I think that Steve Stewart Williams is asking for too much: Are men really sexually attracted to their wives because they care for home and family? Or are men simply attracted to their wives because they are attracted to women in general and have enough self-control to choose a woman who has other qualities than just being a woman?
If men in general don't find cleaning and cooking and childcare wildly sexually appealing, why would women? I think it would be a lot better if women learned from men and concluded that everything, always, does not need to be sexually appealing.
I enjoyed the article. I question though that the a median income earned by the average woman is in fact an “insurance policy.” In todays market a median income can’t but a median income home or support a family.
Marriage will forever be in decline until we fix the divorce court laws that disadvantage men. Why would any rational thinking man want to sign up for a contract where they are likely to be divorced against their will and forced to pay ruinous amounts of alimony and child support, amounts that often amount to more money than they actually make, while being denied visitation by a vindictive EX.
You made an important point that needs further explication:
No-fault divorce/rising divorce rates lowered the TFR as having more children would be a significant liability for women after divorce.
Most women won't explicitly say this. They'll talk about how much meaning or happiness they find in their careers. Or they could never handle four or five children with a full time job.
But people also say that they're leaving their jobs to spend more time with their family.
Significantly, the biggest demographic lowering the TFR is not women having no children, but women having fewer children than in previous generations.
Re the Jewish focus on male study and its effect on marriage I think it would be remiss not to include the words of Maimonides:
And [our Sages gave] even greater [advice], saying: "A person should always turn himself and his thoughts to the words of the Torah and expand his knowledge in wisdom, for the thoughts of forbidden relations grow strong solely in a heart which is empty of wisdom."
Perhaps culture can override all biology because the human biology includes culture.
So, there isn't a bare human biology that is overwritten by culture such that when we strip away culture, we shall find a human biology that is common to all humans.
Why Ultra-Orthodox women have ten children is entirely conditioned by their culture and then it is futile to find any fundamental facts about women from this alone
1. > Some women and children really will be in dire circumstances when they are deserted or badly treated. Some people will be caught in loveless unions with dysfunctional partners.
Given that you state that all Ultra-Orthodox men have to offer is love, what does an Ultra-Orthodox women stand to lose from abandoning a loveless marriage, especially as there is there is an organization to help divorced women. (Perhaps I should add here that according to the Israeli Democratic Institute only 4% of Haredim over 20 are divorced/widowed, and 86% are married.)
2. If I understand correctly you seem to be implying that Ultra-Orthodox women have it harder than Amish women. Am I correct that this is your perception?
I definitely don't want to downplay the hard work of our women whom I view as superheroes (especially my wife). Additionally, one can't judge from anecdotes and I am sure there are Ultra-Orthodox women who have it harder than Amish women. I just wonder if it is obvious that is the rule.
First of all, our attitude to technology which makes life easier (other than secular media) is the exact opposite of the Amish. We embrace it all with open arms, from microwaves to toasters to blenders to pressure cookers and slow cookers etc. My family uses almost 100% disposables other than pots and baby bottles.
Our supermarkets sell everything at one spot and deliver orders, including prepared or microwaveable foods, and we try to take advantage as much as possible (given financial and health constraints. I do think most mothers (at least of large families) don't do most of the regular shopping, and I don't think the examples you mentioned are typical in the low amount of help the husbands provide (though few can measure up to Anders), but this is something that obviously varies per family and I don't believe there are any studies.
True, the women often work hard to support the family, but they also get to send their children for daycare (hopefully for more hours than they work). Many women feel the tradeoff is worth it. As you wrote in another comment, even stay-at-home mothers often feel the need to have some outlet/vocation of their choice.
I believe that in the U.S. most families(at least those with working mothers) have some hired domestic/cleaning help.
As other commenters have mentioned, the fact that our children (especially males) study for long hours, combined with our tight-knit communities means that we barely see our boys (from about age 8 or younger) during daytime hours, which makes parenting much easier.
All this is aside from family and community help which I assume the Amish also have.
Again, I certainly don't want to downplay the hard work of Ultra-Orthodox women. However, I think many of them may be offended from the assumption that they obviously work harder than Amish women (assuming you meant to imply that).
>>Given that you state that all Ultra-Orthodox men have to offer is love, what does an Ultra-Orthodox women stand to lose from abandoning a loveless marriage, especially as there is there is an organization to help divorced women.
You tell me! I actually don't believe that all the men have to offer is love. They also offer a firm place in the community.
There might be several reasons behind the low divorce rate:
1. Divorce is seen as a failure so people will not seek divorce if they don't have an obvious reason.
2. Spouses see rather little of each other anyway so they have fewer opportunities to develop conflicts.
3. People are genuinely committed to make their marriages work and believe it is possible.
I can only guess. You know much better than
>>If I understand correctly you seem to be implying that Ultra-Orthodox women have it harder than Amish women. Am I correct that this is your perception?
No, not at all. Especially the Amish's lack of washing machines seems terrible in terms of work load. The most important difference is that Amish men and women lead more similar lives ("an Amish scholar" would be a contradiction).
The Ultra-Orthodox household organization seems to me like modern society taken to its extreme. I really would like to see it in real life. It must be an impressive logistics operation. I could never have imagined this thing with the disposable dishes if no one told me. I'm feeling like I would need to see the thing in action to be able to fully imagine the details of it.
I don't doubt LG's testimony that many Ultra-Orthodox women are overworked. If people in a certain group work hard, then inevitably some of them will be overworked, sometimes or always. But I also imagine that those who are on the right side of the limit of overwork get the feeling of doing something rather advanced.
I think the idea of quantity vs. quality gets to the core of your essay.
I agree very much with your essay. However I would change one subtitle. I wouldn't say "protection before provision" but rather "security from all risks before quantitative provision".
Womanhood and especially motherhood is synonymous with neuroticism for good reason, not just due to the risk of (sexual) violence, and not just for concern over their personal welfare but also for concern about the welfare of the children which they bear and to which they become attached.
For women love is essentially a way of signaling security from risks.
The feminine desire for marriage is not as a business contract to be marketed to the highest bidder, but rather as a deeply committed relationship in which the lifegoal of each partner is to do as much as they can to meet the needs and desires of the other partner. (See an interesting essay from Freya India here , towards the end.) This is what love signifies. (This is part of the reason that women's jealousy is so all-encompassing. It isn't just that men are so easily distracted, but also because women's need for "security from all risks" demands complete unwavering dedication from men.)
This can help give some more insight into the Ultra-Orthodox system.
Every Orthodox man gives his bride a signed document (a kesubah) stating אנא אוקיר ואוזין ואפלח ואפרנס יתיכי. (I will honor, feed, work, and financially support you). The signing (by 2 witnesses), reading aloud and giving over of this document is a major part of the marriage ceremony. She must keep this document for the rest of the marriage. If she loses it, they need to write another one.
(Over a decade ago, when my younger brother (who is a quintessential Talmud scholar with an almost photographic memory who spent all his adult years completely engrossed in the study of Talmud) was dating I wrote him a letter explaining how the duties of the kesubah correspond to women's psychological needs (and discussed the words of our sages ""). He said it helped him a lot.)
Even in Ultra-Orthodox circles (e.g. among Hasidim) Kollel men are often ridiculed for not fulfilling these basic duties, which are recorded in the Talmud which they spend their lives studying.
