Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Time to bring back the term “feudalism” Previous entry: In defense of the low road

Causation, correlation, controlling for income levels? Screw it.

NPR does a story on a report issued by a group that claims cohabitation is bad for children, because they've found some correlations between cohabitation of parents and bad outcomes for kids in education and some mental health measures, though the measures all sound alarmingly hazy in and of themselves.  What the supposedly "liberal media" NPR fails to mention is that the study authors are fundamentalist Christians who spend their lives constructing poorly reasoned arguments off often-iffy research to make the illogical argument that marriage is a talisman that fixes all problems.

Whenever you see a study touting the supposed benefits of marriage over non-marriage---but especially over cohabitation---it's time to step back and ask two very important questions:

1) How will these research results cause people who are unmarried to become married? 

2) Even if you could wave a magic wand and make the unmarried get married to whoever will have them, will that marriage work as a magic talisman that erases their problems, or will they be the same people with the same outcomes that just happen to wear wedding rings?

In this case, the answer to #1 is, "It can't, because people who don't get married usually have individual reasons not to do so that won't be affected by your research." And the answer to #2 is, "It wouldn't, because getting married doesn't actually make your boss give you a raise, your school improve its educational standards, or your relationship grow in quality."  The only real results of some dramatic surge in pushing people who aren't married into marriages they don't want is that the divorce rate would go up. 

NPR does interview Stephanie Coontz, who makes this point, saying that marriage is a symptom of stability, not the cause. Married people are wealthier, for instance, not because wedding rings shoot out gold but because a lot of people don't feel right getting married until they've achieved economic stability.  But babies tend to come whether you're ready or not because we have a culture that continues to discourage planning when you become a parent---half of pregnancies in this country are unintended.  Since the majority of women who have abortions are already mothers, abortion isn't really as much of a factor in creating a culture where people wait to have babies until they're ready in the same way they to wait to get married until they're ready.  But don't expect the authors of this study to address that, since, yo, patriarchy-loving fundamentalist Christians.

Nona is the one whose blogging pointed out this story to me, and she makes an astute point that people really should meditate on when being lulled by this dishonest research that makes the false claim that correlation of marriage to certain outcomes means causation:

The kicker, a fact that's "a mystery to researchers," is that European cohabitors, who are much more common than their counterparts in the United States, have much more stable home lives.

Oh, I bet it's not really a "mystery", unless by "mystery" you mean "evidence that destroys our entire thesis so we're going to ignore the hell out of it".  Nona explains:

Allow me to clear up the mystery: healthy relationships spawn marriages, not the other way around. Europeans may be even less concerned about making it "official" once their union has proven to be successful and enduring.

The irony here is that the researchers are basically pushing for a situation where people put less effort into making sure their unions are enduring before they make it official.  Which would go a long way indeed towards wiping out the difference between outcomes for cohabitating couples and married couples, but mostly by bringing the outcomes for married couples down. 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 05:04 PM • (37) Comments

I’m sure that higher levels of European domestic stability has nothing to do with their social safety net.  I’m sure that access to medical care and affordable child care regardless of employment or income doesn’t matter.  And there’s no way that accurate sex education could have any effect.  I mean, you’d have to believe that economic circumstances have anything to do with family values, and we can’t possibly believe that.  It’s not like one of the biggest sources of conflict for couples is money or anything.  Oh, or unplanned pregnancies—those never cause conflict.

Comment #1: Kit-Kat  on  08/16  at  05:43 PM

I heard this story on NPR this morning; thanks for clearing it up. I had no idea the researchers were fundies and was wondering to myself how their premise made sense at all. At least they brought in Coontz for a response, but still.

Comment #2: chareth cutestory  on  08/16  at  06:13 PM

Evangelical Christians are all about authoritarian rigor and the vaguely S&M belief that external constraints make you a better person inside, so the results of their “research” are going to reflect that.

It’s not difficult to figure out - unless you feel the need to bend over backwards to make them not look stupid. Why some people feel that need is the tough nut to crack.

Comment #3: RickMassimo  on  08/16  at  06:14 PM

One sentence in I figured separated/divorced couples for whom circumstances wont allow to live separately yet made up the bulk of the study. But the reality was even dumber.

Comment #4: scrumby  on  08/16  at  06:21 PM

And like Death Eaters at the sight of a dark mark, the eharmony ads have heard the call of wedded bliss and descend upon us…

Comment #5: scrumby  on  08/16  at  06:27 PM

NPR:

One study finds a quarter of American women with multiple kids conceived their children with multiple men.

How many men with multiple kids conceived their children with multiple women? Not mentioned. Not important, I suppose.

