage and hence the material motive for staying married.) Bargaining/exchange predicts the opposite—that men are less likely to leave employed wives because they will lose their share of her income if they leave (see Table 1). In fact, contrary to either of these predictions, we find that their wives’ employment has no effect, either positive or negative, on men’s exits. Why is this? It is possible that both described mechanisms operate, so that the predicted positive and negative effects just cancel. Alternatively, considering today’s forms of gender inequality helps us see both predictions as less feasible. The bargaining prediction is weakened by recognizing that, even though most wives are employed, women’s earnings are low, absolutely and relative to men’s, reducing their power to provide an economic motivation for husbands to stay. Moreover, men may still believe that having power over a woman is to be preferred to being able to share her earnings. As for the institutionalist prediction, while marriage is still a gendered institution, women’s employment has become so standard that it is hard to imagine that it violates norms or makes couples and their networks question whether this “looks like a marriage,” particularly when wives continue to uphold normative expectations for doing most household labor. As for why nonspecialization does not lessen the gains for marriage sufficiently to encourage men’s exit, as Becker claims, we suggest that modern marriages are simply not held to an “efficiency in production” standard. All this helps explain why men with employed wives are no more likely to leave than are men married to homemakers.

 

If I wanted to I'm sure I could find even more papers that indicate a nuanced view that's largely unsupportive of your claims. But I did what you wanted. I analyzed these articles, looked at them, and still find your website of evidence extremely wanting. In short, this isn't good enough to bolster to claims. Far from it.

 (link to last article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3347912/ )

With luv,

BD

Edited February 3 by BlueDreams

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

It’s true that statistically the divorce has been going down the past few years, but this is very misleading. The rate is going down statistically due to the fact that people are cohabiting much more and then when they split up it’s not recorded as a divorce. 

https://time.com/5434949/divorce-rate-children-marriage-benefits/

So women are causing too much divorce and not marrying enough?

Okay, I have a suggestion. Encourage women to all marry each other. These sapphic marriages won’t produce children so the disintegrating families that harm children won’t happen. Problem solved.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

7 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

sigh...fine I looked at them.

Thank you. 

7 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I analyzed these articles, looked at them, and still find your website of evidence extremely wanting.

I'm not at all surprised that you find the evidence wanting. As a self proclaimed feminist who works outside the home, you are ideologically opposed to the conclusions reached. This makes your analysis highly biased. I would suspect that if I provided 20 or more studies that support my claim, you would still have the same attitude towards each one, looking for any way possible to dismiss the findings. 

In any event, I find the justifications you provided for dismissing the evidence I shared extremely wanting. I will address a couple of them.

7 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

For one, all of them are OLD. I mentioned this before, but in social science terms, these are positively ancient.

7 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Anything over 10 years old when writing a research paper was usually best not added for exploring recent trends. So none of this touches the most recent numbers to marry (millennials) and thus the bulk of most recent divorces and marital trends....which are both different from their predecessors on several fronts.

7 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

#3 is about 30 years old. This means it would not only exclude all millenials and gen z and most of gen x, because they were all too young or not born.

The first problem with the claim that the research I cited is too old, is that I wasn't referring exclusively to recent trends. I was actually referring primarily to what caused the spike in divorces in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. My conclusion is that married women joining the workforce was a major contributing factor in causes the huge spike in the divorce rate and I can point to a lot more studies than the handful listed on this one website to support my view. 

See for example: 

"Numerous studies find that marital transitions are influenced by women's "economic independence" (e.g., Honig 1974; Sawhill et al., 1975; Wolf 1977; Hannan, et al. 1977, 1978; Ross and Sawhill, 1975; Cherlin 1979; D'Amico 1983; Booth et al. 1984; Hoffman et al. 1991)." https://cde.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/839/2019/02/cde-working-paper-1992-28.pdf

"Women’s labor force participation has been increasing across all industrialized economies for at least half a century. Over the same period, rates of marital dissolution have also risen. In response to these trends, social observers have become increasingly interested in the effects of women’s social and economic independence on divorce. A first line of research, based upon the dominant male breadwinner/female career economic model of the family, has hypothesized that women’s employment represents a potent force that is driving divorce rates up (see Hobson 1990; Kalmijn and Poortman 2006; Ruggles 1997; Schoen et al. 2002)." https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol38/37/38-37.pdf

So even if we were to say that the older research can't be used to explain current trends, it most certainly can be used to explain former trends. And I believe that the increased divorce rate and other breakdowns in the family in the 60, 70s, 80s, and 90s had a major impact on shaping the world today. The current generation is seeing the negative effects of divorce and other breakdowns in the family from the previous generation. I believe (and can produce research to support this) that the high rate of divorces during the previous generation has led to the high rate of cohabitation today. This makes the fact that statistically the divorce rate has dropped some in recent years very misleading. And studies show that families with cohabiting parents are generally far less stable than those with married parents. 

7 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

In other words, as long as the marriage was happy women working had no effect on the marriage.

Not sure what point you are trying to make here. Of course for married couples who report being happy, the results will show that the "women working had no effect on the marriage." How about we ask the married couples who aren't happy or got divorced about what impact the wife working had on the marriage? 