Whatever the justification may be for the current (Israeli) system I think it is generally understood that the husband carries the ultimate responsibility for the family's finances. If the family's finances become too much for the wife to carry, or if for whatever reason she is no longer able to work, or if any crisis arises, he will do everything in his power to provide for the family. (Though unfortunately, due to the circumstances current in Israeli Haredi society that may necessitate his traveling across the pond to collect charity as LG mentioned, though if a respected Talmudic scholar falls on hard times his admirers will often bail him out from afar, unless it is an very large sum of money.)
With regard to domestic duties too despite the fact that we encourage men to spend as much time as possible studying and women generally do most of the domestic work, I think men responsible for domestic duties, especially child-rearing. The fact that women do the work is a division oof duties, but the men are fully responsible for completing the tasks which are hard for her.
A good part of the women's confidence in men's dedication and responsibility stems from the nature of their study of Talmud. The primary purpose of the study of Talmud is to educats a person to live constantly with a sense of personal responsibility and complete dedication to a higher cause. One interesting example is the free-loan societies I've mentioned before. The manager of the largest free-loan society in Lakewood, which distributes long-term loans of tens of thousands of dollars with little security states that his primary security is the signature of someone who learns Talmud all day as a guarantor. He has learned from experience that wealth and access to money are no guarantee of repayment. However, one who studies (or teaches) Talmud will always honor his signature, no matter how poor he may be.
I think this may quite possibly be true even in the case of the obnoxious husband you described. But that 'very nice husband' who gave his wife a granola bar as she rushes out the door without breakfast and then drank tea with her at midnight? That granola bar signifies his appreciation for everything she does and during that cup of tea he is (hopefully) assessing and intuiting whether she is overburdened and whether she is truly doing all this out of love.
Again, I don't have direct stats on how the typical Ultra-Orthodox man treats his family. But I think all the stats we both cited indicate a very high level of satisfaction with marriage and life. Showing gratitude is one of the most fundamental principles of Judaism. Honoring one's parents is in the Ten Commandments and we are taught that God made their honor comparable to his honor. The book "Duties of the Heart" (perhaps the first post-Talmudic book of this genre) predicates all worship of God on the basis of gratitude. So this obnoxious husband is certainly exhibiting very unJewish behavior, and if he spends most of his time studying Talmud he is being hypocritical.
That isn't to say that LG doesn't have a point that our system has a downside in that can cause men to be self-absorbed and even stuck up with themselves if applied improperly. (See here https://halachaheadlines.com/speakers/726-yisroel-knofler/ where the interviewee presents his opinion that this is the cause of many divorces. He touches on a topic which you pointed out as a positive; that when it comes to study partners (chavrusas) people are encouraged to break up if it isn't to their liking.)
However, the data of so few divorces indicates that this is only temporary; in the long run men learn to adjust to carry responsibility for the physical and emotional needs of their family.
It is only natural that there is a learning curve; after all, our men have zero exposure to women outside of close family members until they start dating, and dates are very focused only on determining basic compatibility for marriage. (I do think there are ways we could be more focused on teaching young men to have a sense of responsibility. Just recently I had an email conversation with a local rabbi on this. In general, despite the passion I exhibit here for my community's values I definitely think that my community has much to improve and I try to do my part within the community to effect change.)
(And you are right that social status is also a factor. The social status of a Talmud scholar and his family is very beneficial in a tight-knit community which values the study of Talmud, as we discussed regarding marriage partners.)
as summed up here https://substack.com/@arnoldkling/p-154766970 is uncannily similar to what I wrote here. (a) "women are not day-in-day-out dependent on men for “provision,” rather, women are are episodically dependent on men, and men especially operate as insurance policies Today, the exact needs differ, but men are still basically insurance policies."(b) in today's society men often aren't a very safe insurance policy (c) men under 35 have relatively low earnings (b) therefore marriage subsidies help. This could have been written as an ad for the Lakewood community which (a) provides subsidies to young married couples (b) emphasizes that the men be secure insurance policies when they are most needed and most useful: especially over 35.
That was really great for guessing! I guess a lifetime studying gender relations pays off.
I take your response as an acknowledgement that you don't actually know that "Some women and children really will be in dire circumstances when they are deserted or badly treated. Some people will be caught in loveless unions with dysfunctional partners." It is obviously true for some women, but it is true for some women even in mainstream society.
In #2 you recognize that quality time can often be better for a marriage than quantity time.
I think this gets to the heart of our attitude.
As you noted in your previous post, we share with the Amish a fear of excess leisure and excess pursuit of material acquisitions and hedonistic pleasures, especially for males. However, we differ in our solution. Our approach is to educate our males to spend as much of their time studying, and to develop a deep appreciation of intellectual pursuits.
The fact that we encourage even family men to spend as much time as possible studying is not about being insensitive to the needs of his family, but rather about overcoming his own temptations to waste his time and energy on other pursuits.
I believe Judaism itself is very focused on quality family time. The weekly Shabbos and the many holidays are very much family centered, with many ritualistic (i.e. much singing and discussion) family meals (a typical Shabbos has 2-4 such meals), no productive activity allowed (e.g., no activating electricity), and no traveling. (The no traveling, together with the need to attend synagogue, has been much discussed at Jon Haidt's blog and in the book Family Unfriendly as a model for creating close-knit communities.)
We don't view the Shabbos as a burden that our religion makes us suffer, but rather as a privilege. Even Jewish atheist will often observe it to some extent, or at least pine for it. A famous Jewish atheist (Ahad Ha'am) wrote "more than the jews watched (heeded-שמרו) Shabbos the Shabbos watched over them. See an interesting post herehttps://www.jellomenorah.com/p/the-jewish-christmas-isshabbat and an interesting comment (from an non-believing Jew) here https://brinklindsey.substack.com/p/the-advance-of-the-monoculture/comment/40355290.
I think these holidays serve as a model for what the rest of the week and year should look. Additionally, I think these days especially people are very aware of the need to be sensitive to their family's needs, including the need for developing and maintaining a strong relationship with each one of them.
In other areas too there is strong emphasis in Judaism on a husband's responsibility to show his wife high quality love, and that more quantity can sometimes minimize quality. (For some sense and outline of what I am referring to please refer back to parshafromchana.substack. This is not the place to elaborate but I will just state that the primary ways in which the Talmudic tradition differs from others are (a) conjugal duties are considered the Biblical responsibility of the husband-based on how hard he works and thereby how available he is, and based on the assessment of his wife's emotional needs (b) the Talmud emphasizes very strongly the importance of performing these duties out of love- e.g., not while inebriated (the Talmud gives 9 examples of an improper state of mind on the part of the husband or wife and has strong words about them) or without preparing his wife and putting her in the right state of mind, and the Talmud has very strong words for one who marries off his daughter to someone who does not behave this way. And the sexual restrictions (even within marriage) don't just serve as a reassurance to the woman. It serves to shape sexuality into a special unique experience for a 'holy' purpose.)
Your view is perhaps colored by reading books from those who left the community and not from those who joined the community. I think the beautiful family life (especially the Shabbos and the holidays) may be the greatest attraction to Orthodox Jewish life. (Perhaps you can take a look at this weeks Voice of Lakewood (Pg. 266-274 and pg. 308) where daughters of Torah scholars describe their fathers. You may not understand every word but you can get a picture. On pg. 254 too there is an article which may help you understand the economics and life of some Lakewood women.)
The intense focus on study can often be a burden on women, but ideally this should be only out of love, appreciation of the importance of Talmud study for the restoration and perpetuation of our culture, and recognition of the enormous sacrifice of the men for this purpose.
And I have often heard part of the argument for starting off the marriage studying that this provides a more flexible schedule to come home in the midst of the day (especially as we expect working men too to spend at least a few hours a day praying and studying).
