> “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.

It's pure speculation: no data, no model, nothing. But even if dr. Kabatek is right, it only takes a fraction of the fathers to obtain that 1.8% difference. You can't really explain such small differences with sweeping explanations (raising daughters is more stressful than raising sons, abortion of sons conceived into tenuous marriages, or your mother/daughter friction) without adding many, many more factors that mitigate them.

And let's not forget that the data is difficult to interpret. The (preprint of the) article's abstract even starts like this:

> Evidence from the U.S. that couples with daughters are more likely to divorce than couples with sons has not been found for other Western countries.

"between the ages 13 and 18, parents of first-born girls divorce more than parents of first-born boys. The odds of divorce within this period are 10.7% for parents of boys, and 11.3% for parents of girls." https://theconversation.com/parents-of-teenage-daughters-mor...

There are 2 ways of spinning this. 10.7% to 11.3% is only a 0.6% increase in "absolute" terms. In "relative" terms it's a 5.6% increase, but that sounds worse than it really is. If you start with a very small number, then almost any increase no matter how small represents a significant increase in relative percentage.

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

The alternative way to look at it is that 89.3% vs. 88.7% don't divorce, which makes it a relative difference of 0.7%.

The do-divorce is a 5.6% increase, and the don't-divorce is a 0.7%; both are derived from the very same numbers.

There's also the dubious assumption that increasing the divorce rate is a bad thing. Kids can sometimes suffer more from an unhappy marriage than from divorce. Especially older kids who are more aware of the situation.

I'm not sure how real the risk of losing all contact with your kids is, however that threat is the only weapon some attorneys know how to use, and it can be incredibly difficult to a) keep your head, remember her attorney has no authority over you and every motivation to put you on tilt, and b) endure the injustices. especially with young children, even week-long absences are painful, and it will put you on tilt. A month, or 3 months, is a lifetime, and it will reduce you to a puddle of tears, and you'll have to learn how to reconstitute yourself, like Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen.

This is why I strongly recommend against marriage until the divorce industry is reformed to provide harsh penalties to any actors (attorneys or parents) that use time-sharing as a tool of torture to extract legal agreements. I would also harshly penalize shunning, and "pile on" behavior that parents friends and family might indulge in, but that's a little harder to control.

So not getting married provides no protection from being involved in those same, potentially endless, ongoing family court cases.

Partner up with someone you love, live with them long enough to be certain you are both in it for the long term (N>3Y, if you need a rough minimum guideline), then consider having a kid or two. It's not effing complicated - happy parents, happy kids. Make sure you dial in the 'happy parents' part before you think about kids. There is no shame in ending a relationship and trying over, and there's no shame in NOT having kids if you aren't sure about the 'happy parents' part.

If you think our society is utterly broken and hopeless, sure, get snipped. On the other hand, if you think you are capable of having stable relationships, raising children is pretty damn magical. Just don't fool yourself into thinking you have a great relationship because you want kids.

Yes, get to know someone before having children. But I'd argue that you should have children with someone that seems like they'll be a good parent even if the relationship is over. Its OK to talk about it upfront, too.

Also, a note about "getting snipped": In some countries (like the US), it is almost impossible for a childless female to get sterilized. "You'll change your mind" "you don't have children, so no" "Why don't we ask your spouse" (these last two happen to men as well). You don't have the right to be sterilized. Other places, you must wait until you are 25, but then everyone - male or female - can get sterilized so long as they can pay for it. So, good luck, poor people.

...and they're particularly likely to change under stress, like perhaps the stress of major lifestyle changes associated with raising kids. Child-related constraints on schedules, travel, and finances often stress relationships that were fine for years before. When those kids become more independent and able to advocate for themselves - which is a good and healthy thing - you have the additional stress of a decision process that used to involve two people involving three or more instead. It's just a different world compared to the couple-without-children state. For some it's a breaking point.

I was 24 when I got a vasectomy and it was probably the single best decision I ever made. Total cost was $800 (I paid cash) and the total time commitment was approximately 90 minutes. I spent less than 30 minutes on an initial consultation, half of which was scheduling the procedure. Another half hour was spent getting the procedure itself. And finally, you'll want to get a test done to ensure the procedure worked as advertised.

