Have you ever been in a hotel room with your spouse and kids, tucked away in this liminal space, enjoying the feeling that no one could find you (and kind of hoping that no one ever would), and thought to yourself: “This is all I need in the world”?

There has been some lament in recent decades over the dissolution of the extended family — the fact that most people no longer live in close proximity to grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, etc. This is indeed a loss. Yet in making this lament, it’s possible to lose sight of just how brilliant the nuclear or atomic family really is. Indeed, it is in part because of its stand-alone luminescence that we have not fought harder to preserve a wider familial network. While the extended family adds to it, the atomic family is not itself impoverished. 

Pairs of parents + their children form the smallest intergenerational units of society. What Edmund Burke called “little platoons.”

And how very serviceable these tiny troops truly are.

Agile and mobile, when the sh*t hits the fan (like, say, during a pandemic), the atomic family can contract into a self-sustaining unit, prepared to navigate through.

Independent and idiosyncratic, when society’s ways seem stale, dumb, and wrong-headed, the atomic family can cultivate its own distinctive, us-against-the-world culture. 

Safe and protective, when life in the trenches grows weary, the atomic family can become the hearth around which spirits are rallied.

Warm and close-knit, when the world feels cold and indifferent, the atomic family can be a refuge of counted-upon affections.

All hail, then, these merry bands of compatriots. 

All hail these rogue gangs of battle buddies. 

All hail these crews that hold together when everything falls apart.

All hail our little platoons. 

Help support independent publishing. Make a donation to The Art of Manliness! Thanks for the support!

The marriage rate has come down 65% since 1970. There are multiple factors behind this decrease, but one of them is what we might call the poor branding that surrounds marriage in the modern day. From all corners of our culture and from both ends of the ideological spectrum come messages that marriage is an outdated institution, that it hinders financial success and personal fulfillment, and that it’s even unimportant when it comes to raising kids.

My guest would say that these ideas about marriage are very wrong, and he doesn’t come at it from an emotionally-driven perspective, but from what’s born out by the data. Dr. Brad Wilcox is a sociologist who heads the nonpartisan National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, which studies marriage and family life. He’s also the author of Get Married. Today on the show, Brad discusses the latest research on marriage and how it belies the common narratives around the institution. We dig into the popular myths around marriage, and how it not only boosts your finances, but predicts happiness in life better than any other factor. Brad also shares the five pillars of marriage that happy couples embrace.

Resources Related to the Podcast

• Brad’s previous appearance on the AoM Podcast: Episode #278 — The Surprising Benefits of Marriage for Men
• The National Marriage Project at UVA
• AoM Article: The Case for Marriage
• Piece in the NYT by Brad: “To Be Happy, Marriage Matters More Than Career”
• Piece in the Atlantic by Brad: “The Awfulness of Elite Hypocrisy on Marriage”
• Piece in the Atlantic co-authored by Brad: “Now Political Polarization Comes for Marriage Prospects”
• Brad’s articles at the Institute for Family Studies 
• AoM Podcast #946: Counterintuitive Ideas About Marriage, Family, and Kids

Connect With Brad Wilcox

• Brad’s faculty page
• Brad on X
• Brad on LinkedIn

Listen to the Podcast! (And don’t forget to leave us a review!)

Listen to the episode on a separate page.

Download this episode.

Subscribe to the podcast in the media player of your choice.

Read the Transcript

Brett McKay: Brett McKay here, and welcome to another edition of The Art of Manliness podcast.

The marriage rate has come down 65% since 1970. There are multiple factors behind this decrease, but one of them is what we might call the poor branding that surrounds marriage in the modern day. From all corners of our culture, and from both ends of the ideological spectrum, come messages that marriage is an outdated institution, that it hinders financial success and personal fulfillment, that it’s even unimportant when it comes to raising kids.

My guest would say that these ideas about marriage are very wrong, and he doesn’t come at it from an emotionally-driven perspective, but from what’s borne out by the data. Dr. Brad Wilcox is a sociologist who heads the non-partisan National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, which studies marriage and family life. He’s also the author of Get Married. Today on the show, Brad discusses the latest research on marriage and how it belies the common narratives around the institution. We dig into the popular myths around marriage and how it not only boosts your finances, but predicts happiness in life better than any other factor. Brad also shares the five pillars of marriage that happy couples embrace. After the show’s over, check out our show notes at aom.is/marriage.

Alright. Brad Wilcox, welcome back to the show.

Brad Wilcox: Brett, it’s great to be here.

Brett McKay: So you are a sociologist who spends a lot of time researching and writing about marriage, particularly the benefits of marriage and family life. You got a new book out called Get Married, and you start off the book saying that the impetus behind this book is to counter what you see as an anti-marriage narrative in popular culture. What are some examples of this narrative that you’re seeing?

Brad Wilcox: Yeah, Brett, it’s actually funny, when I was finishing up the last-minute touches on the book, one article came across my Twitter screen. It was trending on Twitter. It was an article in Bloomberg that said women who stay single and don’t have kids are getting richer. And so the headline was giving the impression that steering clear of marriage and motherhood was the way to go for women financially, but also gave us lots of stories of single women who are childless, living their best life. And so I think both the financial story told in this story in Bloomberg and the emotional story being told were encouraging them to steer clear of marriage and motherhood, for a bunch of reasons. We’ve seen articles like The Case Against Marriage published in The Atlantic, articles like Divorce Can Be an Act of Radical Self-Love published recently in The New York Times.

So these are just some of the examples that we see in the media, for instance, that give us what I would call a profoundly anti-nuptial or anti-marriage message. You think about the pop culture more generally and mainstream television shows and movies, I think what you often see in everything from that show Friends back in the day, to a lot of the Chicago series on NBC, is a kind of message that your 20s are your years to have fun and focus on career. And then maybe as you approach 30 or 35, you would begin to think about settling down and getting married and having kids. But there’s an implicit message, too, I think, in the pop culture and certain precincts in the elite culture that are encouraging young adults to just postpone marriage or forego marriage and focus instead on career and having fun in your free time. So that’s also, I think, part and parcel of what I’m worried about in terms of giving people the wrong idea.

Brett McKay: Well, you mentioned some of these articles in these magazines, they focused on women staying single and the benefits of that. But you’re also seeing the same sort of thing about men. Men shouldn’t get married.

Brad Wilcox: Yeah, so what’s striking here, I think, is when I began this project, I was thinking about being in conversation primarily with more elite voices on the left that tend to dominate a lot of mainstream media and academia and pop culture to some extent. But now, we’re getting this from the online right as well. And Pearl Davis is one figure that’s got a big following online. She has said that marriage is a death sentence for men. And then you have, of course, Andrew Tate is a very big voice in the manosphere who’s also arguing that marriage has no ROI, no return on investment, for men. He says, “The problem is, there is zero advantage to marriage in the Western world for a man.” And then he goes on to say, “It’s very common that women divorce their husbands.” So what the left has been telling us is that, really, marriage and motherhood can be a bad deal for women. We’re now hearing, though, from the opposite end of the ideological spectrum that marriage is a bad deal for guys. And of course, the common takeaway, sadly, I would say, for young adults is that, “Maybe I should just steer clear of opening my heart to love, to marriage, and family.”

Brett McKay: Yeah, and as a sociologist, you actually research what happens when people get married. We’re gonna talk about… Actually, there’s a lot of benefits when you get married and settle down. But one thing you talk about, what both of these strains of thought have in common, these anti-marriage, anti-family life, strains of thought, whether it’s coming from the left or the right, is that they both have what you call a Midas view of life. What do you mean by the Midas view of life?

Brad Wilcox: So Brett, I gotta give all credit to my wife. I was asking her, “How can I think about some kind of fable or story that would convey the way in which people can become too attached to work or money or whatever else?”, and she said, “What about the King Midas story?” And of course, it’s a great example. I’ve updated the Midas story for a public lecture on the book. But the idea here is that people are thinking that they should be searching for gold and trying to build their own brand. It’s about education, money, and above all, career. We’ve got a lot of data from Pew, especially, telling us that Americans, even parents, Brett, unfortunately are prioritizing for their children, education and career over marriage down the road. It’s just very short-sighted. I think they’re gonna be really regretting that emphasis when they’re 75 years old and there are no grandkids on the horizon.

So, we see that, but again, a lot of data from Pew that Americans think that money and education, especially work, are the way to go. So ax recent Pew study found that 71% of Americans thought that having a job or a career they can enjoy is the path to fulfillment. Only 23% said that being married was the way to go. So it just gives you a sense of this Midas mindset, where all the action is in work and money and building your own brand, and the sort of idea is that investing in marriage and family is the wrong path, and you should instead kind of be free. Free of all the encumbrances that come from settling down, putting a ring on it.

Brett McKay: Yeah. So the idea out there, both in the culture and in the media, is that marriage will hurt your financial life. That’s the message that’s out there. But that actually isn’t the case.

Brad Wilcox: Yeah, so that Bloomberg headline was just completely bananas and was [chuckle] so wrong. I mean, they were relying upon data of just… Taken from singles, they’ve had a study on singles, and somehow they got to this conclusion that summed up that marriage is a bad thing for women. What we actually see is that women who are married, and men, of course, too, are more likely to be flourishing financially. In fact, in their 50s, both women and men have about 10 times the assets heading towards retirement compared to their single peers. So, ironically, both Andrew Tate and Bloomberg should be discounted for folks who are worrying about financial security or prosperity. Because for the average American, the path to prosperity tends to run through marriage and not away from it. But my point, of course, is that there’s a lot more to life than money, and so what we see is that marriage, again, more than career, is a much stronger predictor of American’s happiness in ways that I think that a lot of people would be surprised by.

Brett McKay: So what’s the state of marriage today in America? Are people marrying less?

Brad Wilcox: So, yeah, so, I’ve got bad news in the report and good news. And the good news is kind of what I was just hinting at is that when it comes to loneliness, when it comes to meaning, when it comes to happiness, Americans who are married, both men and women, are markedly happier. They’re less lonely, they report more meaningful lives, especially if they have children in the picture when it comes to meaning. That’s part of the good news. But the bad news, Brett, is that we’ve seen the marriage rate come down by about 65% since 1970. And what that means practically for young adults today, like in their 20s, is we’re projecting that about one in three of them will never marry. And we’ve never been in this territory where so many Americans will be permanent bachelors and permanent bachelorettes. And that’s cause for concern for me, just because, again, what we see is that for ordinary Americans, typically, they’re just more likely to be thriving if they have a co-pilot to travel through life with.

Brett McKay: So one thing you talk about in the book is that while there’s been a big decrease in marriage overall, and for a lot of people, marriage isn’t thriving, your research has found that there are four groups where marriage is still thriving. What are those four groups?