Essentially, that the child-rearing and high fertility of the women shares the same purpose as the Talmud study of the men. At their core, both are rooted in intense pride in their unique culture and the dedication to perpetuating this culture. Essentially the partnership between the two is a partnership of each doing their utmost to fulfill their role in passing their culture to the next generation.
Moreover, in our view a major component of marriage (and friendship) is the opportunity to be inspired by each other. At least in the initial phase of marriage the man's role is primarily to inspire through his 'holiness', i.e., his complete dedication to his studies whereas the women inspire by her ability to engage with the material world and not be pulled in by its allure but rather use it for higher purposes.
The Talmud teaches; a man and women if they merit God will dwell between them, if not a fire will consume. This sums up our view of marriage: For a marriage to last it must be dedicated to a higher purpose. It isn't an employment contract; it is a partnership to work together and separate to the best of their abilities to fill the world with a flourishing human society.
Perhaps it is time to point out that in my view this is the key difference between Judaism and other religions: Judaism is about imbuing every action with a sense of holiness, meaning and purpose. Yes, many of our restrictions may seem needlessly burdensome, but they serve as a constant reminder that one can find meaning purpose and holiness in every action (or non-action), even the most mundane and the most physical.
Yes, such a life may seem restrictive to some, but those who appreciate the beauty and wisdom of it live their entire life on a completely different plane (at least I believe so) that makes it hard for others to relate to. Every second of their life exists for a purpose. And these 'meaningful moments' have a history of thousands of years. Jews have a living memory of all the major events in their long history as they commemorate them with heartful and meaningful rituals. Legend has is that Napoleon once came into a synagogue on Tisha B'av and saw everyone sitting on the floor crying mounfully. He asked what happened to them. They responded that it isn't anything recent. They are crying over the loss of their temple thousands of years ago. To which Napoleon responded "no wonder the Jews survived all these years". For someone who appreciates this history the pride and confidence instilled by the privilege to be able to perpetuate such an ancient yet still thriving (perhaps more than ever) is very powerful.
I don't know how helpful this can possibly be for your own life.
Please don't take the delay as a signal that I wrote something significant. To the contrary, let it serve as an indication of how hard it is to give over a culture in substack comments (and to the fact that I don't have that much time on my hands).
I don't think I can provide data for these questions. Instead, I will try to give a glimpse of our ideology. (I feel that I went too far in getting ideological and religious but what can I do?)
In general, it is hard for me to answer without specific questions, but especially to questions as general as these, as I generally feel that my religion is optimally designed to promote a beautiful family and community life (as משכיל בינה wrote "the bottom line is that it’s a culture set up first, last and everything in between for breeding. Imagine every difficulty you’ve ever had with having children, every reason you can think of for not popping out one more; Charedi society has an app for that." But I don't think it's just "breeding". I think it is everything associated with a beautiful family and community life) while at the same time putting an excessive emphasis on male studiousness.
>>Your view is perhaps colored by reading books from those who left the community and not from those who joined the community. I think the beautiful family life (especially the Shabbos and the holidays) may be the greatest attraction to Orthodox Jewish life.
Yes, it is. I often think about that, and it is interesting in itself: Of all the books I have read about people leaving religious lifestyles, all but one was written by people from less-than-perfect families. I read one book about a woman from mainstream society becoming Amish (Marlene Miller). She came from a rather unpleasant family and married into a family of very nice people. Subsequently, the couple decided to migrate to the Amish side. All this tells me that families are extremely important to people. It seems like dissatisfaction with family life is a number one reason for people to leave their community (or at least to leave their community and write a book about it).
That way, I sometimes try to imagine from the description of less-than-ideal families what more ideal families would have done instead. For example, Leah Vincent mentioned how her mother ran around on Friday afternoons among all her uncooked chickens and yelled "don't talk to me unless you are bleeding". From that information I can imagine how a mother with better coping strategies would have handled to have a deadline to meet in a household full of children.
>>(I feel that I went too far in getting ideological and religious but what can I do?)
Don't worry about being too religious toward me. Maybe it is just my very high self-confidence, but I believe that I understand the things religious people say. At least some religious people. I'm constantly perceiving some kind of purpose that I just need to follow. I imagine that this is the same thing that religious people are perceiving. So I have no problem when people who believe talk about what they believe because I think I can understand why they believe. Even though I can find a plausible scientific explanation to why I'm feeling compelled to lead a purposefull life, I nonetheless feel it. And that makes me feel a high degree of affinity with religious people.
I also find your description of cooperative family life in the service of a higher purpose easy to understand, because that is more or less how Anders and I are aiming to live, but in the service of science and philosophy instead of any specific religion. I think I understand your description of people trying to lead purposefull lives. And I belive that when they manage to do what they aim at to at least some degree, people with such ambitions are happier than people who are given no purpose with their existence.
I am constantly impressed by your ability to be so open-minded in analyzing and even taking lessons from other cultures which seem oppressive. The issue of Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel not spending most of their life in the study hall is certainly the most opaque for an outsider and yet you recognized that the women are happy and learnt from this.
I think there is some perspective to add here. If I would have the time and the inclination I would write a few articles providing that. That won't happen but perhaps I will leave some more comments.
For now I shall state that to me the most important takeaway from this post is that the highest fertility societies seem to be those in which mothers have the highest workload (and the males are oppressed), whether this is due to their rejection of technology or to their expectations that men spend much of their time in synagogue or study hall. This seems counter-intuitive and is worthy of reflection.
It seems that the most important ingredient for high fertility is social conditioning to be 'highly oppressed'. One may maintain that this is solely about these cultures doing a good job at brainwashing. However this survey https://en.idi.org.il/haredi/2022/?chapter=48268 shows that Haredim rank far higher in every factor of satisfaction with life and mental and emotional health (and Israelis in general rank very high on this https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/03/charted-the-happiest-countries-in-the-world/). I assume that this is true for women too, as the survey certainly would have tried to highlight any differences in gender if they were significant.
I think that ApplePie's most recent post would have been the perfect response to this post. It could almost serve as the motto for the Amish and the Haredim.
The 86% married is for age 20+. For 25+ I imagine it is at least 90%. The once-married number may be here for that age group. However, it is possible that it isn't much higher, as I believe that a high percentage of Haredi divorces are soon after the marriage, essentialy a failed marriage.
This might be true today, but seems less true in the past, tho there was far more pressure on women to be faithful then on men. Slut vs stud for similar promiscuity.
In the Baby Boom years, many workers were trying to get their own nuclear family homes, close to where the husband father had a good paying job. As formerly war working women changed into SAHM, with far more labor saving devices but also far from parental help with grandkids, many women wanted more from life than even the most interesting Peyton Place TV soap operas. … (usual story).
Many / most women want a status increasing and personally meaningful job outside the home. Because of unfair biology, not injustice, the best years for having babies are also the best years for starting a career. The 20s.
Our society needs to increase the incentives for women to be married sooner, and have children sooner. Like a $10,000 wedding grant from the govt for every couple who marries before their combined years are 55 (25+30, 27+28, 21+34), with this amount decreasing by $100 each month over.
The Amish & UO examples don’t scale into secular, materialistic society.
I think it's quite interesting to note the symmetries between this perspective and the more male/MRA perspective. Complaining about the high divorce risk nowadays, saying that all they want is love, and saying that women/men orient themselves strongly around getting attention from the opposite sex.
Makes me feel like there must be an important missing factor in this type of analysis.