Also, any time there’s a study like this, I have to go back to the question of social context. Marriage is still the expectation and the norm; even if you’re happily co-habiting like I am, and your entire peer group is doing the same, and you never expect to get married because it’s just not what people do in your circles ... you still have to go back to Grandma’s house every so often and face her wrath for living in sin. When you mention you’ve been with your partner for 11 years, people ask when we’re getting married, and if not, why not. If you mention kids, the horrible spectre of becoming an unwed mother is still trotted out in 2011.

So, in that context, when studies show that kids of non-married parents are less well-adjusted than those of married parents, wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect that at least some of the non-well-adjustedness comes from living in a situation that is outside the “expectation”—the random questions about where is your father, why doesn’t you mother live with you, why do you have a different last name—that would never be asked of kids from married parents. Subtle marginalization. It’s not the marriage or lack thereof; it’s the constant messages that your parents are not normal or good people.

Comment #6: Proboscidea  on  08/16  at  06:30 PM

Yeah, I have some friends who are essentially a married couple with a child, but they can’t make it official because the woman’s abusive ex-husband is dragging his feet about making the divorce official.  They live exactly like a married couple, but don’t have the certificate.  If their daughter ends up with mental health issues, I’m sure her mom’s abusive ex will have more to do with it than the lack of an official marriage.  The daughter has never met this man, but he puts a strain on the family and a scared and stressed out mom isn’t the best situation for her.  And when the divorce is finally finished and the marriage is finally official, the ex will still probably cause as many problems as he possibly can.  He won’t suddenly disappear or become a good person by the magic of official marriage.

Comment #7: bananacat  on  08/16  at  07:07 PM

“I’m sure that higher levels of European domestic stability has nothing to do with their social safety net.  I’m sure that access to medical care and affordable child care regardless of employment or income doesn’t matter.  And there’s no way that accurate sex education could have any effect.”

I’m sure you’re right, that those things have nothing to do with the obscene rates of living-in-sin among godless, socialistic Europeans.  After all, those evil atheists living in Eurabia are sick degenerates; grotesque examples of wretched human existence and living warnings regarding what happens when a society no longer requires religious faith among its people.  So they and their disgusting behavior can be dismissed out of hand.

However, just on the off-chance there might be some sort of relationship between socialism and what is euphemistically called “cohabitation”, that’s another excellent reason we should all support the Republican Party and its valiant struggle to eliminate the entire (liberal) “social safety net” in America.  We can’t have that kind of thing going on in an upstanding Christian nation like the U.S. of A.  Think of the children!...

Comment #8: MikeEss  on  08/16  at  07:26 PM

Most men have economic expectations before committing to marriage. Men are less likely to marry when the economy is in bad shape or they are in one of the out groups that can’t get a family wage job. Cohabitation correlates with lousy job prospects. Lousy job prospects correlate with poorer children with crappier outcomes and poor mental health. The baby boom in the 1950s and 1960s was unexpected, but the war time spending and savings combined with all the pro-labor and pro-veteran legislation after the war led to good job prospects, many marriages and better outcomes. There’s no magic here. If they are serious about encouraging marriage, they should make it economically more feasible.

Comment #9: Kaleberg  on  08/16  at  07:27 PM

Fundies and righties long to return to the 1950s when societal pressure forced marriage on cohabitors, at least from the working class on up (just about everywhere in the states, excepting maybe Greenwich Village.)

In my lower middleclass neighborhood, it was still being called “living in sin” right up through the late ‘60s—not that there was anyone I knew doing such a thing.

Early marriage—some at 16—wasn’t uncommon, but usually tied to “getting in trouble”, i.e., pregnancy.

By the early ‘70s all bets were off.

Comment #10: judybrowni  on  08/16  at  08:52 PM

Mike, you’re bloody scaring me now.  It’s like you’re Judge Dredd, stomping around growling “I AM The Poe’s Law”.

Comment #11: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  08/16  at  09:47 PM

The mental health part of it is also kinda like the homophobe stats about the mental health of LGBT folks. Isn’t it amazing that when you take every opportunity to tell a group of people that they’re scum, beat some of them up and some of them to death, refuse them basic civil rights and force them to live with what are essentially secret identities, members of that group just happen to have mental health issues? Must be about their bad lifestyle choices, certainly nothing to do with the social, political and economic conditions they live under.

I’m more than a little surprised that the researchers don’t just take the european data and “adjust” it by declaring that people who has lived together for more than three years and had children are considered common-law spouses. That would solve their mystery.