Brad Wilcox: Yeah, in terms of again, the good news, we do kind of see some groups in America today who are, generally speaking, flourishing in their marriages, who are more likely to get married, stay married often, and be happily married. And those four groups are Asian-Americans, religious Americans, I call them the faithful in the book, college-educated Americans, I call them strivers in the book, folks who kind of have more of that focus long-term, work, profession, career, et cetera. And then the fourth group is conservatives. And to be frank, Brett, I didn’t anticipate having conservatives as a separate category. I thought as we crunched numbers, I’d find that being Asian-American, being religious, being college-educated, that these three groups in their own ways would be kind of more likely to be married in America today, among other things. But I found, in crunching the numbers, that when you included ideology in the statistics, you still found that there’s a net effect, a unique effect, of being conservative, ideologically speaking, that boosted your odds of being married and also being happily married, even controlling for factors like religion.

So, that’s why I have four groups in the book. And each of those four groups, Brett, a majority of them, if you compare them to the alternative groups, are married. So for instance, a majority of college-educated Americans, 18 to 55, are married. Only a minority today of less-educated working-class and poor Americans are married. A majority of conservatives are married. Only a minority of moderates and liberals are married. Asian-Americans and the likes are typically majority married. And then Black and Hispanic Americans, only a minority of them are married.

Brett McKay: Okay. And then for the ideology aspect, how do you define what is conservative?

Brad Wilcox: So there’s just… On social surveys, like the general social survey, which we use a lot for this book project, people are just asked, “Are you very liberal? Liberal? Moderate? Conservative? Very conservative?” And we also had a question like that in a YouGov survey that we did for the book of up to about 2000 husbands and wives, where we just categorized people as liberal or conservative.

Brett McKay: Gotcha.

Brad Wilcox: And we found that conservatives are more likely, again, to be married and to be happily married compared to moderates and liberals. Now, what’s interesting about the ideology story there is it’s a little bit complicated. So, it turns out that very liberal Americans, and I did a piece in the New York Times on this a little while ago, are relatively happier, looking at women. So very liberal women are relatively happier than sort of ordinary wives in America, sort of in the liberal to moderate category. But conservative and very conservative women are even happier. So, what I call a J-curve in marital happiness when it comes to women’s marital happiness, and where, again, the very liberal women are a little bit happier than the norm, and then the conservative, American conservative women, are even happier. We see a similar trend, actually it’s fascinating, looking at new Gallup study that we published in Family Studies a few months ago, when it comes to teens reports of the quality of their parent-child relationship. So, teens in variable households are a little bit happier than the norm, And then teens in conservative, especially very conservative, homes, are even happier.

And it’s just kind of surprising. And this Gallup study suggests that maybe the story there is that conservative parents tend to be a bit more authoritative, have clear roles and expectations and consequences for their kids, and that actually teens are more likely to thrive in a context where maybe there’s a clear curfew, maybe there are clearer consequences for getting your chores done or your homework done in conservative homes, and actually, those kinds of boundaries, as long as they’re coupled with an affectionate and engaged style, tend to work out well for kids.

Brett McKay: Can these demographics cross over? So for example, imagine you’re a college-educated or highly-educated, tend to be, I don’t know if the survey says or the research shows this, tend to be more liberal. Is that true?

Brad Wilcox: So yeah, there are cross-cutting… Yeah, that’s a great question. There are cross-cutting pressures here and then they’re overlapping. So I talked to a conservative, religious, Indian-American, well-educated guy for the book. So he would be checking all the boxes, and he and his wife are doing well, and they’ve got three kids who’ve done really well as well. So, there are examples like that. And then we also see a lot of the discussion around marriage is focused on sort of class and education. The assumption has been that college-educated Americans are more likely to be killing it when it comes to marriage. And my friend and colleague, Richard Reeves, he’s been at Brookings, he’s got a new group focusing on boys and men.

He’s kind of made the argument that college-educated Americans have these marriage-minded sort of norms and ideas, but they’re also more progressive on gender. And so that, for him, is the sweet spot. But what I actually find in my own research is that when you separate out the college-educated Americans who are conservative from those who are moderate and liberal, it’s the ones who are conservative who are most likely to be stably married and happily married. So it kind of calls into question some of Richard’s ideas about how this is all playing out. So, the bottom line is it’s sort of the most educated, most religious, and most conservative couples in America are the ones who are most likely to be stably married and happily married.

Brett McKay: Well, it’s similar to what Richard Reeves was saying. An argument that I’ve heard about marriage is that it all comes down to class and money, right? So, if you have lots of money and you’re upper to middle-class, you’re going to do fine. If you’re poor, you’re not going to do fine. What does your research show?

Brad Wilcox: Yeah. So, I’m saying there’s both a cultural story and a class story. And so, I think like Richard and I would tell very similar stories, but kind of the general class story, and there’s just having more education and more money is one big reason why we are seeing that more educated Americans are much more likely to be getting married and staying married and to be reasonably happily married. But I think where my story diverges from the one that Richard Reeves would tell us is that culturally, what we’re seeing is that more religious and more conservative couples, Asian-American couples, are more likely to be getting married and staying married oftentimes and are happily married. And so I think what they have is oftentimes a deeper sense of commitment to marriage as an institution and to the norms of marriage, norms like fidelity and not using the D word when things are tough in your marriage, obviously, divorce.

And they’re also more likely to be surrounded by peers who value marriage as well. And we know that that’s a big predictor of succeeding in marriage, too. If you’re surrounded by people who value marriage and are living more what I call family-first lifestyles, that’s going to, other things being equal, increase your odds of success. So, again, the bottom line here is that both culture and class are important in understanding marriage today, and so folks who have both more income, more education, but also an appreciation for a lot of those classic norms and values around marriage are also more likely to be succeeding at marriage today.

Brett McKay: So yeah, you spend a lot of time in the book countering what you think are some of the myths that are keeping young people from marrying or not investing enough in their marriage. And one myth is what you call the “flying solo” myth. What is the flying solo myth?

Brad Wilcox: So there’s just kind of this idea that, again, being free of entanglements, encumbrances, family obligations, is the path to happiness. That we want to keep our options open, keep our choices before us. We want to focus on our 20s on just having a good time and really investing in our career. And I talked to a number of women and men for the book who were in their mid-30s basically, and regretting the fact that they had spent their 20s focusing more on just career and fun, and now, they’re unmarried. And these two women in the Rocky Mountain West and a man in the DC far suburbs are really unmoored in some important ways. They’re kind of struggling with loneliness and a sense of meaninglessness and just wishing that they had made different choices in their 20s. And I should say, okay, well, so what I found, I found two people in America who conform to my priors. Well, the important point to make here, actually, is that we’re seeing a decline in happiness in America. And this decline is concentrated among unmarried Americans. And the biggest factor driving the drop in happiness in America, according to a recent study from the University of Chicago, is the declining rate of marriage in America.

So, a simple way to say this is like less marriage equals more unhappiness for the country at large. And I think our younger adults should just be a lot more skeptical of the messages they’re getting about the importance of freedom and choice and building your own brand and steering clear of entanglements with the opposite sex, because the people that are able to actually get married and build decent marriages are just flourishing on so many more dimensions than their peers who are not.

Brett McKay: Yeah. And a point you make in the book is that the flying solo idea, it could be great if you have lots of money and you can travel the world. But for average Americans, probably not. You’re not going to be able to do all these things ’cause you don’t have access to money. So if you really want flourishing and happiness, your best bet would be to get married.

Brad Wilcox: Correct. Right, and I profiled a professional from, I think, New York city who was kind of like living the life as a single, 30-something, high-flying guy. And he was perfectly happy. But as you were saying, there are a lot of Americans who are not traveling the world, not making a lot of money, and not killing it at work. And without the benefit of a spouse and family, life can be pretty hard. But again, what’s interesting, too, about the guy that I profiled in the suburbs of Washington, DC is that he has graduate training. He has a good job. He owns his own home. He’s making six figures. And he basically says to me as I interviewed him, he says, “I’ve got degrees in my wall. I’ve got accomplishments and certificates, but it doesn’t mean anything in the end. I have to get up every day and look in the mirror and realize I’m alone. I have nobody.” Okay? So for this guy, the Midas mindset has not worked out. He’s in his mid-30s and he is not happy. He’s not a happy camper. Now, again, I know plenty of single folks who are doing great. But I’m just saying on average, single Americans are more likely to be struggling, and married Americans are more likely to be flourishing. And that average story, unfortunately, Brett, is not being told enough in the media and certainly on social media as well.

Brett McKay: So we mentioned earlier, kind of referenced it. Your research that you’ve done has shown that married people tend to have more money, they’re happier, they’re more fulfilled. Is this a matter of causation, or correlation? Does marriage make you happier, or do happier people or people who have those attributes that can lead to a flourishing life tend to get married more often?

Brad Wilcox: That’s, I think, really the killer question, right? And so, yeah, the smart critics of the kind of argument that I’m making in the academy and in the media would talk about what we call “selection effect,” where the kinds of people who are selecting into marriage are just different. They’re more educated, they’re more affluent, they’re more… They have better social skills. And so they would say, “Brad is confusing correlation with causation here.” Yes, many people are happier, they’re more affluent, that’s because they’re already happier and more affluent to begin with. So like Matt Brunick, for instance, a progressive, says married people are less impoverished, because people who are not impoverished are more likely to get married. He says with marriage, you have an institution that attracts and retains more economically secure and stable people, not an institution that creates them. So this is a great summary of the sort of selection perspective.

But what Matt is missing, though, is just there’s still a ton of research on the way in which marriage is institution that tends to transform our lives. It doesn’t just vacuum up the elites and just put them together. Now, there’s some of that obviously happening now, but we know, for instance, of a study in Minnesota looking at identical twins and paternal twins, guys, and the twins who got married earned about 26% more than their twins who did not get married. So giving us a clear sense, it’s probably something about marriage per se that is helping to make men, and we see other evidence in the score, too, when it comes to men and marriage and work, married men work harder, they work longer hours, they’re more strategic in their job search, they’re less likely to be fired. So these are all the kinds of things that would help us to understand why marriage per se can be transformational.

And then on the happiness front, there’s work done by the economist Sean Grover and John Holliwell and the control for happiness prior to marriage, and then tracked happiness after people got married and after other people did not get married, comparing them over time. And they still found, “A causal effect on happiness at all stages of the marriage from prenuptial bliss to marriages of long duration.” And they found the biggest happiness premium was in midlife, when people in the late 40s and 50s, and we often see adult happiness at its nadir. And again, why is it that marriage is happiness-inducing? I think the point is that we are, as Aristotle said, social animals. And so, money [0:23:12.5] ____ end up being less important for us than our friendships and our family relationships, which give us opportunities to connect with others, to be with and for others. And I think important enough, to really to care for others.

And for both women and men, I think it’s important not just to be cared for, but to have opportunities to care for others. It gives our lives… Certainly, I’ll speak personally for a second. Caring for my wife and children is the most meaningful thing that I get to do. So, I just think people are not factoring in the ways that marriage and family can be so generative on so many fronts for ordinary women and men.

Brett McKay: We’re gonna take a quick break for a word from our sponsors. And now back to the show. Well, couldn’t you get the same benefits just by cohabitating, like companionship?