Why? Why couldn't it be that both men and women most of all want love and are afraid to invest in a marriage that ends in divorce?
Can't it just be that our society is failing to give me and women sufficiently efficient tools to negotiate the terms for how to meet and how to stay together?
I have no insider knowledge about the Amish or the Ultra-Orthodox Jews, but I think people might be more inclined to have children if they have a place in a community to offer said children. And reasonable expectations that the children will grow up to have the same opinions and beliefs as the parents themselves. For average westerners it seems more like different generations live in different worlds, don't have much in common. And parents have limited influence over who their children will spend time with in school, something that might have a bigger influence on who their children become as adults than anything their parents do.
I really enjoyed the article, but don't really buy the "women don't have multiple kids because they need to preserve their mate value, in the ceaseless war of all against all in the mating market" explanation.
I mean, as you point out, women initiate most divorces. And more specifically, "most" means 70% of divorces (at least in the US).
Second, they're manifestly NOT preserving their mate value - age is a much bigger factor for mate value for women, and most people in the world get fat after marriage. People would be MUCH more serious about working out, eating well, and taking care of health if "preserving mate value" was an actual concern or motivation, but manifestly, married people don't do this, whether or not they have kids.
On "marriage makes you fat" the meta analysis here, with ~200k couples and ~100k matched singles across 18 countries, shows a strong effect size of marriage on obesity - 1.7 odds ratio, up to 2.5 odds ratio in economic downturns.
It includes a study of same-sex twins from China that finds even among twins, marriage increases BMI for both sexes, regardless of genetic and common environmental factors.
In general, less than half (45%) of divorced women in the USA have remarried 5 years later. Remarriage is getting steeply less prevalent since the 80's. See the graph here:
The more likely explanation for having fewer kids is that it's associated with female education and workforce participation, and not really correlated with divorce, because we see the same drops in fertility in every developed country, even when base divorce rates vary by as much as 4x (Japan has half the divorce rate of the USA, Italy has roughly a quarter the divorce rate, Singapore has a 1.5x higher divorce rate, but all three have much worse fertility rates than the US).
Even in the Philippines, where until a couple of weeks ago divorce has literally been illegal, fertility has been declining pretty much directly in line with female education.
You are completely right in one thing: Divorce is absolutely not the foremost reason why people have few children. The first and foremost reason that people in most modern societies have few children is that children aren't really appreciated and having children give people, men and women alike, lower status. And the reason why people in a few modern societies actually have many children is that those societies appreciate children and numerous children raise people's social status. So as you point out, seeking correlations between divorce and fertility is meaningless.
If a culture wants to raise its fertility rate, the first thing it needs to do is saying "having numerous children is good". But I think that is not enough. After all, Catholics also said "having children is good", but their fertility rates have plummeted in line with the rest of the population. The populations that managed to keep up a high fertility rate are all populations with low divorce rates and strong modesty norms.
So I believe that in addition to saying "having numerous children is good", modesty norms that make people feel comparatively secure in their marriages is a prerequisite for keeping high fertility rates. But without strongly encouraging people to have many children in the first place, such norms make little difference.
My impression is that Catholics said "be fruitful and multiply", but they didn't commit hard to it, in the form of high status for people with many children over few children (compared to, say, Mormons). So eventually other social factors wore down the fertility rate. The forces pushing TFR down are extremely widespread; any general explanation has to take into account more secular societies, but also the difference in fertility between, say, Iran and Nigeria. (With the latter, there seems to be a lot of disagreement on what the divorce stats actually are.)
Yeah, I think the "status" explanation is much more likely than the "mate value" explanation.
ACX just linked to this post making the same argument, where he attributes the loss of "virtue" status games like religion in favor of the meritocratic "success" status games we all play today as the major factor:
"Over time, this set of status mechanics spread, intensified, and deepened, particularly during the process of urbanization during the Industrial Revolution. Ultimately this culminates in today, when the standard introductory question has become ‘What do you do?’. This is because the most effective way to gauge the status of one’s interlocutor is to understand their level of success within our meritocracy. Unfortunately, ‘I’m a mother’ is not a good answer to this question, because this conveys little status within a success framework, which is usually the operative one. Women are, understandably, hesitant to be continuously humiliated in this way, and will make whatever tradeoffs are necessary to ensure they have a better answer."
He has some suggestions at the end which would probably move the needle on fertility rates at the end, but are essentially impossible culturally, because they're all about "stop enforcing Englightment and feminist norms on subgroups."
That's not as dispositive as might be thought. Women are dutiful and do the paperwork to wind up a failed relationship. The women filing for divorce are not necessarily doing so because they were disloyal; it might equally be because their partners are.
" Technically, women could use men as mere sperm donors and go about their own lives together with other females, much like most social animals are doing. They just don't seem to have the mindset."
The weird part is, economically, that would actually be... pretty easy to afford in the modern western world.
I mean, in THEORY, it would not be impossibly expensive to pick some rural or semi-rural location where land is cheap and the supporting infrastructure is readily available, and then form a.... commune/self-defense organization of about 30-150 women, most or all of them highly qualified to work outside the home. Find the golden compromise between "everyone lives in dorms in the same building" versus "Everyone has their own free-standing home, but they're all integrated into a planned community", whatever that compromise point winds up being.
Hire some shared communal nannies, or more likely, pay members of the community to take up that work, Hire some HEAVILY armed VERY trustworthy VERY highly paid (probably male) private security, and rotate them out every year or two so they don't start thinking that they 'own' the community in some way... And then train all the woman in basic firearms competence and disaster-response competence, as the emergency backstop.
No sleeping with the (community's own) security guards, since that's a conflict of interest, and some sort of community rule would have to be established for how male boyfriends DO work. Like "only sleep with them in their own homes, and always outside of the community defense zone" or something. I guess sleeping with a DIFFERENT community's security guards would be ok, depending on how the rules were written.
It's a... strange.... way of life, but it's not economically impossible. From a certain point of view, done right, it might even be safer and more efficient than whatever system those women would-have-been living in.
But almost nobody actually lives that way, or wants to live that way. Which implies that there's something women want besides just physical security and economic security.
Lots of candidates for what that could be... Social Rank? Social-Rank-by-Proxy? male role models for future sons? the fundamental feeling of male-female teamwork? not being labeled by society as a paranoid militia cultist? The luxury of not spending every moment of your life thinking about all of society as a highly risky 'game' which needs to be 'solved' ? The desire to actually build a functional society that works for everyone, not just reasonably wealthy western woman and a small proportion of trustworthy security guards?
https://www.stevestewartwilliams.com/p/could-women-learn-to-find-househusbands
I think that Steve Stewart Williams is asking for too much: Are men really sexually attracted to their wives because they care for home and family? Or are men simply attracted to their wives because they are attracted to women in general and have enough self-control to choose a woman who has other qualities than just being a woman?
If men in general don't find cleaning and cooking and childcare wildly sexually appealing, why would women? I think it would be a lot better if women learned from men and concluded that everything, always, does not need to be sexually appealing.
I enjoyed the article. I question though that the a median income earned by the average woman is in fact an “insurance policy.” In todays market a median income can’t but a median income home or support a family.
Marriage will forever be in decline until we fix the divorce court laws that disadvantage men. Why would any rational thinking man want to sign up for a contract where they are likely to be divorced against their will and forced to pay ruinous amounts of alimony and child support, amounts that often amount to more money than they actually make, while being denied visitation by a vindictive EX.
> Amish fathers are supposed to spend as much time as possible at home
That's because every time they're away from home, their wives get up to no good. Two Mennonite, from what I hear.