Comment #12: paul  on  08/16  at  10:10 PM

The National Marriage Project is mostly right-wingy, but the piece did at least have the second commenter to balance things out.

I think Americans still value marriage in a good way. That must be the case if gay people want to marry. But the second interview was right. Declining marriage is a symptom. You want more people to marry? GTFO of Iraq and Afghanistan. Increase top marginal rates, capital gains, and estate taxes at least to Clinton-era levels. Let payroll taxes go up to higher levels. All these increases should be put in place while maintaining Obama’s “Making Work Pay” worksheet and the pro-business payroll tax holiday for those businesses looking to hire the unemployed. That would do a lot to make our regressive payroll taxes a little more progressive. And there should be a cap on the home mortgage interest deduction. This was intended to support the American Dream of home ownership for lower and middle income people, not to help rich folks buy mansions or super-condos. The rich would still get the deduction under the cap.

Oh, and maybe if we stopped putting so many black guys into prison for non-violent crimes we’d see marriage rates increase in the demographic where they are lowest.

We need worldwide military projection? You got it. Boeing is poised to win the X Prize by making a crewed (almost said “manned”, gotta be gender neutral” ) version of their venerable Atlas rocket. We could promote science and have worldwide military capability by building a Rods From God space battle station in low orbit.

Americans need to become convinced we are still awesome, a Rods from God orbital destruction machine would do that and would cost less than maintaining conventional worldwide force projection.


And infrastructure. We need more. Parts of our country are broken down. Bridges fall and roads decay. But I dream bigger, China is linking up six cities into a megacity with rail. They are also screwing up at it. What if urban clusters in the US were better linked by high speed rail? DFW, Houston, San Antonio, and Austin should be hooked up. The East Coast is already mostly hooked up, but it could be a little better. And what about the South? Why can’t you take a decent train from DC to Raleigh or Charlotte?

And we gotta slip some single payer health care in there too.

Let’s build a nation where we can say AMERICA, FUCK YEAH and have it really be true.

I assure you that under these conditions where the rich pay their fair share and the states are boosted by infrastructure spending marriage will increase, and even among those raising children unmarried there will be the stability that leads to better lives.

Comment #13: Bacopa  on  08/16  at  10:54 PM

I’m more on the side of not encouraging marriage, valuing it, or making it anything like a goal.  It isn’t a good in and of itself.  Unlike health care, for instance.

Comment #14: Nimravid  on  08/16  at  11:54 PM

NPR’s not worth the toilet paper it would become if it were to become a print outlet.  The country and world would be better off without it.  I mean it.  It only exists to blunt the progressive direction this country naturally moves in.  Some random hopeful stories and scattered (manipulated) bits of relevant facts do not make up for the larger fact that it’s considered a liberal barometer of opinion.  It especially proved mortally damaging to Obama’s already skimpy healthcare legislation overall and public option/single payer specifically, with Republican NPR reporter Mara Liasson declaring what’s too extreme and what’s not, and as well was heinously damaging during the still ongoing deficit hysteria, declaring the deficit the worst scariest hugest problem the U.S. has ever faced (literally).  NPR really sucks. I can’t say it enough or in enough ways or too emphatically. NPR sucks. NPR sucks!!!!!!!!

Comment #15: News Nag  on  08/17  at  12:04 AM

I was going to comment but @1 kit-kat already said what I wanted to say.  Seconded.

Comment #16: gretchen  on  08/17  at  03:06 AM

So.  All the people I know who are cohabiting happily for double-digit numbers of years (and well into those double digits, mind you) are doing it wrong?  While all the people I know who got married and whose marriages lasted for AT BEST five years are doing it right?

I don’t understand how a certificate makes your life better.  I really don’t.

Comment #17: speedbudget  on  08/17  at  07:21 AM

You know what?  They always end these marriage stories with “you’re in it for the long haul and you should stay in it no matter what.”  And they say this like this piece of paper will make you do it.  Maybe the fact that you’re NOT married, that your partner can pick up and move out AT WILL and with little to no financial detriment makes your partner work harder at being a good partner.  Maybe that marriage certificate makes people lazy, makes people figure that you’re stuck with them now, so why make any attempt.

Comment #18: speedbudget  on  08/17  at  07:24 AM

No see, those religious nuts actually do think that the piece of paper is magic and will make your life better.  They think their bible is magic, why not their marriage certificate?
For them it’s all about the appearance and not the reality.

Comment #19: gravitybear  on  08/17  at  09:02 AM

@Speedbudget:

I don’t know anyone in a longterm partnership who could move out at will with little to no financial detriment. (The big commitment for my spouse and me wasn’t getting married, it was getting a mortgage.) But I do agree with you that a lot of people think that the piece of paper has magic powers by itself.