Brad Wilcox: Yeah, great question. So I think if you do like just an immediate look at like people’s happiness, cohabiting and married, often not a big difference, right? But the problem is that cohabitation is much less committed. And so, what that means in practice is that couples who are cohabiting just don’t go the distance nearly as much as those who are married. So you have situations, like a former neighbor of mine, where she invested five years of her life, just like 28 to 33 and her cohabiting partner, and then he just… She kind of made it clear she wanted to get married and have kids. And he’s like, “Well, I’m not ready for that,” And so, he was gone. And [chuckle] that was pretty traumatic, because they hadn’t established that kind of joint level of commitment heading into the relationship. And so her happiness that she’d enjoyed for probably substantial share of that relationship disappeared and turned out to be fairly traumatic. And of course, divorce can happen, too, but I’m just saying that, on average, marriage is markedly more stable than cohabitation, and that’s one reason why I talk about getting married rather than getting together.

Brett McKay: Yeah. So just getting married, it adds more stakes to the relationship, I guess. You take it more serious.

Brad Wilcox: So when I’m talking about this to my students, ’cause I think the cohabitation piece is the most surprising thing that we talked about in my class at the University of Virginia, how marriage and cohabitation are different. I’m just thinking about the terms of entry, or how couples enter into these two different relationship states. When it comes to cohabitation, what you see is oftentimes, couples can’t even agree on the day when they begin cohabiting. Like you have one partner will kind of bring some things over for the weekend, maybe leave some clothes, a toothbrush, whatever. And then some more stuff like a week later, and then move in all their stuff a month later or whatever, two months later. But it’s never been… There wasn’t a discrete moment, where obviously, with a wedding, it’s pretty clear when it happens.

But more importantly, just imagine the social context that these two things are taking place in. So with cohabitation, you have… There’s no assembled multitude of friends and family in that apartment hallway. There’s no music playing in the background. There are no vows being exchanged. You bring your gear into your partner’s apartment for the first time or whatever, for the second or third time. By contrast with the wedding, obviously, everything is kind of scripted, it’s a ceremony, it’s ritualized. And human beings, we’re actually really… We tend to endow things with more meaning when we do them in a ritualized, communal context, and especially when we make public vows in a communal context. So, that just gives you some sense of how marriage and cohabitation are really different things.

Brett McKay: Okay, so flying solo, for most people, getting married is probably your best bet for happiness, fulfillment, and even economic stability. Another myth you explore that might be preventing people from investing too much in their marriage is the myth of family diversity. What do you mean by that?

Brad Wilcox: Yeah. So, particularly in my academic world, there are a lot of folks who would argue that the family isn’t any way getting weaker or marriage isn’t declining; it’s just the family is changing, and that we should embrace family diversity, a wide range of family structures, and family approaches. And that marriage per se doesn’t really matter; what really matters for kids, when it comes to flourishing, is love, and also money. Basically, families have enough love in the household and who have decent income supply are gonna be doing just perfectly. For instance, there was an article in The Atlantic where there was a professor saying that, “All of our research points to the fact that it’s the quality of the relationship that matters and the handling of communication and conflict. And the number of people in the household is not really the key.” Or Philip Cohen, a professor at Maryland, said, “If people grow up with single mothers who have adequate income, they do fine on average. What we find is they do have a lot of challenges from the lack of resources, but family structure per se is not as big a factor.” So again, the idea here is that money matters, love matter, but marriage doesn’t matter per se.

And what these, I think, perspectives don’t really acknowledge is that yes, love matters, yes, money matters, but kids in intact married households are much more likely to be flourishing on any number of fronts. They’re about twice as likely to graduate from college compared to kids from non-intact families. Boys are about twice as likely to end up in prison or in jail compared to their peers from intact families, if they’re in a non-intact family. Girls and boys in non-intact families are 50% more likely to be sad as eighth graders.

So, that’s what the facts are, and I think one of the most striking things that I discovered in looking at this data with my colleague, Dr. Wendy Wang, is that young men today are more likely to go to prison or jail than they ought to graduate from college, if they’re raised in a non-intact family. By contrast, what we see is that for boys who were raised in intact families, only 9% of them end up in prison or jail, and 38% of them are graduating from college. So, that was, for me, when it comes to kids, that was the like, “Wow.” For boys who don’t have the benefit of their unmarried parents, more likely to end up incarcerated, whereas for boys who are benefiting from both their married parents in the household, much more likely to attend and graduate from college.

Brett McKay: So you’re saying there’s a myth that’s out there that, well, it doesn’t really matter if we get married, or if we get divorced, or if there’s just a single parent in the picture. It’s not a big deal, kids will be fine. And what you’re saying is, well, maybe not.

Brad Wilcox: So yeah. And two things to be clear about. One is that I was raised by a single mom, and obviously, many kids go on to do just perfectly fine without the benefit of married parents. I can think of prominent examples like Barack Obama and Jeff Bezos, who, at least obviously professionally, have done extremely well. So I’m not saying that coming from a non-intact household is a death sentence. I’m just sort of saying that on average, kids are more likely to flourish when they have the benefit of their unmarried parents. And the other interesting piece about this is that the proponents of family diversity states about really what matters for kids is love and money. What they do not acknowledge, though, Brett, is that on average, kids who are being raised by intact married parents have access to more attention and affection from their married parents, and they have access to a heck of a lot more money than kids in other family situations. So, even on the love and money front, what we’re seeing is on average, of course, we know that there are dysfunctional intact married families out there, but on average, kids are more likely to get the love and money they need to flourish when they’re being raised by their own married parents.

Brett McKay: Well, in a point you make in the book, you point out there’s a hypocrisy you see. There’s people out there in academia and the media that say, “Well, it doesn’t matter what your family looks like, you just get divorced, whatever, the kids are gonna be fine, you’re gonna be fine.” But then you look at how those people are living their lives. They’re typically… They’re married and they’re living in an intact family.

Brad Wilcox: Yeah. I’ve got a piece coming out in The Atlantic soon talking about how our elites often talk left and walk right. And the story there basically is that I think it’s become kind of fashionable in a variety of ways to articulate your support for family diversity and to discount the importance of marriage, or even to attack it, in certain circles in academia and the media and other precincts of our culture. But it’s also, I think, a fact that prudentially, it makes sense to get married and stay married. And so, that ends up being the path that a lot of elites take, ’cause they recognize, on some level, that it’s the best thing for them and for their kids.

Brett McKay: So another thing that seems to be holding people back from getting married… This is a new one. So before, people weren’t getting married, they’d say, “Well, I’ll miss out on opportunities for my career, I need to make money, I wanna enjoy myself,” whatever. The one thing you’re seeing now, I’ve been seeing more reports of, is political polarization. What’s going on there?

Brad Wilcox: So, my colleague, Lyman Stone and I did a piece for The Atlantic talking about the growing number of young women who are moving left and the growing number of young men are moving right. Although there’s more women moving left than men moving right, but it’s creating a situation where there are many more liberal women than there are liberal men, and a bit more conservative men than there are conservative women. And that’s leading to a gap, where we would estimate about one in five young adults can’t marry someone or can’t date someone who is on the same page with them ideologically. So that’s a problem, because as I’m arguing in the book, marriage is generally a good thing for young adults and for the society at large. It’s this political polarization is one more factor making it harder for young adults to marry.

Brett McKay: Anything we can do about that?

Brad Wilcox: Well, I think one thing to do is just to recognize that what matters here for, I think, marital success is being on the same page, either religiously or in terms of some core commitments, including how you wanna do family and work. So if you meet someone who’s not on the same page as you politically but who shares basically either your faith or your broader worldview in terms of how you wanna do work and family, then I would say consider moving forward. But on the other hand, if you’re kind of not just politically at odds with one another but also have pretty different views on things like religion or on how you wanna… If you wanna have kids, how you wanna raise them, all that kind of stuff, those are really big warning signs. So I think you have distinguish between politics proper and then other things that would really bear on the warp and woof of organizing a family. And unfortunately, I have seen friends in my 20s who grew ideologically apart and then got divorced. So I’ve seen that play out in my own social circle.

Brett McKay: So something else you do in this book is you look at what families or couples that are having thriving marriages, thriving family life, do on a day-to-day basis to make them thriving. And you talk about, you mentioned earlier, they typically have a family-first approach to marriage. What does that look like on a day-to-day basis?

Brad Wilcox: Yeah, so I argue that one of the challenges facing all of us, I think, in this culture today is that sometimes we can think about marriage as kind of like the soulmate thing. It’s like, “I’m gonna find this perfect match, we’re gonna have this intense romantic and maybe sexual connection, we’re gonna fit like this perfect… We’ll have a perfect fit. And she’s gonna understand me, I’m gonna understand her perfectly. And there’s gonna be very little friction and a lot of passion and fulfillment and happiness pretty much all the time.” That’s sort of like the soulmate idea, just in a nutshell. And yet, obviously, once you’re married and in relationship with someone, you discover that she’s not perfect and you’re not perfect. And it’s often extremely difficult to get along in some days or some weeks, some months, whatever.

And by contrast, I think people recognize, realize that marriage is about more than just an emotional connection, more than just a feeling. It’s about establishing a life together, a family together, having kids, if you can, raising kids together, being there for your kin, for your parents, your wife’s parents, doing things together as a family, going trips, going to the park, going to the basketball game, whatever it is that your family does, going hunting for some, going to the beach for others. All these kind of family things end up being also important. Financial security is also part and parcel of a family-first approach to marriage. And so people kind of have a richer view of the many different goods that marriage tends to facilitate or foster are kind of pursuing what I would call a more family-first or more institutional approach to marriage.

And that, of course, is more stable than just kind of one that based on feelings, the soulmate approach. And I think what people don’t realize is it’s often happier as well, because you’re able to appreciate that your spouse and your marriage and your family are about a number of different goods, not just an intense romantic connection. And so even if you’re not necessarily firing all cylinders on the romantic side, but at some point, in your marriage, you recognize, “Oh, my husband’s a great father,” or “Oh, my wife’s a great mother,” for instance, and that is a source of satisfaction for you and for your relationship. So what I find is there’s a slight edge to that the folks have this more family-first model enjoy in marital quality, and then also, they’re less likely to be thinking about divorce compared to folks who have more of a feelings-based, soulmate approach to married life.

Brett McKay: And you get nitty-gritty with this stuff, like how these couples navigate sex, parented responsibilities, chores. What does that look like?

Brad Wilcox: So, what I’m also arguing, too, is that the what I call the “masters of marriage” tend to be more likely to embrace what I call the five pillars of marriage. And these are five C’s. One is communion, a sense of communion, in their marriage. One is proper appreciation of the role of children in marriage, if they have kids. Third C is commitment. The fourth C is cash. The fifth C is community. And so, just to take for instance, the communion piece, what I find is the couples who have regular date nights, to try to maintain that sense of romance and that emotional connection, are more likely to be flourishing both in terms of marital happiness, but also in terms of sexual satisfaction. And not surprisingly, if you’d like to have a healthy sexual life, it’s important to keep the romance alive in your marriage, and so doing fun and different and regular date nights, which can be challenging when you’ve got kids, as my wife and I do, still is important. Try to figure out that piece, I would say.