No discussion of alimony or child support? It can be remarkably high in some US states. http://www.realworlddivorce.com/
You made an important point that needs further explication:
No-fault divorce/rising divorce rates lowered the TFR as having more children would be a significant liability for women after divorce.
Most women won't explicitly say this. They'll talk about how much meaning or happiness they find in their careers. Or they could never handle four or five children with a full time job.
But people also say that they're leaving their jobs to spend more time with their family.
Significantly, the biggest demographic lowering the TFR is not women having no children, but women having fewer children than in previous generations.
Re the Jewish focus on male study and its effect on marriage I think it would be remiss not to include the words of Maimonides:
And [our Sages gave] even greater [advice], saying: "A person should always turn himself and his thoughts to the words of the Torah and expand his knowledge in wisdom, for the thoughts of forbidden relations grow strong solely in a heart which is empty of wisdom."
https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Forbidden_Intercourse.22.21?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
Perhaps culture can override all biology because the human biology includes culture.
So, there isn't a bare human biology that is overwritten by culture such that when we strip away culture, we shall find a human biology that is common to all humans.
Why Ultra-Orthodox women have ten children is entirely conditioned by their culture and then it is futile to find any fundamental facts about women from this alone
2 questions.
1. > Some women and children really will be in dire circumstances when they are deserted or badly treated. Some people will be caught in loveless unions with dysfunctional partners.
Given that you state that all Ultra-Orthodox men have to offer is love, what does an Ultra-Orthodox women stand to lose from abandoning a loveless marriage, especially as there is there is an organization to help divorced women. (Perhaps I should add here that according to the Israeli Democratic Institute only 4% of Haredim over 20 are divorced/widowed, and 86% are married.)
2. If I understand correctly you seem to be implying that Ultra-Orthodox women have it harder than Amish women. Am I correct that this is your perception?
I definitely don't want to downplay the hard work of our women whom I view as superheroes (especially my wife). Additionally, one can't judge from anecdotes and I am sure there are Ultra-Orthodox women who have it harder than Amish women. I just wonder if it is obvious that is the rule.
First of all, our attitude to technology which makes life easier (other than secular media) is the exact opposite of the Amish. We embrace it all with open arms, from microwaves to toasters to blenders to pressure cookers and slow cookers etc. My family uses almost 100% disposables other than pots and baby bottles.
Our supermarkets sell everything at one spot and deliver orders, including prepared or microwaveable foods, and we try to take advantage as much as possible (given financial and health constraints. I do think most mothers (at least of large families) don't do most of the regular shopping, and I don't think the examples you mentioned are typical in the low amount of help the husbands provide (though few can measure up to Anders), but this is something that obviously varies per family and I don't believe there are any studies.
True, the women often work hard to support the family, but they also get to send their children for daycare (hopefully for more hours than they work). Many women feel the tradeoff is worth it. As you wrote in another comment, even stay-at-home mothers often feel the need to have some outlet/vocation of their choice.
I believe that in the U.S. most families(at least those with working mothers) have some hired domestic/cleaning help.
As other commenters have mentioned, the fact that our children (especially males) study for long hours, combined with our tight-knit communities means that we barely see our boys (from about age 8 or younger) during daytime hours, which makes parenting much easier.
All this is aside from family and community help which I assume the Amish also have.
Again, I certainly don't want to downplay the hard work of Ultra-Orthodox women. However, I think many of them may be offended from the assumption that they obviously work harder than Amish women (assuming you meant to imply that).
>>Given that you state that all Ultra-Orthodox men have to offer is love, what does an Ultra-Orthodox women stand to lose from abandoning a loveless marriage, especially as there is there is an organization to help divorced women.
You tell me! I actually don't believe that all the men have to offer is love. They also offer a firm place in the community.
There might be several reasons behind the low divorce rate:
1. Divorce is seen as a failure so people will not seek divorce if they don't have an obvious reason.
2. Spouses see rather little of each other anyway so they have fewer opportunities to develop conflicts.
3. People are genuinely committed to make their marriages work and believe it is possible.
I can only guess. You know much better than
>>If I understand correctly you seem to be implying that Ultra-Orthodox women have it harder than Amish women. Am I correct that this is your perception?
No, not at all. Especially the Amish's lack of washing machines seems terrible in terms of work load. The most important difference is that Amish men and women lead more similar lives ("an Amish scholar" would be a contradiction).
The Ultra-Orthodox household organization seems to me like modern society taken to its extreme. I really would like to see it in real life. It must be an impressive logistics operation. I could never have imagined this thing with the disposable dishes if no one told me. I'm feeling like I would need to see the thing in action to be able to fully imagine the details of it.
I don't doubt LG's testimony that many Ultra-Orthodox women are overworked. If people in a certain group work hard, then inevitably some of them will be overworked, sometimes or always. But I also imagine that those who are on the right side of the limit of overwork get the feeling of doing something rather advanced.
I think the idea of quantity vs. quality gets to the core of your essay.
I agree very much with your essay. However I would change one subtitle. I wouldn't say "protection before provision" but rather "security from all risks before quantitative provision".
Womanhood and especially motherhood is synonymous with neuroticism for good reason, not just due to the risk of (sexual) violence, and not just for concern over their personal welfare but also for concern about the welfare of the children which they bear and to which they become attached.
For women love is essentially a way of signaling security from risks.
The feminine desire for marriage is not as a business contract to be marketed to the highest bidder, but rather as a deeply committed relationship in which the lifegoal of each partner is to do as much as they can to meet the needs and desires of the other partner. (See an interesting essay from Freya India here , towards the end.) This is what love signifies. (This is part of the reason that women's jealousy is so all-encompassing. It isn't just that men are so easily distracted, but also because women's need for "security from all risks" demands complete unwavering dedication from men.)
This can help give some more insight into the Ultra-Orthodox system.
Every Orthodox man gives his bride a signed document (a kesubah) stating אנא אוקיר ואוזין ואפלח ואפרנס יתיכי. (I will honor, feed, work, and financially support you). The signing (by 2 witnesses), reading aloud and giving over of this document is a major part of the marriage ceremony. She must keep this document for the rest of the marriage. If she loses it, they need to write another one.
(Over a decade ago, when my younger brother (who is a quintessential Talmud scholar with an almost photographic memory who spent all his adult years completely engrossed in the study of Talmud) was dating I wrote him a letter explaining how the duties of the kesubah correspond to women's psychological needs (and discussed the words of our sages ""). He said it helped him a lot.)
Even in Ultra-Orthodox circles (e.g. among Hasidim) Kollel men are often ridiculed for not fulfilling these basic duties, which are recorded in the Talmud which they spend their lives studying.
Whatever the justification may be for the current (Israeli) system I think it is generally understood that the husband carries the ultimate responsibility for the family's finances. If the family's finances become too much for the wife to carry, or if for whatever reason she is no longer able to work, or if any crisis arises, he will do everything in his power to provide for the family. (Though unfortunately, due to the circumstances current in Israeli Haredi society that may necessitate his traveling across the pond to collect charity as LG mentioned, though if a respected Talmudic scholar falls on hard times his admirers will often bail him out from afar, unless it is an very large sum of money.)
With regard to domestic duties too despite the fact that we encourage men to spend as much time as possible studying and women generally do most of the domestic work, I think men responsible for domestic duties, especially child-rearing. The fact that women do the work is a division oof duties, but the men are fully responsible for completing the tasks which are hard for her.