Comment #20: paul  on  08/17  at  09:16 AM

Underneath all of this is that this is another example of how our schools are failing us.  A mathematically literate society, one that understands statistics, would have seen through this in an instant.  Instead, the vast majority of mathematically illiterate Americans who would have listened to this would have agreed with the conclusions instead of listened critically.

Comment #21: James  on  08/17  at  09:31 AM

vaguely S&M belief that external constraints make you a better person inside,

RickMassimo @ 3: This is not at all like an S&M belief as that would be that external restraints are HOT, which is anti-fundy - at least officially, as anything that is teh hot is BAD.

Comment #22: helen w. h.  on  08/17  at  09:34 AM

Proboscidea @ 6 - also, one can be married and have children with multiple men (either via multiple marriages, other direct means or some kinds of fertility treaments).  so, what would be their point about women and multiple fathers of their children anyway, though your observation about fathers whose children have multiple mopthers is quiet right as well.  But the last name thing?  Lots of kids have last names different than their parents - divorce/ remarriage and not changing names at mariage are more common every day and so increase that situation.

Comment #23: helen w. h.  on  08/17  at  09:34 AM

James, the schools aren’t failing us, they are being attacked and undermined by the right wing to the point where they cannot do their jobs of creating a thinking and productive population; attacked both from the inside (fundee administrators, teachers and parents) and outside (mayors, schoolboards, community groups).  Democracy, even a democratic republic, will fail if the population is reduced to a thoughtless mob, but I sometimes think that is their goal.

Comment #24: helen w. h.  on  08/17  at  09:53 AM

Perhaps many women have children by multiple fathers because their first was unplanned when they were young, and the relationship didn’t last? What’s the cure for that again? Oh yeah, more sex education and access to birth control, not to mention less judgement about using said birth control, which most influences young people when they’re still figuring out what’s important and who they should listen to (and before they figure out who they can/should ignore).

Comment #25: lijakaca  on  08/17  at  10:06 AM

On the multiple kids thing: I guess The Brady Bunch is responsible for the destruction of modern society. (Yeah, I know, technically. But it wouldn’t have been a scandal by any means.)

Interestingly (or perhaps not) men dumping their middle-aged spouses and taking up with a younger woman to start a new family used to be pretty much a standard trope.

Comment #26: paul  on  08/17  at  10:44 AM

I don’t understand how a certificate makes your life better.  I really don’t.

Well, if conservatives had their way, and were able to force/coerce/pressure/shame/whatever everyone into marrying instead of cohabitating, their next step would be to abolish no-fault divorce, or just abolish divorce altogether, and make it as difficult as possible to end a marriage.

They’re not actually concerned about people’s mental health and happiness. They just miss the good old days when men were in full control of their female property.

Comment #27: Triplanetary  on  08/17  at  11:49 AM

The certificate does nothing for your life.  the current laws that are tied to that certificate do help to provide stability in terms of being able to pool some benefits and get certain legal standings.  Of course, you do have to be sufficiently well off to have benefits to pool for that to matter.

Comment #28: helen w. h.  on  08/17  at  12:25 PM

The certificate doesn’t make your life better.  It has no more value than the commitment underlying it.  Yes, there are legal benefits attached to it that are intended to facilitate that commitment, but if you get married without the qualities necessary for a good relationship, a marriage certificate isn’t going to magically grant you those qualities.  It doesn’t make you more mature, more humble, more compassionate, or more loving, it doesn’t make you kinder or more responsible or more honest, it doesn’t grant you a sense of humor or fair play, it doesn’t make you more flexible or a better friend and confidante.  No marriage is better than the two people in it.

Comment #29: Kit-Kat  on  08/17  at  01:04 PM

@James: Yeah, mathematical literacy is key. I feel for people who wish to push evolution or other topic of scientific literacy forward as necessary to a responsible citizenry, but I think mathematical literacy should be central because most of the misconceptions that people have about scientific knowledge are, at the core, fundamentally about misunderstanding statistics, probabilities and other mathematical concepts (the incredulity argument about how unlikely life is without a designer, for instance).

Comment #30: BlackBloc  on  08/17  at  01:41 PM

Marriage may be a symptom of stability, but it can be useful for perpetuating stability.  When my husband was unemployed, I picked up his health insurance benefits.  Now he can take a lucrative contract without benefits because I can provide them. 

However, if your life is already unstable, marriage won’t stabilize it.  It is a them-that-has-gets situation.