But also, in terms of community, I talked to you about a way before-me approach to life, rather than a me-first approach. And one example I give is couples who have shared checking accounts are doing better both in terms of stability but also marital quality compared to couples who have separate accounts and more of that me-first approach to money. So that’s communion. Commitment is, among other things, prioritizing the well-being of your spouse and your family, and then also concretely being attentive to the importance of fidelity. So that means steering clear of attractive alternatives, both in the real world and now today in the virtual world, who might obviously distract your attention and your affections away from your spouse. And when it comes to divorce, not putting the D word in a conversation when you’re having an argument or there’s some problem in your marriage. Most couples have problems at some point in their marriage, and I think couples who just keep divorce off out of the picture are more readily able to handle those challenges and overcome them.

And then the community piece, basically, again, if you are surrounding yourself with people who are… Whether you’re secular or religious, but people who are like intentional about being good spouses and being good parents, you’re more likely to thrive. And yet, I do find that folks who are religious are more likely to be succeeding on that front. ‘Cause you find that couples who are going to church, especially together or temple or synagogue, whatever, are more likely to be spending time with their kids, to be capable of forgiving their spouse, to be maintaining surprisingly, I think, to some extent, a more vibrant sexual life than couples who are not part of a religious community.

Brett McKay: You do your research with the eye of suggesting public policy, and you have some public policy recommendations at the end of your book. But then I think it was a recent article or it might’ve been a tweet, you talked about how there’s research showing, and even in these Nordic countries that have very pro-family public policy, people still aren’t getting married and having kids. So, basically, public policy isn’t enough. You have to change the culture about marriage and family life. So how do you do that? That’s a tough hill to climb.

Brad Wilcox: So, I want to be clear here. I do think public policy is helpful, and I think we could do more to promote in our schools what’s called the success sequence, which, among other things, sucks at the value of marriage to our kids in high school, public high schools. I think we could get rid of the marriage penalty that ends up penalizing marriage for a lot of working-class families across America. I think we could have a more generous child tax credit that would help people who are particularly working in middle-class families who are kind of struggling financially to raise the next generation, kind of have an easier time with it. So there are some policies that I think would be helpful in terms of making marriage more financially and culturally appealing, attractive, and attainable, particularly against working-class and middle-class Americans. But I think, at the end of the day, we have to recognize and realize that unless the culture changes, we’re just going to see a continuing decline in marriage and fertility.

And the reason I say that is because we’re already seeing that in the Nordic countries, like for instance, Finland, where they have an incredible, suite collection of great family policies, childcare, and parental leave, and child allowances, arguably one of the best suite of family policies in the world, if you have a high degree of confidence in public policy to help families. And yet, in Finland, marriage and coupling and fertility are way down in recent years. And I think what’s happening in Finland is also happening here in the US, but just not as quite yet as pronounced. And that is it’s a combination, I think, of a couple of things. One is the Midas mindset, which you’ve talked about, focusing on education, work, and money more than other things, focus on having a good time, fun, staying free of encumbrances. Keeping more individualistic mindset among all the 20-somethings and even 30-somethings is part of the problem as well.

And then two, I think we’re seeing men losing ground, doing less well relative to the women in their lives in education and work and in other domains. And so I think women are just more skeptical about investing in a relationship, marriage, and having kids when the men in their lives don’t, from their perspective, meet the bar of what a spouse or a partner or parent should be up for. So, there’s more going on, but the point is that there’s just a series of cultural shifts that are unfolding across the developed world that are both devaluing family and the sacrifices that being a spouse and a parent require of us. And they’re elevating a more individualistic, a more live-for-the-moment ethos that, in the short term, can be attractive and appealing, but in the long term, spells not just demographic problems, but I think, more fundamentally, a very bleak and lonely and meaningless life. Not for everybody, of course, but for a growing share of people who are going to be kinless as they head into mid and late life.

Brett McKay: Well, yeah, speaking of this culture around parenthood. So let’s say someone does get married. You’re seeing a lot of people who are getting married, it’s like, “We don’t want to have kids.” But in the surveys that you’ve done, do people give reasons for why they don’t want to have kids?

Brad Wilcox: Well, there are different theories about this, everything from the cost of parenthood to the environment to, I think probably more importantly, “I just want to like do my own thing.” And we’ve seen obviously DINK videos on TikTok where these couples who are actually married, but they enjoying sleeping in on Saturday morning, they say, and they’re enjoying traveling to Florida on a regular basis, they say, and they’re just saying that they’re living the life. It’s the life that they think that they have without children. And I’m just like, “Okay, let’s check back with you in 20 years or in 40 years and see how you’re doing,” because I just can’t even imagine, to be blunt, my life without my children. I mean, every night, I’ve got a teenage daughter, hunts me down and she’ll give me a hug or a kiss on the forehead. I mean, that’s just like, “Wow.” It’s a nice way to end the night.

And yes, kids are incredibly expensive and challenging and all that kind of stuff, but I mean, just the meaning, the joy, that kids can bring to your life is amazing. And I just feel sad for people who are deliberately closing their hearts to having children. But to be more empirical for a second, again, too, what’s interesting about the research is that we saw some evidence back before 2000 that parents were less happy than childless Americans. But today, it’s no longer true. I published a piece of Deseret News you may have seen just showing that given some newer survey data, parents, particularly married parents, are happier than childless Americans. And there’s no group of happier Americans aged 18 to 55, and that’s the sort of age focus of my book, than married mothers and married fathers compared to their peers who are single and/or childless.

So, that’s often lost in our public discussions and a lot of the social media commentary, that, for all of the hard things of being a mother and a father demand of us, we do see that, compared to their peers, it’s sort of like Churchill’s point, like, yeah, democracy is like… I’m paraphrasing, obviously, it’s flawed. But compared to the alternatives, it’s much better. I think the same thing is true of parenthood. Yeah, being a parent can be really hard and challenging and frustrating and hair-pulling-inducing, but compared to the alternative, I think it often ends up being pretty, pretty good.

Brett McKay: Yeah, and something that I don’t think has helped with this is that, in the popular culture, people just tend to talk about the negatives of being a parent. They just talk about the hair-pulling stuff when your kids are driving you bonkers, and they really don’t talk about the great stuff about being a parent. Being a dad is awesome. Whenever things in life feel flimsy and meaningless, my family is the thing that feels the most real to me.

Brad Wilcox: I agree.

Brett McKay: Well, Brad, this has been a great conversation. Where can people go to learn more about the book and your work?

Brad Wilcox: So I’ve got a new website, bradwilcox.com. Familystudies.org is a good place to go as well. And the National Marriage Week is kind of rolling out from February 7th to 14th this year, and they’ve got a lot of resources for people looking for things about marriage and also tips to improve your marriage. There are plenty of obviously couples out there who are struggling, and so if you’re struggling, I would encourage you to go to the National Marriage Week’s website for some ideas about how you can strengthen your relationship as you head towards Valentine’s Day.

Brett McKay: Fantastic. Well, Brad Wilcox, thanks for your time. It’s been a pleasure.

Brad Wilcox: Thanks so much, Brett.

Brett McKay: My guest today was Brad Wilcox. He’s the author of the book Get Married. It’s available on amazon.com and bookstores everywhere. Check out our show notes at aom.is/marriage where you find links to resources and we delve deeper into this topic, including a link to another survey that just came out by Gallup that once again affirmed that married people are happier. We’ve also included a link to an article by one of Brad’s colleagues and former AOM podcast guest, Lyman Stone, on how the chance of divorce still doesn’t negate this happiness premium for men.

Well, that wraps up another edition of the AOM podcast. Make sure to check out our website at artofmanlies.com, where you find our podcast archives as well as thousands of articles that we’ve written over the years about pretty much anything you think of. And if you haven’t done so already, I’d appreciate it if you take one minute to get your read on the podcast or Spotify. It helps out a lot. And if you’ve done that already, thank you. Please consider sharing the show with a friend or family member who you think will get something out of it. As always, thank you for the continued support. Until next time, this is Brett McKay, reminding you to listen to AOM podcasts, but put what you’ve heard into action.

Help support independent publishing. Make a donation to The Art of Manliness! Thanks for the support!

There are a lot of popular ideas out there around marriage, family, and culture, like, for example, that living together before marriage decreases your chances of divorce, people are having fewer children because children are expensive to raise, and society is becoming more secular because people leave religion in adulthood.

Are these ideas actually born out by the data?

Today we put that question to Lyman Stone, a sociologist and demographer who crunches numbers from all the latest studies to find out what’s going on in population, relationship, and familial trends. We dig into some of the counterintuitive findings he’s discovered in his research and discuss the possible reasons that cohabitation is actually correlated with a higher chance of divorce, the effect that marrying later has on fertility, why the drop in the number of kids people are having isn’t only about cost but also about the rise in high intensity parenting, and how the increase in societal secularization can actually be traced to kids, not adults.

Resources Related to the Episode

• Related articles by Lyman Stone:
  • Does Getting Married Really Make You Happier?
  • Why Canadian Women Aren’t Having the Children They Desire
  • For Fertility, Marriage Still Matters
  • What the Latest Current Population Survey Tells Us About the Future of Fertility
  • Secularization Begins at Home
• Study: Cohabitation Experience and Cohabitation’s Association With Marital Dissolution
• Psychology Today: Are Couples That Live Together Before Marriage More Likely to Divorce?
• AoM Article: The Surprising Benefits of Marrying Young
• AoM Article: How to Test Your Relationship Without Moving In Together
• AoM Podcast #349: The Problem With Ambiguity in Relationships with Scott Stanley

Connect With Lyman Stone

• Lyman on Twitter

Listen to the Podcast! (And don’t forget to leave us a review!)

Listen to the episode on a separate page.

Download this episode.

Subscribe to the podcast in the media player of your choice.

Listen ad-free on Stitcher Premium; get a free month when you use code “manliness” at checkout.

Podcast Sponsors

Click here to see a full list of our podcast sponsors.

Read the Transcript

Brett McKay: Brett McKay here, and welcome to another edition of the Art of Manliness podcast. There are a lot of popular ideas out there around marriage, family, and culture, like, for example, that living together before marriage decreases your chances of divorce, people are having fewer children because children are expensive to raise, and society is becoming more secular because people leave religion in adulthood.

Are these ideas actually, born out by the data?

Today we put that question to Lyman Stone, a sociologist and demographer who crunches numbers from all the latest studies to find out what’s going on in population, relationship, and familial trends. We dig into some of the counterintuitive findings he’s discovered in his research and discuss the possible reasons that cohabitation is actually, correlated with a higher chance of divorce, the effect that marrying later has on fertility, why the drop in the number of kids people are having isn’t only about cost but also about the rise in high intensity parenting, and how the increase in societal secularization can actually, be traced to kids, not adults.

After the show is over check out our show notes at aom.is/familymyths.

All right. Lyman Stone, welcome to the show.

Lyman Stone: It’s good to be with you.

Brett McKay: So you are a research fellow at the Institute for Family Studies, and you focus on demographic changes in family life. And a lot of your research has looked at a lot of popular ideas that we have about family life. And today I wanna talk about some of these ideas and maybe some of the counterintuitive findings you found with your research. One idea that’s out there is that before people get married, you should live with your potential spouse first so that you can know whether you’re compatible or not. So let’s talk about cohabitation. First, what’s the state of cohabitation in the United States today?