A good part of the women's confidence in men's dedication and responsibility stems from the nature of their study of Talmud. The primary purpose of the study of Talmud is to educats a person to live constantly with a sense of personal responsibility and complete dedication to a higher cause. One interesting example is the free-loan societies I've mentioned before. The manager of the largest free-loan society in Lakewood, which distributes long-term loans of tens of thousands of dollars with little security states that his primary security is the signature of someone who learns Talmud all day as a guarantor. He has learned from experience that wealth and access to money are no guarantee of repayment. However, one who studies (or teaches) Talmud will always honor his signature, no matter how poor he may be.
I think this may quite possibly be true even in the case of the obnoxious husband you described. But that 'very nice husband' who gave his wife a granola bar as she rushes out the door without breakfast and then drank tea with her at midnight? That granola bar signifies his appreciation for everything she does and during that cup of tea he is (hopefully) assessing and intuiting whether she is overburdened and whether she is truly doing all this out of love.
Again, I don't have direct stats on how the typical Ultra-Orthodox man treats his family. But I think all the stats we both cited indicate a very high level of satisfaction with marriage and life. Showing gratitude is one of the most fundamental principles of Judaism. Honoring one's parents is in the Ten Commandments and we are taught that God made their honor comparable to his honor. The book "Duties of the Heart" (perhaps the first post-Talmudic book of this genre) predicates all worship of God on the basis of gratitude. So this obnoxious husband is certainly exhibiting very unJewish behavior, and if he spends most of his time studying Talmud he is being hypocritical.
That isn't to say that LG doesn't have a point that our system has a downside in that can cause men to be self-absorbed and even stuck up with themselves if applied improperly. (See here https://halachaheadlines.com/speakers/726-yisroel-knofler/ where the interviewee presents his opinion that this is the cause of many divorces. He touches on a topic which you pointed out as a positive; that when it comes to study partners (chavrusas) people are encouraged to break up if it isn't to their liking.)
However, the data of so few divorces indicates that this is only temporary; in the long run men learn to adjust to carry responsibility for the physical and emotional needs of their family.
It is only natural that there is a learning curve; after all, our men have zero exposure to women outside of close family members until they start dating, and dates are very focused only on determining basic compatibility for marriage. (I do think there are ways we could be more focused on teaching young men to have a sense of responsibility. Just recently I had an email conversation with a local rabbi on this. In general, despite the passion I exhibit here for my community's values I definitely think that my community has much to improve and I try to do my part within the community to effect change.)
(And you are right that social status is also a factor. The social status of a Talmud scholar and his family is very beneficial in a tight-knit community which values the study of Talmud, as we discussed regarding marriage partners.)
I know Lyman Stone fell out of favor but this recent piece https://substack.com/home/post/p-154819917
as summed up here https://substack.com/@arnoldkling/p-154766970 is uncannily similar to what I wrote here. (a) "women are not day-in-day-out dependent on men for “provision,” rather, women are are episodically dependent on men, and men especially operate as insurance policies Today, the exact needs differ, but men are still basically insurance policies."(b) in today's society men often aren't a very safe insurance policy (c) men under 35 have relatively low earnings (b) therefore marriage subsidies help. This could have been written as an ad for the Lakewood community which (a) provides subsidies to young married couples (b) emphasizes that the men be secure insurance policies when they are most needed and most useful: especially over 35.
The link to Freya India https://www.freyaindia.co.uk/p/our-new-religion-isnt-enough
(Not that it adds much, just nice to see this articulated by someone out there)
>You tell me!
>I can only guess. You know much better than I
That was really great for guessing! I guess a lifetime studying gender relations pays off.
I take your response as an acknowledgement that you don't actually know that "Some women and children really will be in dire circumstances when they are deserted or badly treated. Some people will be caught in loveless unions with dysfunctional partners." It is obviously true for some women, but it is true for some women even in mainstream society.
In #2 you recognize that quality time can often be better for a marriage than quantity time.
I think this gets to the heart of our attitude.
As you noted in your previous post, we share with the Amish a fear of excess leisure and excess pursuit of material acquisitions and hedonistic pleasures, especially for males. However, we differ in our solution. Our approach is to educate our males to spend as much of their time studying, and to develop a deep appreciation of intellectual pursuits.
The fact that we encourage even family men to spend as much time as possible studying is not about being insensitive to the needs of his family, but rather about overcoming his own temptations to waste his time and energy on other pursuits.
I believe Judaism itself is very focused on quality family time. The weekly Shabbos and the many holidays are very much family centered, with many ritualistic (i.e. much singing and discussion) family meals (a typical Shabbos has 2-4 such meals), no productive activity allowed (e.g., no activating electricity), and no traveling. (The no traveling, together with the need to attend synagogue, has been much discussed at Jon Haidt's blog and in the book Family Unfriendly as a model for creating close-knit communities.)
We don't view the Shabbos as a burden that our religion makes us suffer, but rather as a privilege. Even Jewish atheist will often observe it to some extent, or at least pine for it. A famous Jewish atheist (Ahad Ha'am) wrote "more than the jews watched (heeded-שמרו) Shabbos the Shabbos watched over them. See an interesting post herehttps://www.jellomenorah.com/p/the-jewish-christmas-isshabbat and an interesting comment (from an non-believing Jew) here https://brinklindsey.substack.com/p/the-advance-of-the-monoculture/comment/40355290.
I think these holidays serve as a model for what the rest of the week and year should look. Additionally, I think these days especially people are very aware of the need to be sensitive to their family's needs, including the need for developing and maintaining a strong relationship with each one of them.
In other areas too there is strong emphasis in Judaism on a husband's responsibility to show his wife high quality love, and that more quantity can sometimes minimize quality. (For some sense and outline of what I am referring to please refer back to parshafromchana.substack. This is not the place to elaborate but I will just state that the primary ways in which the Talmudic tradition differs from others are (a) conjugal duties are considered the Biblical responsibility of the husband-based on how hard he works and thereby how available he is, and based on the assessment of his wife's emotional needs (b) the Talmud emphasizes very strongly the importance of performing these duties out of love- e.g., not while inebriated (the Talmud gives 9 examples of an improper state of mind on the part of the husband or wife and has strong words about them) or without preparing his wife and putting her in the right state of mind, and the Talmud has very strong words for one who marries off his daughter to someone who does not behave this way. And the sexual restrictions (even within marriage) don't just serve as a reassurance to the woman. It serves to shape sexuality into a special unique experience for a 'holy' purpose.)
Your view is perhaps colored by reading books from those who left the community and not from those who joined the community. I think the beautiful family life (especially the Shabbos and the holidays) may be the greatest attraction to Orthodox Jewish life. (Perhaps you can take a look at this weeks Voice of Lakewood (Pg. 266-274 and pg. 308) where daughters of Torah scholars describe their fathers. You may not understand every word but you can get a picture. On pg. 254 too there is an article which may help you understand the economics and life of some Lakewood women.)
The intense focus on study can often be a burden on women, but ideally this should be only out of love, appreciation of the importance of Talmud study for the restoration and perpetuation of our culture, and recognition of the enormous sacrifice of the men for this purpose.
And I have often heard part of the argument for starting off the marriage studying that this provides a more flexible schedule to come home in the midst of the day (especially as we expect working men too to spend at least a few hours a day praying and studying).
Essentially, that the child-rearing and high fertility of the women shares the same purpose as the Talmud study of the men. At their core, both are rooted in intense pride in their unique culture and the dedication to perpetuating this culture. Essentially the partnership between the two is a partnership of each doing their utmost to fulfill their role in passing their culture to the next generation.
