Over at Slate, Steven Landsburg has a piece on the finding that the parents of daughters are more likely to divorce than the parents of sons:
In the United States, the parents of a girl are nearly 5 percent more likely to divorce than the parents of a boy. The more daughters, the bigger the effect: The parents of three girls are almost 10 percent more likely to divorce than the parents of three boys.
The article goes through a number of mechanisms that might explain the difference, though none are entirely convincing. The language of the article is egalitarian, talking mainly about the preferences of parents. But two of the three hypotheses put forward suggest that the preferences of the father drive the outcome rather than those of the mother. More importantly, the emphasis on parental preferences is ultimately a bit restricting.
We don’t have much formal evidence about parents’ actual motives or preferences, so Landsburg suggests three supporting bits of evidence to support the hypothesis that parents do in fact have a preference for sons. First,
divorced women with girls are substantially less likely to remarry than divorced women with boys, suggesting that daughters are a liability in the market for a husband.
This says that fathers don’t like marrying women with daughters. The inference is that fathers prefer to have sons. Second,
parents of girls are quite a bit more likely to try for another child than parents of boys, which suggests that there are more parents hoping for sons than for daughters.
This one could apply to both parents in principle. Finally,
Take a typical unmarried couple who are expecting a child and have an ultrasound, which more often than not reveals the child’s sex. It turns out that such couples are more likely to get married if the child is a boy. Apparently, for unmarried fathers, the prospect of living with a wife and a son is more alluring than the prospect of living with a wife and a daughter.
Here the father’s preference is driving things again. Yet Landsburg concludes:
But the most natural way to interpret their data is that parents, on average, prefer boys to girls.
Two of the three bits of evidence presented concern the choices of fathers. The five per cent difference in divorce rates between the two kinds of families is not huge. The most natural way to interpret the data, it seems to me, is that most American parents manage perfectly well with children of either sex, but there are enough fathers with a sufficiently strong bias against daughters to tip the divorce ratio in the direction shown by the data.
Inferring motives from aggregate patterns is a difficult business. My own bias is against treating explanations of that sort as final. Landsburg himself brings up other countries — like China and India — where the killing of daughters is common. But of course talking in terms of preferences misses the bigger picture. People in these countries don’t just happen to prefer sons so much that they’ll kill their daughters. In these societies, property, status and social mobility are tightly integrated with patriarchal gender relations. Family wealth and position are much more difficult to manage when you have daughters rather than sons. Individual preferences are generated in the context of institutionalized gender relations that are tied to other sources of social power. That’s what patriarchy is all about.[1]
A natural comparative hypothesis, therefore, would be that the divorce rate for parents of daughters tends to converge with that for parents of sons as gender discrimination (e.g., in the labor market) declines. The idea is that there’s no need to have a bias for boys when daughters and sons can do equally well. It’d be tricky to study, because divorce rates differ for other reasons, but I’d say you could at least compare many OECD countries in this way.
A different way to approach the question — restricting ourselves to the narrow question of individual preferences again — would be to allow parents to choose the sex of their babies and see what happens. This may be on the cards, at least if the engagingly-named Microsort Corporation continue to improve their methods. As it happens, most of the people who avail of Microsort’s services want to have a girl. (This may be due to the success rates of the method itself.) I heard about this company at a talk by a biologist who was arguing that in the future, rational parents will invest in the genetic endowment of their children (height, IQ, looks, etc) in the same way they invest in their education today, and for the same reasons — to maximise the return on their investment in terms of the child’s earning potential. I asked him why rational parents would ever choose to have a girl, given what we know about gender and the wage gap but he seemed to have trouble grasping the premise of the question.
[1] If the word “patriarchy” gives you hives, well, tough shite. In any event, go read Gerry Mackie’s “Ending Footbinding and Infibulation: A Convention Account”, American Sociological Review 1996 v.61 pp.999-1017 for an elegant treatment of one issue in this area from a rational-choice perspective. [J-STOR link.]
Actually, you could interpret the two points as the mother preferring not to marry present opportunities with a daughter while they would with a son. So it could be mothers of daughters are more picky when it comes to mates.
Yes, I’d have to agree somewhat with Rob. I’d think a woman might have “higher standards” for the kind of people she would allow near her young or teen-aged daughters — both from the protection point of view and from the competition point of view.
Alternately, from a man’s perspective, if you find a woman you’re interested in has young sons about to enter puberty, that’s not too big a deal. On the other hand, many, many, many men I know are very uncomfortable around young or adolescent girls just because of the “what if they say I touched them?” factor. It isn’t that they “prefer” boys so much, it’s more that they feel more at risk for charges of abuse with a girl.
Your patriarchy explanation sounds dead on to me. I wonder what happens to the effect of daughter when one controls for immigrant status or adds an interaction effect of immigrant status X daughter. The argument would be that people immigrating from a country with rigid patriarchal gender relations are more likely to see a daughter’s birth as unfavorable.
An alternative hypothesis is that couples under a lot of stress—those likely to get divorced—are more likely to have daughters. I elaborate on this a bit at:
http://www.rtfm.com/movabletype/archives/2003_10.html#000502
As a mother of two boys, I’m somewhat comforted by that study. Other studies have shown that women who have boys have shorter life spans than women who have girls. I might die sooner, but I’ll still be married.