Lyman Stone: So lots of people cohabit. It’s very common. If you go back to the 1960s, marriages in the 1960s, only about 5% of them were to people who were cohabiting before marriage. Today, it’s over 70%, perhaps 75%. So there’s been a huge increase in cohabitation over the last few decades. Just really this extraordinary social transition that I think is taken for granted now but it’s snuck up and we’re like “Oh, wait. This happened. Now everyone cohabits, it seems like.” Again, three out of four marriages will have premarital cohabitation now. So that’s a huge change in just two generations.

Brett McKay:When demographers look at this rise do they attribute it to anything like societal changes, changes in religiosity, or what’s going on there?

Lyman Stone: Yeah, there’s tons of different… This is a very debated question. What caused all this? There’s a couple of things. One is… Actually, there’s a very nice paper that just came… The final version of it just came out recently. It’s called Collateralized Marriage. And they argue, I think fairly persuasively, that the legal benefits of marriage have declined over time. That is, it doesn’t give you the same guarantees it used to in the past. That is, it doesn’t protect you in the event of divorce. You have to pay… Men have to pay… Parents, but usually men have to pay child support, even if they weren’t married. The relative benefits to marriage have declined for men and women. People often talk about this as a decline for men, but, actually, the benefits for women have declined very dramatically as well, as this paper I mentioned shows pretty clearly. So as the benefits for formal marriage have declined, the thing is that a lot of the benefits of informal cohabitation have not declined. Living together is still convenient for sexual access and sharing rent and things like that. And furthermore, the taboos on premarital cohabitation or non-marital cohabitation have declined a lot.

So in some sense, it got cheaper to cohabit and the legal benefits and social benefits and protections of marriage declined. As a result, people still, they still won’t have convenient sexual access to one another, so cohabitation rose. But because marriage was no longer a contract that really offered a lot of benefits, particularly, for lower socioeconomic status people, marriage really declined quite a lot. Though, as you mentioned, that this trend really is very class-biased. Cohabitation rose the earliest and rose the most for lower socioeconomic status people. And higher socioeconomic status people are still less likely to cohabit and more likely to marry, and they’re more likely to marry directly with no prior cohabitation.

Brett McKay: That’s interesting. Yeah, I think they also… Upper class or middle class and above, whatever, however you want to break it down, less likely to divorce than working class. Well, so this idea, “Okay, well, you should live with somebody before you get married because we can figure out if we’re compatible.” What does the research say about that? Let’s say someone cohabitates and they decide to get married, will that cohabitation period improve the marriage?

Lyman Stone: No, it will increase their likelihood of divorce. The idea is called trial marriage. So it’s like a test run of a marriage. And the theory has been, yeah, that it’s going to enable better match quality. So look, we can check. We have these large data sets that I and others use with hundreds of thousands, tens of thousands of women, I think, over the last several decades. And we can ask these questions. We can say, okay, if we compare women who did cohabit to women who didn’t, how do their divorce probabilities vary? And the answer is that if you cohabit you’re more likely to divorce. There is a divorce penalty, or you can call it a penalty, a divorce penalty associated with cohabitation. Essentially, this is a way of saying that what really happens with cohabitation is two things. First of all, who cohabits isn’t random. So if you’re cohabiting, it’s often because you’re not quite sure about the relationship yet. You wanna take a next step. You’re just not confident about marriage yet, which might speak to lower match quality to begin with, but secondly a lot of cohabitation just happens. People slide into it. It’s like they just… They’re just spending the night a lot and then somebody goes, “Maybe I’ll start moving more stuff over and then if and you still pay rent for a year or whatever… ”

Brett McKay: Yeah, Scott Stanley. Yeah, Scott Stanley talks about that.

Lyman Stone: And those things in particular… Decisions are very useful for people. Making clear decisions is associated with… Even making bad decisions, if you actually make it as a decision, you’re better off than doing it accidentally. You don’t wanna do things on autopilot in your life, just in general. You should exercise agency at every opportunity you can. And so the upshot of this is that there’s a lot of selection in cohabitation of people who might be lower match quality to begin with.

Brett McKay: And some other research I’ve read, and these are all just theories that social psychologists have put out there about why cohabitating has a divorce penalty, is that with cohabitation you can slide into the relationship and then you can slide out of it. And so if you do that before marriage it could prime you like, “Well, if I don’t like the relationship I can just get out of it.” Again, it’s a theory. I don’t know if you can prove it but that’s one thing I’ve read.

Lyman Stone: Yeah, it’s absolutely a possibility. It’s hard to test what’s going on inside people’s brains, but yeah it could create bad habits. Also, the expectation of cohabitation might change your search protocol, so to speak. So let’s say that you expect to marry directly, that is, with no cohabitation. Because you don’t get to do that test run you’re gonna look for other ways to investigate mate quality. You’re gonna try and find other ways to figure out if this is a good mate. And one of the big ways you would do that is investigating their family background. That you try and meet the family, meet them a lot, hang out with them a lot, learn about their background, because people’s family is a good proxy for them. Sorry if you don’t like your family, but the truth is statistically you’re gonna be a lot like them in your life.

So historically, that’s how marriage happened. Marriage generally involved a lot of family to family interaction. That’s the origin in the traditional marriage ceremony of, “If anyone has any reason why these two cannot be joined together, let them speak now or forever hold his peace.” That’s asking, you’ve got all the families together and you’re supposed to look around and be like, “Do you recognize anybody? Is this an incestuous marriage that they didn’t realize?” But look around, make sure nobody knows each other too well. So you used to do a lot of this family-level investigation. That doesn’t happen anymore. A lot of people their first time meeting their partner’s family will be after they move in together or something. So instead of investigating the social context and community that a partner might be in; their family, church, whatever, because we live more atomized social lives, we’re more detached from these institutions of community support and community engagement. Instead, we deepen the level of inspection of the individual themselves by getting them in our house and in our bed.

Brett McKay: Well, related to this idea of deepening your inspection of a partner, people are dating longer before getting married. They’re playing the field longer. And even when they do find someone they commit to, they date them longer before they get married. So as a result has there been a shift in the age of first marriage in the United States?

Lyman Stone: Yeah, there’s been a huge shift. So today, according to the census, the median age of first marriage for women is I think 28 and a half, and for men it’s 30 and a half. That’s way up from the low 20s, like 20, 21, 22 in the ’50s and ’60s. Now, that low value in the ’50s and ’60s was anomalous. If you go back to the 19th century or the early 20th century, typical marriage was in the mid 20s, 25, 26. So getting back to a median age of marriage of 21, I don’t know that that’s necessarily good or desirable. Those marriages did have high divorce rates, and dissatisfaction with the state of gender relations in America in the 1940s, ’50s, ’60s, gave rise to the world we inhabit today. So just trying to recreate the world that gave us the world we have today is… I don’t know. It seems like a losing bet.

But today, having men marrying at 31 instead of in the past at 25 or 26, we don’t have to get back to 21, but maybe we could get back to 25 or 26. That was 2007. That wasn’t a hellscape. That was not that long ago that we were at that level.

Brett McKay: What are the downsides of delaying marriage. From your research, what happens to a person’s lifecycle if they put off marriage later and later in life?

Lyman Stone: Well, it depends on what you want in life. Let’s say you’re a man and you want career success, marriage is a take it or leave it offer. Marriage doesn’t have big effects on men’s career trajectories. Maybe slightly positive. It’s not a big effect. So if what you value in life is career success, getting married later probably doesn’t hurt you. Maybe what you value in life is leisure, having lots of leisure time. Their marriage is an interesting thing to calculate, because on the one hand you might have another person that you sometimes have to take care of if she’s sick or out of work or something, but also in principle, she can take care of you if you’re sick or out of work. And leisure is nice, but also most people like to have leisure with others.

Marriage is a good, pretty fairly secure way of ensuring that you’ve got somebody that you really, really like to hang around you with all the fun things you wanna do in life. So there are multiplicative benefits to the hedonic value of leisure, if you’ve got somebody you really care about to share it with, and marriage could be a vehicle to lock that in. So if what you care about is leisure or marriage, it might be good. There’s some trade offs but it might be good. But if what you care about is making a lasting impact on the world, leaving something behind when you die, marriage is you really wanna get married young. Because the main thing you’re gonna leave behind is your genetic material, your children, and beyond that, your cultural material; the traditions, ideas, values, behaviors, practices that you pass on to your children. And delayed marriage dramatically alters your odds of having any given number of children.

The later you get married, the… It’s almost a perfect correlation. The later you marry, the fewer children you end up having. And that’s true across many countries, across time. Late marriage, less kids. So if you want to leave something behind when you die; legacy, something that will carry on the life projects that you value, the traditions of meaning and substance that you contributed to, which personally that’s what I want, then you don’t want to dilly dally on getting married, because getting married tends to give you the high security relationship where you and your wife can have a more productive negotiation about specialization. You can say, “Look, okay, one of us is going to step back from work for a few years to focus on this other thing in our family,” maybe it’s kids, maybe it’s something else, care of a relative, I don’t know, “because we really value that and we’re gonna cross-subsidize each other here.” So marriage insofar as it enables specialization can enable you to really advance your dyadic contribution to valued life projects.

Brett McKay: Well, speaking of kids there’s been a lot of articles I’ve seen in the news about people having fewer kids. What’s going on with the reason why people are having fewer children these days?

Lyman Stone: Yeah, fertility’s fallen a lot in the US but it depends on the time horizon. So if you go back to… The baby boom fertility was, I don’t know, three kids per woman or something. It was quite high. I don’t have it on hand but it was quite high. And then it declined to 1.7 in the ’70s. People were like, “Oh, fertility’s super low. Population decline.” But then we had Immigration Reform and we got a lot of immigrants and two things happened with those immigrants. One, we got a lot of immigrants and that increases population. And two, they were largely from Latin America. And at that time fertility rates in Latin America were quite high. When people migrate, they tend to replicate a lot of the cultural forms of their place of origin. Women moved to the US and they had babies particularly because the US’s birthright citizenship also creates a pretty favorable calculus for having children here if you’re a non-citizen.

So what happened is in the ’70s, ’80s, ’90s, fertility rose. Also, it wasn’t just Hispanic immigrant fertility, native-born fertility rose, non-Hispanic white fertility rose somewhat. So we got this kinda little fertility boom in the ’80s, ’90s and into the mid 2000s. But then in 2007 when our fertility rates were 2.07 or something so right at “replacement rate”, replacement rate is basically how many kids you need to have for society to replace itself assuming its current level of mortality, which in the US replacement rate is like 2.03, 2.04. Though it also technically depends on the sex ratio of children. So that’s a whole different thing. But regardless, fertility rates started falling since 2007 and they were at 2.07 in 2007, I think, or 2008. One of those. Today, there are like 1.66. So we’ve lost about 0.4 children per woman which is to say basically every other woman is missing a child versus her 2007 counterfactual fertility in the last 16 years or something.