Moreover, in our view a major component of marriage (and friendship) is the opportunity to be inspired by each other. At least in the initial phase of marriage the man's role is primarily to inspire through his 'holiness', i.e., his complete dedication to his studies whereas the women inspire by her ability to engage with the material world and not be pulled in by its allure but rather use it for higher purposes.
The Talmud teaches; a man and women if they merit God will dwell between them, if not a fire will consume. This sums up our view of marriage: For a marriage to last it must be dedicated to a higher purpose. It isn't an employment contract; it is a partnership to work together and separate to the best of their abilities to fill the world with a flourishing human society.
Perhaps it is time to point out that in my view this is the key difference between Judaism and other religions: Judaism is about imbuing every action with a sense of holiness, meaning and purpose. Yes, many of our restrictions may seem needlessly burdensome, but they serve as a constant reminder that one can find meaning purpose and holiness in every action (or non-action), even the most mundane and the most physical.
Yes, such a life may seem restrictive to some, but those who appreciate the beauty and wisdom of it live their entire life on a completely different plane (at least I believe so) that makes it hard for others to relate to. Every second of their life exists for a purpose. And these 'meaningful moments' have a history of thousands of years. Jews have a living memory of all the major events in their long history as they commemorate them with heartful and meaningful rituals. Legend has is that Napoleon once came into a synagogue on Tisha B'av and saw everyone sitting on the floor crying mounfully. He asked what happened to them. They responded that it isn't anything recent. They are crying over the loss of their temple thousands of years ago. To which Napoleon responded "no wonder the Jews survived all these years". For someone who appreciates this history the pride and confidence instilled by the privilege to be able to perpetuate such an ancient yet still thriving (perhaps more than ever) is very powerful.
I don't know how helpful this can possibly be for your own life.
Ok.
Finally.
Please don't take the delay as a signal that I wrote something significant. To the contrary, let it serve as an indication of how hard it is to give over a culture in substack comments (and to the fact that I don't have that much time on my hands).
I don't think I can provide data for these questions. Instead, I will try to give a glimpse of our ideology. (I feel that I went too far in getting ideological and religious but what can I do?)
In general, it is hard for me to answer without specific questions, but especially to questions as general as these, as I generally feel that my religion is optimally designed to promote a beautiful family and community life (as משכיל בינה wrote "the bottom line is that it’s a culture set up first, last and everything in between for breeding. Imagine every difficulty you’ve ever had with having children, every reason you can think of for not popping out one more; Charedi society has an app for that." But I don't think it's just "breeding". I think it is everything associated with a beautiful family and community life) while at the same time putting an excessive emphasis on male studiousness.
>>Your view is perhaps colored by reading books from those who left the community and not from those who joined the community. I think the beautiful family life (especially the Shabbos and the holidays) may be the greatest attraction to Orthodox Jewish life.
Yes, it is. I often think about that, and it is interesting in itself: Of all the books I have read about people leaving religious lifestyles, all but one was written by people from less-than-perfect families. I read one book about a woman from mainstream society becoming Amish (Marlene Miller). She came from a rather unpleasant family and married into a family of very nice people. Subsequently, the couple decided to migrate to the Amish side. All this tells me that families are extremely important to people. It seems like dissatisfaction with family life is a number one reason for people to leave their community (or at least to leave their community and write a book about it).
That way, I sometimes try to imagine from the description of less-than-ideal families what more ideal families would have done instead. For example, Leah Vincent mentioned how her mother ran around on Friday afternoons among all her uncooked chickens and yelled "don't talk to me unless you are bleeding". From that information I can imagine how a mother with better coping strategies would have handled to have a deadline to meet in a household full of children.
>>(I feel that I went too far in getting ideological and religious but what can I do?)
Don't worry about being too religious toward me. Maybe it is just my very high self-confidence, but I believe that I understand the things religious people say. At least some religious people. I'm constantly perceiving some kind of purpose that I just need to follow. I imagine that this is the same thing that religious people are perceiving. So I have no problem when people who believe talk about what they believe because I think I can understand why they believe. Even though I can find a plausible scientific explanation to why I'm feeling compelled to lead a purposefull life, I nonetheless feel it. And that makes me feel a high degree of affinity with religious people.
I also find your description of cooperative family life in the service of a higher purpose easy to understand, because that is more or less how Anders and I are aiming to live, but in the service of science and philosophy instead of any specific religion. I think I understand your description of people trying to lead purposefull lives. And I belive that when they manage to do what they aim at to at least some degree, people with such ambitions are happier than people who are given no purpose with their existence.
Working on a response.
It is hard to encapsulate an entire culture in a substack comment but I will try to do what I can.
Wow!
I am constantly impressed by your ability to be so open-minded in analyzing and even taking lessons from other cultures which seem oppressive. The issue of Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel not spending most of their life in the study hall is certainly the most opaque for an outsider and yet you recognized that the women are happy and learnt from this.
I think there is some perspective to add here. If I would have the time and the inclination I would write a few articles providing that. That won't happen but perhaps I will leave some more comments.
For now I shall state that to me the most important takeaway from this post is that the highest fertility societies seem to be those in which mothers have the highest workload (and the males are oppressed), whether this is due to their rejection of technology or to their expectations that men spend much of their time in synagogue or study hall. This seems counter-intuitive and is worthy of reflection.
It seems that the most important ingredient for high fertility is social conditioning to be 'highly oppressed'. One may maintain that this is solely about these cultures doing a good job at brainwashing. However this survey https://en.idi.org.il/haredi/2022/?chapter=48268 shows that Haredim rank far higher in every factor of satisfaction with life and mental and emotional health (and Israelis in general rank very high on this https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/03/charted-the-happiest-countries-in-the-world/). I assume that this is true for women too, as the survey certainly would have tried to highlight any differences in gender if they were significant.
I think that ApplePie's most recent post would have been the perfect response to this post. It could almost serve as the motto for the Amish and the Haredim.
>according to the Israeli Democratic Institute only 4% of Haredim over 20 are divorced/widowed,
The link is here https://www.idi.org.il/media/22473/statistical-report-on-ultra-orthodox-society-in-israel-2023.pdf. It is on pg.16-17. I can't find it in English. The 4% in the chart on pg. 17 is actually for חיים בנפרד, גרושים או אלמנים; living separately (but still married), divorced or widowed.
The 86% married is for age 20+. For 25+ I imagine it is at least 90%. The once-married number may be here for that age group. However, it is possible that it isn't much higher, as I believe that a high percentage of Haredi divorces are soon after the marriage, essentialy a failed marriage.
This might be true today, but seems less true in the past, tho there was far more pressure on women to be faithful then on men. Slut vs stud for similar promiscuity.
In the Baby Boom years, many workers were trying to get their own nuclear family homes, close to where the husband father had a good paying job. As formerly war working women changed into SAHM, with far more labor saving devices but also far from parental help with grandkids, many women wanted more from life than even the most interesting Peyton Place TV soap operas. … (usual story).
Many / most women want a status increasing and personally meaningful job outside the home. Because of unfair biology, not injustice, the best years for having babies are also the best years for starting a career. The 20s.
Our society needs to increase the incentives for women to be married sooner, and have children sooner. Like a $10,000 wedding grant from the govt for every couple who marries before their combined years are 55 (25+30, 27+28, 21+34), with this amount decreasing by $100 each month over.
The Amish & UO examples don’t scale into secular, materialistic society.