I was never asked 'are you really sure?' or 'what about your spouse?' or 'what if you change your mind?'

Edit - Also, it hurts less than my jaw after a trip to the dentist. More of a mild ache than serious 'pain'

If you're curious about getting snipped it is worth a look to see if you qualify.

I wish there was some dashboard or app that you could put your income and other data into and it spits out what government/charity programs you qualify for. I'm sure there are many people out there struggling that qualify for help, but just don't know these programs exist.

There are enough fish in the sea that you do not need to take these characteristics into a marriage.

Find someone that shares your values, your vision of the future and ideally has a similar background to your own - unless you’re the one with the warning signs and are trying to “marry up”.

I don’t mean to diminish the importance of love, attraction, and personality compatibility, but for marriage it’s all that and a bag of chips.

Can you beat the odds? Sure. The point is the aforementioned attributes will make your life much, much harder than it already will be.

However, don’t assume it’s about them, perhaps you’re the one that gets tempted to break things off for one reason or another. Are you happy with all the choices the you of 20 years ago made? Sometimes divorce is a straightforward process where people can remain friends after the fact, but that’s rare as normally someone’s upset.

When I was in college I read a story about a boy who was raped and then the courts required him to pay child support (IIRC the woman was a caregiver in a state facility).

I then read a story about a man who had his child support payments based upon his _SAVINGS_ rather than his income and after he went broken and could no longer make the full payments, went to jail.

I then read about a man who had 3 children with a woman and at some point his wife left him for his best friend. He had all 3 children tested and he was not the father of any of them. The courts still required him to pay child support.

After the 3rd story I decided the risk for me as a male was too great and I would never marry, nor have children.

I've been with my current SO for over 7 years and definitely consider her my life partner, but she understands that:

1. We will never marry, 2. We will never present as married (to protect against common law) 3. We will never have children (she cannot, so this works out for both of us)

---

It's easy to pass men like me off as MRA or disenfranchised or any other number of labels, but the truth is I don't think I've ever been on an MRA site, by all accounts I'm considered successful, and the opportunity has definitely been there.

The truth is I was physically and mentally abused until I left home for college and the result of this experience is that I'm very anti-authoritarian and in general much more guarded against the world than most. Once I realized just how stacked our legal system is against men I chose to protect myself. I just cannot imagine being told I can only see my children on a schedule and having to pay for the right to do so with the threat of jail.

Society pays a very real cost for its decision to treat men so badly. And this is not nearly as uncommon as you think, the ones who have made these sorts of decisions just tend not to talk about it.

Perhaps, rather than dismissing this as a toxic attitude you should endeavor to understand and perhaps help right the very real injustices that happen to men.

In fact, prenups are romantic! Why? Because some marriages are kept together only out of fear of the divorce process. Isn't it better to stay together out of love and affection, rather than fear of the consequences of a messy exit? So yeah: prenup == VERY romantic.

They generally have limited or no influence on custody determinations; in other words, you can’t have a prenup that guarantees joint physical and legal custody or prevents a protracted family law case.

And the other lesser known fact is that prenups themselves can be challenged (and sometimes overturned).

Basically, if there is a will and the funds to litigate, there’s not much the other party can do do prevent this from happening. It will require time, money, expertise, patience and the ability to compromise (even with highly conflicting opinions) to eventually make it out on the other side.

So what can any of us do to avoid this fate without giving up entirely on marriage or kids?

1. Know yourself (at least a little bit) before jumping into marriage and kids. Develop your “whys”, principles and values.

2. Ensure you and your spouse are familiar with the processes and realities of the family law systems. Not just the horror stories but the underlying history, structure and reasons for its design and function.

3. Talk through with your prospective partner about values, goals, responsibilities, wealth, family, parenting, divorce; talk through different scenarios and try to get on the same page about the key components. (Tip: if you can’t agree or compromise even before marriage and kids, it doesn’t bode well!)

Sigh. So much to say here, but most folks have no interest in the subject until it’s too late. Education on this topic should at least be a prerequisite for getting a marriage license! :)

every woman I've ever dated has understood from the beginning that if she ends up pregnant there will paternity tests done.