The thing to understand about this is that there’s multiple different things going on here. Explaining fertility decline from the baby boom to the 1980s, you’re gonna have a different set of factors than the decline from 2007 to today. So from the baby boom to the 1980s, you could tell a story of women’s rights, women’s entrance into the workforce, no-fault divorce. I don’t know. There’s all these stories you could tell that are the stories people are used to hearing about fertility. Like contraception was big, yada yada. But those stories don’t really apply to the last 15 years. Yes, contraceptive use did rise some and particularly of long acting removable contraceptives, which is the most effective form, but abortion rates fell over a lot of that window. And furthermore, although unintended fertility fell over that period intended fertility also fell.

So what’s going on there? Why did intended fertility fall? That’s not a contraceptive story. This declined from 2007, it’s not we all got tons more prosperous. We didn’t just have some… This story of development in women’s liberation. Women aren’t, what, 20% more liberated now than they were in 2007. I don’t know what that would mean to say that. But the reality is we just have lower fertility without a big change in a lot of these conceptual big drivers of the 20th century decline.

So what caused it? I’ve argued that most of the decline is due to postponed marriage. But if you look at marital fertility rates, so fertility rates of married people, they really have not declined very much. Virtually the whole decline is among… Is just fewer people being married. So really looking at a change in entrance into marriage and this feeling among young people of preparedness for marriage. And so you really need to explore, “Okay, well why did that happen?” It’s a complicated question with a lot of different elements, but suffice to say the biggest component of the decline in fertility is lack of entrance into marriage.

Brett McKay: All right, so fewer people are getting married or they’re waiting too long to get married, so they don’t have kids.

Lyman Stone: Yeah. Exactly.

Brett McKay: So I know you said there’s a lot of factors going into why people are choosing to postpone marriage, but what are some of them? What have you found? You don’t have to get too into the weeds with this but I’m curious.

Lyman Stone: So when we think about these timing issues, number of children is something that people plausibly choose. They choose to have more or fewer, conditional on some other factors. But when you get married or when you do something is less a matter of choice, strangely enough. Because in principle a woman can just go and have children, assuming she’s fertile. Through IVF or sperm donors or just unprotected promiscuous sex. This can happen. But the timing is a bit more complicated for something like marriage because first of all, it takes two to tango, so you need somebody else to agree. But second of all, timing decisions are really, really strongly socially normed. So if you think about the life course. If I were to ask when should you graduate high school? Well, you’d probably say around 18 but why would you say around 18? Is it because we have some research that suggests that 18 is the optimal age to finish high school? No, we’d say, “Well, you just should because that’s when you usually do.” If you finish it at 16 because you dropped out that’s bad. If you finish it at 16 because you’re a super genius, I guess that’s maybe good. If you finish it at 20, that’s maybe better than not finishing it. But it’s not great. But ultimately all we’re really saying is the norm is to do it at 18. It’s not like we have great reasons to believe that this is the perfect age to end high school. So it’s just a norm.

Likewise if we say what age should you finish college? Well, most of us are gonna be like, “I don’t know. 22.” Why? Because 18 plus four. It’s not we have some deep methodical consideration of the optimal duration of college education. No. But a BA takes about four years. And if somebody was like, “Well, would you prefer to choose a three-year BA program?” It’s like, “Well, there aren’t many three-year BA programs. Maybe I’d choose it if I could but this isn’t a choice I really have.

And then if you think about, okay, people don’t usually wanna get married when they’re in school. It’s just they don’t. There’s a big spike in marriage the summer after graduation. And so as people spend more years in school, college, graduate, PhD, whatever, all those are rising, everything is pushed later. And as educated people have their norms pushed later, it also filters down to other people. We all inhabit a society and to some extent we share norms. And then there’s other things, because you’re much later in life when you are done with school and “ready for marriage”, you also have more adult habits formed. You’re not founding a life with someone else. You’re merging lives with somebody else. And so coordinating two fully fleshed out adult lives is a lot harder than coordinating two wet behind the ears young people who haven’t figured out life yet. You have the two-body problem. If you get married and graduate college together, figuring out where to move to get jobs is a lot easier than if you’re in your mid 20s and one of you, or late 20s and one of you gets a job offer somewhere, because you’re just more flexible early in life.

And so education, social norms, norms about how long you should date and be engaged. It used to be… Six months was a very reasonable length of engagement. But now people do two-year engagements. It’s insane. So these are just social norms about timing that emerge. And why do they emerge? We could get all into stuff about why they emerge and underlying economic factors, but at the end of the day, everything in our society is motivating towards extended adolescence. And if you wanna find an deep underlying factor of this, though, it both explains too much and too little. You could point to basically the fact that we’re becoming a human capital-intensive economy, where you get ahead by acquiring a lot of human capital for yourself, which means education, experience, skills.

And what that means is peak income comes later in life and income is a way that people signal mate fitness. And then beyond that, because we’re a human capital-intensive economy, people are more discriminatory in their mating. There’s been some shift in assortative mating, though this is somewhat debated, but I believe it. This suggests that people may be more aggressively trying to sort on the observable characteristics of their partner. Now, the joke is on us, because it turns out if you care about anything genetic, you really shouldn’t look at your partner’s genetic characteristics. You should look at their parent’s genetic character… Well, you should look at your partner, but you should look at their parents’ genetic characteristics and their cousins and stuff, ’cause that gives you a way better proxy for the latent traits of your partner than what they choose to reveal to you when they want to be in your pants.

So again, this is the second time I’ve done this pitch, but we should really bring back getting to know people’s families. But regardless, all these factors work together to push marriage and everything in life later. If you look at age of first home ownership, that’s later. Age of first anything is later. People are getting their driver’s license later in life than 20 years ago.

Brett McKay: Right. And then because they’re pushing marriage back so far might mean they don’t have the number of kids that they want. And that’s the interesting thing.

Lyman Stone: Exactly.

Brett McKay: You’ve done studies on this that people are having fewer kids. But then when you ask women how many kids they want, it’s actually, more. It’s quite a bit more than they’re having.

Yeah. Men and women a both say they want to have about 2.5 kids-ish. Depends on how you word the question. If you word the question instead you ask, “How many kids do you intend to have?” You’ll get answers around two, 2.1. But intentions aren’t really desires. Intentions are a compromise between desires and reality. If you ask any desire question, what people want, what they think would make them happiest, what their ideal is, yada yada, they give you between 2.2 and 2.7 as their answer on average. That’s true for men and women. There’s not much difference between the two on this particular question. And so, yeah, people want to have more kids and that’s been true for a while now. Fertility desires did fall in the 1950s and ’60s. People used to say they wanted about 3.5 kids. Now they want about 2.5. And that fall happened around the same time that fertility fell after the baby boom. And so yeah, people want about 2.5-ish, but they are going to have in the US currently about 1.6, 1.7, which means the average woman will have 0.8 fewer children than she wants. Which means if you take 10 women, that eight of them will be missing a child that they wanted to have.

Brett McKay: We’re gonna take a quick break for you a word from our sponsors.

And now back to the show.

So we talked about the reason why that’s happening or one of the reasons why that’s happening is, well, people are pushing marriage back. So you might not have the time you need to have the kids you want or desire. But then also people talk about, “Well, maybe I want three kids, but kids are so expensive so I’m only gonna have two.” Is that a reason? Is the cost of raising a kid a reason that’s holding people back from having the kids they want?

Lyman Stone: Yeah, both in empirical studies and in surveys. In surveys, tons of people report child cost factors as reasons they’re not having more kids. And we have dozens of empirical studies showing that if you reduce the cost of having children, people have more children. Which that suggests that, yes, the cost of child rearing is a factor that’s reducing fertility. If we can find ways to reduce the cost of child rearing, we will have more babies. But that is not as simple as it sounds.

So think of it this way. Let’s say that we decide we wanna reduce the cost of child rearing and the way we do it is by making free childcare. Now childcare is free, everybody can have it. Well, now, because it’s free, everybody can have it, which means lots of people will have it, which means everybody will take it for granted that they should have it. The norm of what you need to have for people to feel like they have enough to have kids will rise. And that extra money that you have on hand… Well, actually, there won’t be that much ’cause it’ll be tax finance, your tax will go up. Whatever. Some people will have extra money on hand. Where will it go? Before they were spending it on childcare for their kid? Are they now not going to spend it on their kid? No. Children are a bottomless pit of money. You can always find something else to spend money on for your kids. This is ridiculous. The idea that giving people childcare means they’re gonna now just squire it away. No, they’re going to spend it on their kids. They’re just going to spend it on something else. Now, something else might be good, but the point is they’re gonna spend it on something else. The consumption norm will rise.

The point is you can just have children and raise them like the Amish, and it’s really cheap. But you don’t want to do that. And the reason we don’t want to do that is because people assess their wellbeing by comparison to others. And of course we do it this way. It’s totally reasonable that we would assess our wellbeing by comparing to others because we don’t have… It’s not in our brains we have some intrinsic measure that just knows that we are well off.

So in practice, yes, we define our happiness by comparison to others. That’s okay, to an extent. There’s an extreme version of that that’s not. But it’s reasonable to look around at others and be, “Okay, how am I doing?” And at the end of the day, if the norm for spending on children is so high that you have to forego a lot of goodies that your comparison group is not foregoing, you’re not gonna have kids. There’s a fascinating line of research that looks at fertility contagion, and they find that if you’re… The great study, this looked at workplaces, large offices with lots of workers, and they found that when a coworker who sits close to you has a baby, you become more likely to have a baby than when a coworker who sits on a different floor or farther away from you. There’s a bunch of studies looking at contagion showing that people’s fertility behavior is sensitive to the fertility behavior of others in their life. As they see other people having kids, they go, “Okay, maybe I will too.” And the reason is as other people start to give up some of those goodies to have kids and put money into kids, you don’t face the same relative losses, because now you can give it up, ’cause you’re ahead now so you can afford to give it up.

Brett McKay: Okay, so it sounds the absolute cost of raising a kid is holding people back from having more, but there’s also just… It’s a matter of how people think they’re faring compared to other people who maybe don’t have kids. So if society wants to encourage people to have more kids, maybe their fertility rate has fallen below the replacement level and they want to encourage people to have more kids, they need to work on both of those things.

Lyman Stone: Yeah. So cost factors matter, but the important thing to understand is that there’s a relative component to them, and it’s a component that’s intensely normative. And so that means to reduce the cost of child rearing and have more kids, yes, we should do things to financially support families. Yes, absolutely. We should. I want to be clear that that’s good. The research suggests that giving families more money does get you more babies, and the price tag on it is not that high compared to other things the government does. If all you care about… If you’re a super utilitarian man and you want to do quality-adjusted life years, the public cost per quality-adjusted life year added from pronatal policy, that is birth subsidies, it’s way cheaper than trying to increase quality-adjusted life years than expanding Medicare or Medicaid or something like that. Pronatal policy is cheap on utilitarian grounds, though. Whether you should trust utilitarian grounds is a debate.

But, although we should throw money at this, that’s not all we need to do. We also need to discipline consumption norms. Now, one way you could do this would just be to set off a large electromagnetic weapon near all of the Instagram servers, because what’s going on is it’s not a coincidence that fertility started falling after 2007 and never came back. It wasn’t just the recession. It was the advent of social media, I think. That created a supercharged comparison. And that’s why this decline has happened all over the world. It’s not just in the US. So basically everywhere that has a cell phone, fertility starts declining around this time. And so what we want to do is we want to find ways to nudge algorithms to show people more babies, less solo vacations to Tahiti.