Another view on the subject:
https://becomingnoble.substack.com/p/its-embarrassing-to-be-a-stay-at?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
I think it's quite interesting to note the symmetries between this perspective and the more male/MRA perspective. Complaining about the high divorce risk nowadays, saying that all they want is love, and saying that women/men orient themselves strongly around getting attention from the opposite sex.
Makes me feel like there must be an important missing factor in this type of analysis.
Why? Why couldn't it be that both men and women most of all want love and are afraid to invest in a marriage that ends in divorce?
Can't it just be that our society is failing to give me and women sufficiently efficient tools to negotiate the terms for how to meet and how to stay together?
"Society is failing to give men and women sufficiently efficient tools" could be the important missing factor to describe here, but I'm not sure.
I have no insider knowledge about the Amish or the Ultra-Orthodox Jews, but I think people might be more inclined to have children if they have a place in a community to offer said children. And reasonable expectations that the children will grow up to have the same opinions and beliefs as the parents themselves. For average westerners it seems more like different generations live in different worlds, don't have much in common. And parents have limited influence over who their children will spend time with in school, something that might have a bigger influence on who their children become as adults than anything their parents do.
I really enjoyed the article, but don't really buy the "women don't have multiple kids because they need to preserve their mate value, in the ceaseless war of all against all in the mating market" explanation.
I mean, as you point out, women initiate most divorces. And more specifically, "most" means 70% of divorces (at least in the US).
Second, they're manifestly NOT preserving their mate value - age is a much bigger factor for mate value for women, and most people in the world get fat after marriage. People would be MUCH more serious about working out, eating well, and taking care of health if "preserving mate value" was an actual concern or motivation, but manifestly, married people don't do this, whether or not they have kids.
https://imgur.com/a/EgkHNzB
On "marriage makes you fat" the meta analysis here, with ~200k couples and ~100k matched singles across 18 countries, shows a strong effect size of marriage on obesity - 1.7 odds ratio, up to 2.5 odds ratio in economic downturns.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/39057117/
It includes a study of same-sex twins from China that finds even among twins, marriage increases BMI for both sexes, regardless of genetic and common environmental factors.
In general, less than half (45%) of divorced women in the USA have remarried 5 years later. Remarriage is getting steeply less prevalent since the 80's. See the graph here:
https://imgur.com/a/Ehtu9BJ
From here:
https://www.bgsu.edu/ncfmr/resources/data/family-profiles/reynolds-remarriaage-US-geographic-variation-2019-fp-21-18.html
The more likely explanation for having fewer kids is that it's associated with female education and workforce participation, and not really correlated with divorce, because we see the same drops in fertility in every developed country, even when base divorce rates vary by as much as 4x (Japan has half the divorce rate of the USA, Italy has roughly a quarter the divorce rate, Singapore has a 1.5x higher divorce rate, but all three have much worse fertility rates than the US).
Even in the Philippines, where until a couple of weeks ago divorce has literally been illegal, fertility has been declining pretty much directly in line with female education.
https://imgur.com/a/0Abli1D
You are completely right in one thing: Divorce is absolutely not the foremost reason why people have few children. The first and foremost reason that people in most modern societies have few children is that children aren't really appreciated and having children give people, men and women alike, lower status. And the reason why people in a few modern societies actually have many children is that those societies appreciate children and numerous children raise people's social status. So as you point out, seeking correlations between divorce and fertility is meaningless.
If a culture wants to raise its fertility rate, the first thing it needs to do is saying "having numerous children is good". But I think that is not enough. After all, Catholics also said "having children is good", but their fertility rates have plummeted in line with the rest of the population. The populations that managed to keep up a high fertility rate are all populations with low divorce rates and strong modesty norms.
So I believe that in addition to saying "having numerous children is good", modesty norms that make people feel comparatively secure in their marriages is a prerequisite for keeping high fertility rates. But without strongly encouraging people to have many children in the first place, such norms make little difference.
My impression is that Catholics said "be fruitful and multiply", but they didn't commit hard to it, in the form of high status for people with many children over few children (compared to, say, Mormons). So eventually other social factors wore down the fertility rate. The forces pushing TFR down are extremely widespread; any general explanation has to take into account more secular societies, but also the difference in fertility between, say, Iran and Nigeria. (With the latter, there seems to be a lot of disagreement on what the divorce stats actually are.)
Yeah, I think the "status" explanation is much more likely than the "mate value" explanation.
ACX just linked to this post making the same argument, where he attributes the loss of "virtue" status games like religion in favor of the meritocratic "success" status games we all play today as the major factor:
https://becomingnoble.substack.com/p/its-embarrassing-to-be-a-stay-at
"Over time, this set of status mechanics spread, intensified, and deepened, particularly during the process of urbanization during the Industrial Revolution. Ultimately this culminates in today, when the standard introductory question has become ‘What do you do?’. This is because the most effective way to gauge the status of one’s interlocutor is to understand their level of success within our meritocracy. Unfortunately, ‘I’m a mother’ is not a good answer to this question, because this conveys little status within a success framework, which is usually the operative one. Women are, understandably, hesitant to be continuously humiliated in this way, and will make whatever tradeoffs are necessary to ensure they have a better answer."
He has some suggestions at the end which would probably move the needle on fertility rates at the end, but are essentially impossible culturally, because they're all about "stop enforcing Englightment and feminist norms on subgroups."
We change norms all the time. Why do you think we have lost this ability?
> women initiate most divorces.
That's not as dispositive as might be thought. Women are dutiful and do the paperwork to wind up a failed relationship. The women filing for divorce are not necessarily doing so because they were disloyal; it might equally be because their partners are.
Your other points I agree with.
You know, that's a great point. I hadn't considered that, but I think you're probably right, and that is probably a big factor.
" Technically, women could use men as mere sperm donors and go about their own lives together with other females, much like most social animals are doing. They just don't seem to have the mindset."
The weird part is, economically, that would actually be... pretty easy to afford in the modern western world.
I mean, in THEORY, it would not be impossibly expensive to pick some rural or semi-rural location where land is cheap and the supporting infrastructure is readily available, and then form a.... commune/self-defense organization of about 30-150 women, most or all of them highly qualified to work outside the home. Find the golden compromise between "everyone lives in dorms in the same building" versus "Everyone has their own free-standing home, but they're all integrated into a planned community", whatever that compromise point winds up being.
Hire some shared communal nannies, or more likely, pay members of the community to take up that work, Hire some HEAVILY armed VERY trustworthy VERY highly paid (probably male) private security, and rotate them out every year or two so they don't start thinking that they 'own' the community in some way... And then train all the woman in basic firearms competence and disaster-response competence, as the emergency backstop.
No sleeping with the (community's own) security guards, since that's a conflict of interest, and some sort of community rule would have to be established for how male boyfriends DO work. Like "only sleep with them in their own homes, and always outside of the community defense zone" or something. I guess sleeping with a DIFFERENT community's security guards would be ok, depending on how the rules were written.
It's a... strange.... way of life, but it's not economically impossible. From a certain point of view, done right, it might even be safer and more efficient than whatever system those women would-have-been living in.
But almost nobody actually lives that way, or wants to live that way. Which implies that there's something women want besides just physical security and economic security.
Lots of candidates for what that could be... Social Rank? Social-Rank-by-Proxy? male role models for future sons? the fundamental feeling of male-female teamwork? not being labeled by society as a paranoid militia cultist? The luxury of not spending every moment of your life thinking about all of society as a highly risky 'game' which needs to be 'solved' ? The desire to actually build a functional society that works for everyone, not just reasonably wealthy western woman and a small proportion of trustworthy security guards?