Comment #31: Ms Kate  on  08/17  at  01:46 PM

@Kaleberg #9 - not so sure “most men have economic expectations before committing to marriage”. There’s a lot of bullshit ownership expectations. “My life sux but at least I own the bitch.”

Comment #32: ondrayah  on  08/17  at  02:07 PM

News Nag @ 15: NPR = Nice Polite Republicans.

bananacat @ 7: I’m running a risk by advocating violence, but your friend’s ex is exactly the kind of cretin that needs a few of his bones broken before he’ll get the message & do the right thing.  He’s clearly furious at having been rejected & passed over for someone else by someone whose time, space & energy he feels entitled to, so he’s damned if he’s not going to everything - anything - in his power to sandbag, sabotage & make miserable the relationship she chucked him overboard in favor of.  If they’re going to see the last of this guy, they need to hire a set of tooled-up professional heavies & have them deliver the kind of beating that precipitates a lengthy hospital visit w/ the understanding that if he’s in for more at irregular intervals until he finalizes the divorce & never bothers his ex again.  I know my proposition is ugly, but after being the abuser in an abusive marriage, after several years of separation from his ex & after her having a kid with the other guy & he still won’t go away & leave them alone, it’s clear that he’s not going to quit until one of two goals are achieved - at best, the destruction of her not-with-him relationship or at worst, killing her.  The red flags are there that this is just going to escalate, & your friend & her family aren’t going to see the end of this until they stop waiting for the ex to play fair & start fighting dirty themselves.

helen w. h. @ 24: the destruction of secular institutions has always been the goal of the religious right & they’re not going to quit until the only form of “public ed” left for the sweaty plebeians is a Xtain version of Madrasah ʾIslāmiyyahs .  Education is the practice of freedom, & the last thing the Xtain Warrior leadership wants for their heard of useful idiots is the latter gaining the Critical Thinking tools that’ll help them realize they’ve been fed a line of bull all their lives, & they don’t want the opposition setting a bad example that contradicts the message they’re putting out.  I mean God forbid that the Xtain Right’s Quiverfull brood mares snap out of the zap that’s been put on their heads & realize that they’ve got more to offer than endlessly cranking out more Xtain Movement Cannon Fodder or their heir-apparent warrior drones clue in that there’s more to life than complete domination of everything around them.

Comment #33: Smartpatrol  on  08/17  at  02:30 PM

I’m running a risk by advocating violence, but your friend’s ex is exactly the kind of cretin that needs a few of his bones broken before he’ll get the message & do the right thing.

I don’t think you understand how abusers work.  He’s like a cockroach, and he won’t stop until he’s dead, even if hurting another person hurts him too.  A few broken bones would make him double-down and harass her even more, which would actually be easier for him because he could drag her through a long court case and maybe even get her sent to prison.  Anything short of death would make this man behave even worse.

Comment #34: bananacat  on  08/17  at  03:36 PM

My inner statistician is busy jumping and down shouting “bollocks” (to the NPR thing), but ...

Marriage is an interesting institution historically - before the church (and eventually the state) insisted that the only valid marriages were those that took place in front of a priest at the Council of Trent in 1545, marriage was a private matter between two individuals. You couldn’t normally get married in church, although you could get the marriage blessed afterwards - the parishioners who made large porches to medieval churches didn’t do so to provide shelter to teenagers looking for a dry place to drink cider (ho hum!), but as a place for a couple to get married _before_ entering the church where the marriage would be blessed by the priest.

Marriage could be conducted by a couple simply saying the words “I marry you” to each other - and such marriages would have been recognised by the church before the CoT. Whilst there are problems with such informal marriages, it would be interesting to see their return - after all what right has the church or state to decide to whom you or I can get married ?

Comment #35: veryz  on  08/17  at  03:36 PM

NPR is terrible.  When Howard Zinn died, they allowed for a conservative “rebuttal” to his eulogy,  because everything has to be balanced.  But they’re “liberal,” just ask anyone.

Comment #36: Cègeste  on  08/17  at  04:05 PM

Judy:

Fundies and righties long to return to the 1950s when societal pressure forced marriage on cohabitors, at least from the working class on up (just about everywhere in the states, excepting maybe Greenwich Village.)

In my lower middleclass neighborhood, it was still being called “living in sin” right up through the late ‘60s—not that there was anyone I knew doing such a thing.

Early marriage—some at 16—wasn’t uncommon, but usually tied to “getting in trouble”, i.e., pregnancy.

By the early ‘70s all bets were off.

But they’d rather catch gay than the go back the unionized, industrial economy of the 50s that spread the benefits much wider.

Comment #37: witless chum  on  08/17  at  04:06 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.