And we need to be promoting parenting norms of… Well, I just heard a great example recently. Somebody was like, “When I was growing up, I always ate canned peaches.” They were like, “That was the fruit that my parents gave me, canned peaches.” Well, recently I was in the grocery store and I was in this section where it’s all fruit for kids and there weren’t canned peaches, they were not there. Instead, what fruit are parents giving their kids at the parks where I live? Berries. Blackberries, blueberries, strawberries. If you’re a middle class family at the park, you don’t get a preserved peach cup out. You get a thing of fresh raspberries and it’s four times as expensive.

And so the norm changed. So we really need… It’s hard to know what our government would have on this. Maybe there’s some, I’m open to that, but really it’s a cultural thing. We need to push back on this. We need to defend lazy parenting. Not negligent. I don’t want to go too far. But I’m very in favor of okay parents. I’ll admit I am an okay parent. I am not parent of the year. My wife is. But in general, I’m very… I think we should be much more favorable to middling parents and super high intense parents. We should socially stigmatize this. It’s just partly because also we know it doesn’t actually do much to help children. There’s a real benefit when you shift from negligent to middle third or 75th percentile of parental intensity. But the shift from 75th percentile to 99th is not helping kids very much. So we should really stigmatize this. Send your kids outside and close the door. Give them cheap fruit cups. We need to have clear norms that if you spend a lot of time and money on your kids, it’s taboo.

Brett McKay: Okay, I love this. This is really interesting. So people’s increased, we can call it desired consumption level has gone up as standard of living has gone up, and it’s a social contagion. You see everyone else is doing this. “I need to have that. Well, kids might put a hamper on that vacation, so I’m not going to have kids so I can go on the vacation.” But then also there is this idea of intensive parenting. You think, “Well, man, if I wanna be a good parent, I got to give the berries, I got to take them to the baseball coach and get them the Kumon tutor, and we’re gonna have all these fantastic parties inspired by Pinterest.” And because people see that, they’re like, “Yeah, it’s a lot of work. I’m just gonna have two kids instead of four kids because I can’t do that for four kids.”

Lyman Stone: Exactly. Yeah. This hyper-intensive parenting is a huge factor. And I should say, I run these surveys and agreement with statements related to high intensity parenting is associated with way, way lower fertility.

Brett McKay: Yeah, the high-intensity parenting is really interesting because you’d think those parenting norms won’t affect you, but they do affect you. I think all parenting norms affect you, and that can be used for good or for ill. Here’s an example that I’m seeing in my own life with my kids. So I got a son who’s in middle school, and a lot of his friends are starting to get cell phones. And so there’s this social pressure. My kid wants a cell phone. And if I don’t get him a cell phone, then he’ll be out of the loop with his friends. And so you have to band together with other parents and be like, “Hey, how about we all not let our kids get cell phones until high school?” It has to be this collective thing.

Lyman Stone: Exactly. Yeah. This is the thing, is that parenting is a collective project. And this is what we often don’t get in our atomized modern societies, that parents can’t do it themselves. They engage in combinations with other parents to do collective projects because a lot of parenting is very collective. Kids develop these norms among them based on what they allow, and you do want to find parents who do things similarly because, again, kids judge their own wellbeing by comparison just like we do. So we want to give them comparisons that don’t put us in a rough spot. You want your kid to be at a similar level of subjective consumption assessment as their peers. And so that means you really want to, yeah, create these collaborations.

Brett McKay: So I think the takeaway there, kids don’t have to be high intense… They don’t have to take a lot of time. Like you said, you can just be like, “All right, here’s the fruit cocktail, kid. You get your one cherry.” I haven’t had one of those. I don’t think my kids have ever had a fruit cocktail. I’m going to have to go get them a can of fruit cocktail and then have the birthday party at McDonald’s. You don’t need to go to the Jump Zone.

Lyman Stone: Yeah. Oh my gosh. My kids love McDonald’s so much. I think actually two of them may be at McDonald’s right now with my wife. I don’t want to make this sound like… We’re two dudes talking about this. It’s easy for this opposition to intensive parenting to sound like saying, “Oh, those crazy moms.” That’s not what I’m saying. Parenting, it does take time. There is a certain level of money that it does take. The work that parents do, particularly parents or primary caretakers do, is incredibly valuable and important. But what I wish we understood better as a society is that most of the value and importance of what parents do is explained by the shift from bottom percentile parental investment to 60th percentile parental investment. So not 85th to 99th percentile investment. What I wish we’d do a better job is really speaking value and appreciation into the average parent who’s done most of the work that needs to be doing and we would do less valorizing of the super parent who does 36 hours of homemade craft decorations for their two-year-old’s birthday party. And I’m like, “No, no. No.”

We made a cardboard cutout of… I think we bought a pinata and that was it. So I want to try and thread the needle of excessively intensive parenting, not good, makes all of us worse off.

Brett McKay: I work from home. And so I’m really involved in my kids’ lives. I’m taking them to school, picking them up from school. I’ve taken them to practices, taken them to activities. And because of that I’m always looking for ways. It’s just like, “Okay, what can we do to make this easier for everybody?” And that means saying no a lot. We’re not going to do traveling teams, we’re not going to go to this activity. And I always tell… I always do this thing when I’m trying to figure out what to do with my kids. I’m like, “Imagine it’s 1985. What would my mom tell me?” And I’d be like, “Well, okay, you can go do that. Go outside. Go shoot the basketball.” Just you’re fine. You don’t have to be holding their hand the entire time.

Let’s shift over to another topic. Because you’ve done some research on declining religiosity in the United States. And the common narrative on this subject is that people leave religion as adults because of the increasing secularization of society or because they became disillusioned with faith because of scandals in churches. But your research shows that the decline in religiosity starts when you’re a child and still living with your parents. Walk us through those findings.

Lyman Stone: Yeah. So I’m a religious guy. My wife and I are church workers as well. And so you hear this story a lot. “Oh, yeah, we had all of our good Christian kids and they went to college and those liberal professors contaminated them and they left the faith.” But as a sociologist, I was always a little skeptical of this because my impression had always been that the research suggested that religious ideas were socialized fairly young. And so recently I there was this book that came out, The Great Dechurching. It was really interesting. It’s an interesting read. I enjoyed it. But it made this really strong argument that there was a dechurching that happened basically to 20-somethings and to some extent 30-somethings. That they were religious kids and then they grew up and they stopped going to church because of all these different things that happened; science or change in life circumstances or whatever.

And just reading it, I was just very skeptical of this. So I put together all the data I could find on child religion. So usually when we do surveys, we survey adults because it’s easy to survey. Well, comparatively easy to survey adults. Kids, we don’t survey very much. Their contact info cannot be distributed as freely as adults legally. They’re just part of the survey. Very young kids can’t take surveys. They don’t have their own phones. They don’t have their own email address. How do you get kids… Although, increasingly, they do have phones and email addresses. But there are some surveys. Some of them are in schools. Some of them are really high-quality scientific research surveys that were able to get a bunch of kids.

And what I show is across three or four different surveys, all the evidence suggests by age 13, children are already way more secular than their parents are, they continue to secularize until maybe age 21, and there is virtually… There’s very little net loss of faith after age 21. Yes, there are people who leave the church after age 21, but there are also people who convert after age 21 and on net it approximately balances out. Whereas under age 21, and really particularly under age 18, you just have this really dramatic rise in secularization. I show this in cross-sectional data and in longitudinal data in multiple different sources, taken at different times, using different methods. And what I’m able to show is that child secularization has moved younger and has gotten more intense. So in 1993, about 12% of eighth graders said religion was not at all important to them. About 13% of 10th graders said religion was not at all important to them, and about 15% of 12th graders. So 12, 13, 15 from 8th, 10th to 12th grade. In 2005 or so, it was still about 13% for 8th and 10th graders, but it was about 17% for 12th graders. So 12th graders started secularized, but eighth and 10th graders did not. They stayed the way they were.

In 2013, about 15% of eighth graders were not at all religious, so it had risen a bit, but not a lot, 20% of 10th graders were not at all religious, and about 23% of 12th graders, which means 12th graders secularized a lot more, 10th graders secularized a lot more, and crucially, the gap between 10th and 8th graders grew a lot, which means secularization was happening in 9th and 10th grade.

And then if you look at today, or the most recent data, which is, I think, 2021, about 29% of 12th graders are not at all religious, about 27% of 10th graders, and about 23% or 24% of 8th graders, which means now tons of the secularization is happening before 8th grade. That’s really striking. To me that says that secularization of children is moving earlier and earlier and earlier. Why is that happening? Well, I think social media is a big part of that story. That kids now inhabit these totally adult unsupervised online spaces where they interact with much older people and where their life is more contaminated by these adult things. So I think that that’s one of the factors. But in general, I think this is just a case of American parents not trying very hard to pass on religion.

Brett McKay: Okay. So we oftentimes think that society is becoming less religious because adults undergo a faith deconstruction, faith crisis and then leave religion. But the data actually shows that faith loss largely happens in childhood. And that’s because the baby boomer, Gen X, millennial parents, they aren’t religious themselves. And then they’re not passing on religion to their kids.

Lyman Stone: Well, yeah, but no. I’m saying seeing even among religious parents are pretty lazy. There’s a nice book called Handing Down the Faith, I reviewed it a couple years back for Christianity Today, where they do this really comprehensive qualitative and quantitative study of religious parents in the US. And they show that most religious parents in the US believe what I would call the backlash myth. And the backlash myth is this. If you do too much overt explicit religious instruction in your house, your children will react against your religion and they’ll end up less religious than if you’d done nothing at all. This is the backlash myth. There’s no empirical support for this idea. This is totally wrong. Every shred of empirical evidence we have, including some that’s I think plausibly causal, suggests that the more effort that society, parents, schools, whatever, the more effort you put into passing on the faith to your children, the likelier they are to share your faith. It’s very straightforward. Try hard, get better results.

But parents don’t believe this. American parents deeply believe in the backlash myth. It’s hard to persuade them against it. They think that if they do something that their kids don’t like that their kids will hate everything they stand for. And this is just totally untrue. There’s no serious, high-quality research to support this model, and yet it’s widely believed. And the result of this is that American parents really forego a lot of their influence. They don’t do a lot of explicit teaching to their children about the faith at home. They don’t lead a lot of religious activities at home. They don’t lean on their kids to be involved in religious communities. People just assume that their kids are gonna absorb the religion. It doesn’t matter what environment they surround their kid with.

So yeah, religiosity is declining, not because adults are converting, for the most part, but because children are never absorbing their parents’ faith at considerable rates. And that’s largely because parents are not making great efforts to pass it on.

And I should say… I’ll say something in defense of American parents. And not just American parents. This is everywhere. 80 years ago, parents didn’t need to do that much because our society was so suffused with religion that parents could just do a bit to give some extra firepower and a relatively religious society would do most of the work socializing the child into the faith. That is no longer the case but parents haven’t caught up. They haven’t realized that they now have to substitute for all that stuff society used to be doing.