7 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

And it digs more into why women who are employed are more likely to leave a marriage. What really shouldn't be a surprise, it's because the marriages were already unhappy or dissatisfying ones and it gave greater abilty to vacate.

This is a far too simplistic conclusion. To use your words, there's definitely much more nuance here. I'm sure that there's truth to this, but to what degree women working leads to an increase in the divorce rate because they were already unhappy or dissatisfied in their marriages compared to what degree women working causes or increases the unhappiness and dissatisfaction in marriage is probably impossible to say. To say that women are more likely to leave marriages solely because their "marriages were already unhappy or dissatisfying ones" would not be accurate. 

And even if we were to conclude that this the main reason (which I dispute), it's really irrelevant to my point, which is that wives working significantly contributes to the higher divorce rate. Even if it's only because wives working "gave [them] greater abilty to vacate." Married women having greater ability to vacate because they are working, means that they are less likely to try to stay and work things out in their marriages, causing an increase in the divorce rate and the breakdown of the family. Which is 100% in line with what I claimed about women working being a major cause of the divorce rate spiking. 

Edited February 3 by Grug the Neanderthal

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I'm not at all surprised that you find the evidence wanting. As a self proclaimed feminist who works outside the home, you are ideologically opposed to the conclusions reached. This makes your analysis highly biased. I would suspect that if I provided 20 or more studies that support my claim, you would still have the same attitude towards each one, looking for any way possible to dismiss the findings. 

In any event, I find the justifications you provided for dismissing the evidence I shared extremely wanting.

Are you seriously trying to cast yourself as some objective neutral party while others are biased and thus can be dismissed? Or do you accept that you (and your garbage source) are equally biased and thus also subject to curt dismissal?

Sawing off the branch you are standing on shows you aren’t very good at this argument thing.

[Peacefully]

5 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Thank you. 

I'm not at all surprised that you find the evidence wanting. As a self proclaimed feminist who works outside the home, you are ideologically opposed to the conclusions reached. This makes your analysis highly biased. I would suspect that if I provided 20 or more studies that support my claim, you would still have the same attitude towards each one, looking for any way possible to dismiss the findings. 

In any event, I find the justifications you provided for dismissing the evidence I shared extremely wanting. I will address a couple of them.

The first problem with the claim that the research I cited is too old, is that I wasn't referring exclusively to recent trends. I was actually referring primarily to what caused the spike in divorces in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. My conclusion is that married women joining the workforce was a major contributing factor in causes the huge spike in the divorce rate and I can point to a lot more studies than the handful listed on this one website to support my view. 

See for example: 

"Numerous studies find that marital transitions are influenced by women's "economic independence" (e.g., Honig 1974; Sawhill et al., 1975; Wolf 1977; Hannan, et al. 1977, 1978; Ross and Sawhill, 1975; Cherlin 1979; D'Amico 1983; Booth et al. 1984; Hoffman et al. 1991)." https://cde.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/839/2019/02/cde-working-paper-1992-28.pdf

"Women’s labor force participation has been increasing across all industrialized economies for at least half a century. Over the same period, rates of marital dissolution have also risen. In response to these trends, social observers have become increasingly interested in the effects of women’s social and economic independence on divorce. A first line of research, based upon the dominant male breadwinner/female career economic model of the family, has hypothesized that women’s employment represents a potent force that is driving divorce rates up (see Hobson 1990; Kalmijn and Poortman 2006; Ruggles 1997; Schoen et al. 2002)." https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol38/37/38-37.pdf

So even if we were to say that the older research can't be used to explain current trends, it most certainly can be used to explain former trends. And I believe that the increased divorce rate and other breakdowns in the family in the 60, 70s, 80s, and 90s had a major impact on shaping the world today. The current generation is seeing the negative effects of divorce and other breakdowns in the family from the previous generation. I believe (and can produce research to support this) that the high rate of divorces during the previous generation has led to the high rate of cohabitation today. This makes the fact that statistically the divorce rate has dropped some in recent years very misleading. And studies show that families with cohabiting parents are generally far less stable than those with married parents. 

Not sure what point you are trying to make here. Of course for married couples who report being happy, the results will show that the "women working had no effect on the marriage." How about we ask the married couples who aren't happy or got divorced about what impact the wife working had on the marriage? 

This is a far too simplistic conclusion. To use your words, there's definitely much more nuance here. I'm sure that there's truth to this, but to what degree women working leads to an increase in the divorce rate because they were already unhappy or dissatisfied in their marriages compared to what degree women working causes or increases the unhappiness and dissatisfaction in marriage is probably impossible to say. To say that women are more likely to leave marriages solely because their "marriages were already unhappy or dissatisfying ones" would not be accurate. 

And even if we were to conclude that this the main reason (which I dispute), it's really irrelevant to my point, which is that wives working significantly contributes to the higher divorce rate. Even if it's only because wives working "gave [them] greater abilty to vacate." Married women having greater ability to vacate because they are working, means that they are less likely to try to stay and work things out in their marriages, causing an increase in the divorce rate and the breakdown of the family. Which is 100% in line with what I claimed about women working being a major cause of the divorce rate spiking. 

How passive-aggressive can you get? You want BD to analyze your evidence, she reluctantly does so (taking up her valuable time, I might add), then you tear down her conclusions. You have no leg to stand on. Give it up for God’s sake so we can all go on with our lives.