I've had a few get angry with me, but all of them understood it was going to happen regardless of their feelings.

I've never had a job because I'm worried what it would be like to be unemployed.

Being out of job just gets you back into the same situation you were in before.

Being out of marriage (even more so, marriage with kids) can get you into a much worse situation, financially-, mentally- and emotionally-wise, in comparison to where you were before.

Between 40-50% of US couples divorce[0].

Prior marriages substantially increase the chances of divorce[1].

41% of first marriages end in divorce.

60% of second marriages end in divorce.

73% of third marriages end in divorce.

I'm not against marriage but it's important to understand what's involved.

[0] https://www.apa.org/topics/divorce-child-custody

[1] https://www.wf-lawyers.com/divorce-statistics-and-facts/

Being not married is often utterly meaningless. You will be caught up in the dragnet.

Even in the remaining 6 states you generally have to represent yourselves as married in some context like filing taxes jointly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage_in_the_Uni...

PS: California does accept common law marriages formed in another state.

I was a security guard at a casino and went back day 4. First half of my shift I was ok, but I went home half way through my shift because walking the patrols was becoming a little uncomfortable.

Here is a rather controversial opinion of mine, hope it is not out of place here:

I would highly encourage all men to get a vasectomy and to freeze your sperm. It is the only way to have sexual agency. Once the woman is pregnant, your consent does not matter and you only are along for the ride.

I just want to clarify here, I believe in Her body her choice. I just believe that the man should have this be a choice as well, and this the only option as far as I see. I would like to hear of alternatives if anyone has them.

Even if you feel sure of not wanting kids, freezing sperm is much cheaper then reversing the vasectomy. People change, and so can you.

Then a mild kicked in the balls aching will follow for weeks.

Three hours after my vasectomy I went straight into work, against instruction. I was a pharmacist then so fairly active. The anesthesia wears off an about one hour. I chose not to take any ibuprofen throughout. It was fine. I don't have heroic levels of pain tolerance either.

Still would have gone through with the procedure. 1-2% chance with the vast majority having their pain treated with a second procedure is not enough of a risk to stop me from being in control of my own life.

But still, it would have been nice to be informed of this.

My mother specifically stated that she always intended to leave my father after she had a daughter. The custody hearing was basically "I want the daughter, you keep the house kthxbye". I have a feeling that this is not a special case.

Why did she want to be a single mother?

Why specifically if she had a daughter?

Why not if she had a son?

Was she concerned about your father raising a daughter and she wanted a different man, or different "type" of man, to raise her?

I'm sorry if that is personal and feel free to ignore me, but you did go there. I'm just oftentimes confused about people and their behavior / motivations in life... And this one is up there.

These are all the same question, which is answered "I didn't want the father to be involved with a daughter, after being married to him for a few years, she would be damaged." - my very frank mom, who was a teacher - and I'm her elder son. My mom was never worried about being a single mother.

Of course these questions have been asked, but the answer isn't really interesting. My question is if the conclusion that "daughters cause more instability" vs "mothers have diverse motivation to break a marriage", are the takeaways. I'm not sure that proper consideration was given, as if someone was searching for an answer, since they are pointing to it like it's a proper characterization of the data.

> that “daughter-divorce” risk emerges only in a first-born girl’s teenage years

If a father shows empathy to both there's no reason for him to be put into the crosshairs. If both daughter and mother have a with us or against us attitude that says more about their character than anything else. These issues can be helped with healthier living choices, therapy or medication.

For that matter, dad's have conflicts with their kids too. With both their sons and daughters. Moms have conflicts with their sons too. I don't know why mom daughter conflict is singled out as special here.

Then you didn't read before responding. As I said, there are issues of mothers' vs. fathers' roles, female self-perception, family court, etc. Each combination of mother/father and son/daughter plays out differently. Is it so hard to believe that conflict within one combination might lead to divorce more often than conflict in others? My experience leads me to believe that - through no fault of their own - mother/daughter relationships are more fraught than others. Maybe that's not true, but "they're all the same" is even more clearly not true.