Maybe parents of boys are too exhausted to fool around.
Who decided only Daddy has a choice in marriage/divorce situations?
To spin Rob’s point a bit further, Mommy might decide little Johnny needs a father more than little Joanne. Mommy might decide she doesn’t want to raise a son alone. Mommy might know that sons are more likely to die in before twenty, and want an experienced hand about to guide them through the most dangerous years. Note that these don’t necessarily need to be true, Mommy just has to believe it.
Divorce would then require more cause, Mommy might be a little more likely to marry Daddy.
This doesn’t explain the pattern of trying to have children after having girls, but the pattern could just as easily be stated as “Parents who have boys STOP trying to have more children”. This could be preference, or it could be the reality of having one of the little terrors scares parents off. If Laura is correct and male children shorten lifespan, there must be a mechanism, and that mechanism might be noticible by the parents early.
Of course, the mechanism might be the boy children learning to drive. One never knows.
I can’t quibble with the studies numbers, but the interpretation seems to be a case of the researchers finding exactly what they were looking for from the beginning.
Landsburg himself brings up other countries — like China and India — where the killing of daughters is common.
I wouldn’t put it this way. Female infanticide is quite common in specific communities in India, and occurs much less commonly in a larger number of communities.
And my understanding is that it is most common in those subaltern communities which are ‘sanskritizing’, i.e. adopting elite mores that elite communities have themselves discarded. This emphasizes status rather than just the economic benefits to having sons.
As an interesting aside to the point made in the article that people tend to prefer to have boys, women in general express a preference for adopting girls,and single women more frequently have adopted girls than boys.
http://adoption.about.com/library/specials/blcensus2000e.htm
I think you’ll find that Dr John Gray has documented pretty conclusively that men are from Mars and women are from Venus. Clearly, something more than patriarchy is at play here, a point inexplicably not addressed by this research.
Men and Women both may believe that women can best raise daughters and men can bet raise sons. That would explain a lot of the survey results.
My own two theories:
1.) Men tend to spend more time with male children. Women tend to stay married to (and get married to, in the case of a single or divorced mother) men that they perceive to be a better father. Thus, because men interact more with their (actual or potential) sons, they appear to be better parents, and thus, more attractive to their spouses or potential spouses.
2.) Women communicate better with their female children. One of the reasons that otherwise unhappy women do not get divorced is a fear of loneliness. That fear is abated if a daughter is present. Thus, women are less likely to stay married.
Conversely, it could just be a holdover from developing societies, with immigrants skewing the otherwise neutral U.S. results.
Tim: Your point seems to miss one of the main findings in this study. While the effect of daughters on divorce is present in the U.S., it is relatively small compared to other countries. In Vietnam, parents of a daughter are 25% more likely to divorce. Cross-national differences in this effect suggest that it may be related to societal-level differences in gender institutionalization, or perhaps you would argue that Vietnamese women and men are even more dissimilar than in the U.S. Or perhaps Vietnamese women and men are from different galaxies?
What’s wrong with the following hypothesis? Girl children provide better for their parents in old age; they give more care, ore more likely to live near their aging parent, and are more likely to give financial support (and divert their spouse’s income to this end, so their own lack of earning power is not an issue). If mothers know that they are more likely to get support in old age (when they’ll need it) they have less need to stick with otherwise unsatisfactory partners, and the threshold of acceptability for aspirant subsequent partners gets higher.
This explanation works at least as well, if not better, when girls have slightly worse economic prospects than boys. It also explains why parents choose girls rather than boys when they can select sex (though there are other explanations of this — people know that girls are easier than boys in the early years; they are more fun to dress up, etc).
What about men? They prefer boys, maybe, but 1) they have better financial expectations on divorce than women and 2) they expect to repartner and get emotional and caring support from younger partners, and to predecease their partner, so anticipate having less need of support from their children.
What kind of parent invests in his or her child’s education to maximize the child’s earning potential, and how is that investment rational?
I want my children to be well educated so they can live a good life—and not just in a material sense.
I don’t expect my children to support me, any more than I support my parents. Social insurance schemes and private savings generally provide for those needs now, which suggests that the “rational” thing is to forego having children, letting other people do all the work while still sharing in their gain.
Luckily, life isn’t rational in that narrow sense.
As an explanation for why parents who use Microsort often aim for girls, don’t forget that many genetic disorders are sex-linked. As common as sociocultural preferences for boys are, even in oh-so-enlightened contemporary America, it’s still officially frowned upon to medically manipulate conception or pregnancy just as a matter of personal preference for a son. Sex-selection places tend to market themselves to prospective parents who know that it’s genetically risky to have a child of a particular sex — and, although I could be wrong about this, I think there are more known problems linked to the Y chormosome (perhaps because w/X-linked traits, since every girl has 2 X choromosomes, she could end up being merely a carrier of Syndrome A, whereas any son would automatically exhibit Syndrome B if it’s carried on his father’s Y chromosome? Help me — it’s been years since I studied genetics).
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review