And this is a place where… I just said all this stuff against intensive parenting. And this is one place where I think we should be way more intense. Do less intensive parenting at making sure your kid has 57 different talents and goes to all these activities and you don’t need to monitor every moment of their play and stuff. But intentionally, concretely lead everyday religious activities in your household, every single day. The day should not pass where your child does not see you leading the family in practices of faith, if you want your religion to be passed on to your child.

Brett McKay: Well, Lyman, this has been a great conversation. Where can people go to learn more about your work?

Lyman Stone: You can follow me on Twitter @lymanstoneky, or you can always just find me at various places online, the Institute for Family Studies, and some other places.

Brett McKay: Yeah, I think you got some articles in the Atlantic. Correct?

Lyman Stone: Yeah, I’m all over the place.

Brett McKay: You’re all over the place. All right, well, Lyman Stone, thanks for your time. It’s been a pleasure.

Lyman Stone: Good talking to you.

Brett McKay: My guest today was Lyman Stone. He is a sociologist and demographer. You will find more information about his work on his Twitter or X site, whatever you want to call it, @lymanstoneky. Also check out our show notes at aom.is/familymyths, where you find links to resources. We delve deeper into this topic.

Well, that wraps up another edition of the AoM podcast. Make sure to check out our website at artofmanliness.com, where you find our podcast archives, as well as thousands of articles that we’ve written over the years about pretty much anything you think of. And if you haven’t done so already, I’d appreciate it if you take one minute to give us a review on Apple Podcast or Spotify. It helps out a lot. And if you’ve done that already, thank you. Please consider sharing the show with a friend or family member who you think could get something out of it. As always, thank you for the continuous support. Until next time, this is Brett McKay; reminding you to not only listen to the AoM podcast but put what you’ve heard into action.

Help support independent publishing. Make a donation to The Art of Manliness! Thanks for the support!

For most people, their siblings will be the longest-lasting relationships of their lives, potentially enduring all the way from birth until past the death of their parents. 

Marked by both jealousy and conflict and love and loyalty, siblings are also some of our most complicated relationships. While a little over half of people describe their relationships with their siblings as positive, about one-fifth classify them as negative, and a quarter say their feelings about their siblings are decidedly mixed. 

Here to take us on a tour of the complex landscape of sibling-dom is Geoffrey Greif, a professor of social work and the co-author of the book Adult Sibling Relationships. Today on the show, Geoffrey shares how our brothers and sisters shape us and how our relationship with our siblings changes as we move from childhood to old age. We discuss how the perception of parental favoritism affects the closeness of siblings and how a parent’s relationship with their own siblings affects the relationship between their children. Geoffrey explains how most sibling relationships are marked by the three A’s — affection, ambiguity, and/or ambivalence — and how the relationship can also become very distant or outright severed. We end our conversation with Geoffrey’s advice on developing a good relationship between your children and reconnecting with your own siblings.

Resources Related to the Episode

• Geoffrey’s previous appearance on the AoM podcast: Episode #360 — Understanding Male Friendships
• AoM Article: Forging the Bond Between Brothers
• Study: “How Experiences with Siblings Relate to the Parenting of Siblings“
• Study: “Differential Effects of Perceptions of Mothers’ and Fathers’ Favoritism on Sibling Tension in Adulthood”

Connect With Geoffrey Greif

• Geoffrey’s Faculty Page

Listen to the Podcast! (And don’t forget to leave us a review!)

Listen to the episode on a separate page.

Download this episode.

Subscribe to the podcast in the media player of your choice.

Listen ad-free on Stitcher Premium; get a free month when you use code “manliness” at checkout.

Podcast Sponsors

Click here to see a full list of our podcast sponsors

Read the Transcript

Brett McKay: Brett McKay here and welcome to another edition of the Art of Manliness podcast. For most people, their siblings will be the longest lasting relationships of their lives, potentially enduring all the way from birth until past the death of their parents. Marked by both jealousy and conflict and love and loyalty, siblings are also some of our most complicated relationships. While a little over half of people describe their relationships with their siblings as positive, about one fifth classify them as negative and a quarter say their feelings about their siblings are decidedly mixed. Here to take us on a tour of the complex landscape of sibling-dom is Geoffrey Greif, a professor of social work and the author of the book Adult Siblings. Today on the show, Geoffrey shares how our brothers and sisters shape us and how our relationship with our siblings changes as we move from childhood to old age.

We discuss how the perception of parental favoritism affects the closeness of siblings and how a parent’s relationship with their own siblings affects the relationship between their children. Geoffrey explains how most sibling relationships are marked by the three A’s, affection, ambiguity and or ambivalence and how the relationship can also become very distant or outright severed. We end our conversation with Geoffrey’s advice on developing a good relationship between your children and reconnecting with your own siblings. After the show is over check out our show notes at aom.is/siblings. All right, Geoffrey Greif, welcome back to the show.

Geoffrey Greif: Thank you for having me.

Brett McKay: So we had you on several years ago to talk about the nature of male friendship. You’ve also done research and writing about the nature of another type of relationship that has a big impact on our life. And that is the sibling relationship. As a professor who studies this stuff, how would you describe a sibling relationship? Like what makes it unique?

Geoffrey Greif: Sibling relationships are the longest relationships we have. They’re with us when we are born often. If we’re the oldest or older sibling, it could be the person with whom we spend most of our lives. We have these relationships longer than we do with our parents, longer than we do with our partners, spouses. Maybe if there’s a big age gap between you and your sibling or siblings, you may have a friend that you meet in kindergarten or something. But for the most part, these are the longest and I would argue probably the most important relationships that we have in our lives because they are so long and they define us in so many ways, both in relation to our parents, in relation to them. They’re the first intimate relationship we have. And they are there for us throughout the good times and if we have them, the bad times.

Brett McKay: So you’ve done research on friendship. How is the sibling relationship similar and different to a friendship?

Geoffrey Greif: One of the things that happens with friendships is of course is we can pick them up and drop them. If I have a toxic friendship or a friendship that turns toxic, I can decide to drop that friendship. A sibling is like a shadow throughout your whole life. Whether or not you are close or distant from that shadow/sibling, they are always with you and you do not have a choice about having them in your life and maybe you don’t have a choice if they are out of your life.

Brett McKay: So siblings relationship, it could be like a friendship. Some siblings are just like best friends, others not. They’re just indifferent or maybe they have a really bad relationship. But you also talk about how the sibling relationship is interesting because it is horizontal. You have this vertical relationship with your parents. But then even sibling relationships can sometimes resemble a vertical parent child type of relationship, correct?

Geoffrey Greif: Sure. If there’s a big age gap between siblings or even a small age gap, a two or three year age gap, they can certainly be a vertical or almost an intergenerational. If we think about parents up the line and grandparents up a line, that would be a vertical relationship whereas a horizontal relationship going across in your general age or in your general family hierarchy would be a sibling, it could be a partner, it could be a friend. Those would all be of course horizontal. And if you have children, that could be a vertical relationship with you at the top of that hierarchy. So it’s this interesting mix of with siblings is you’re dealing with somebody both from a horizontal point of view, but you have to come together when your parents age perhaps and become ill and deal with the vertical relationship. So it’s this fascinating intersection of the two that we all have to struggle with if we have siblings.

Brett McKay: And that’s what makes it sometimes really complicated.

Geoffrey Greif: Yes, because if we get along well with siblings, even then things can become complicated. Parents may live closer to one sibling. Parents may pull on one sibling differently than another sibling. So there are grounds for things becoming very complicated depending upon how intergenerational patterns in families have been handed down and how current patterns are being acted out either de novo or as a reflection of previous family patterns.

Brett McKay: So what I like to do with this conversation is talk about how the sibling relationship sort of changes from childhood to young adulthood to midlife, then also how those relationships with our siblings affect us. So let’s talk about sibling relationship and childhood. What factors influence whether siblings and childhood are going to be close or is going to be acrimony? What are some of the factors you found in your research?

Geoffrey Greif: I think some of this is of course luck. So while we can say people carve out their own relationships, I think there’s a certain amount of luck. Sometimes siblings born in the same family just adhere to different values like doing different things have different natures. And so those siblings may or may not struggle more to find common ground aside from the common ground that they have from birth. Obviously, there are people that are born with greater disabilities and that can cause hierarchical swings as to who is taking care of whom. There are gender issues that can be revisited in families. If you’re from a culture that values men more than women, you may have a different status even if you’re the oldest girl or the oldest boy. Families may wait for the firstborn boy to come along or if you have parents that have always wanted girls and they have a series of boys, the girl that comes along third or fourth may get special status. So there are a lot of things that even have nothing to do with the behavior that someone chooses that can imprint upon siblings some of the things that can affect you.

Of course, people are born with different talents. We’re all not the same. Some people are better at writing. Some people are better at math. Some people are better in sports. Some people are better in chess, et cetera. So the way that we develop our talents may configure more closely with one parent or the next or with neither parent. So there are fundamentally so many different variables that can come in to affect these relationships. Do children share rooms? Are they close in age? If they’re one year apart, they’re more apt to share friends in school and to be in closer competition than if they’re three or four years apart and are not the same sex. So there are many, many factors that can come into play that begin a trajectory that maybe continues with them through life or at least influences them through life. Though I believe you can always change the trajectory you’re on.

Brett McKay: One of the factors that I thought was interesting you talk about in your book about adult sibling relationships, about childhood sibling relationship is that birth order can influence sibling relationships. So the firstborn might have this expectation to be like, well, I’m in charge. I got to take care of everybody. It’s sort of like George Bailey looking out for his kid brother. And then even the birth order can affect… Parents are different based on birth order. Like the first time parents have a kid, they don’t know what they’re doing. They’re going to pay a lot of attention. Then the next kid comes along and they don’t pay much attention to the second kid. And then that can affect the relationship between the first and second kid.

Geoffrey Greif: Correct. The first child usually has more attention paid and maybe more, a more intense kind of attention for better and for worse. Of course, the other things that happen that affect the time with a child and the way the child is raised is what’s happening in the parent’s marriage, what’s happening in the parent’s work life. The thing that a third or fourth child may benefit from is that over the course of time, many people begin to earn more money. So a family’s financial situation may improve, or of course the reverse may happen. Somebody may lose a job and that will have an impact on the family situation, where the family lives, how often the family moves. So all these kinds of things can affect the parent’s ability to focus. You also talked about the fact that, and this happened in my wife’s family, she’s the oldest of three daughters. Her father was a middle child and focused on my wife’s next younger sister. So he, being a middle child, felt much more sympathy and much more support for her because of his struggles as a middle child. He connected and supported her. My wife’s mother was an oldest child and focused more and was more supportive of my wife.

And that left the third daughter to kind of be on her own and not have the same kind of attention or focus or maybe even affection as the oldest two. So all these things can play out in so many interesting ways.

Brett McKay: We turn to the idea of gender and its influence on sibling relationship. Do sister-sister or brother-brother relationships differ?

Geoffrey Greif: Yeah, what we found, and we did a lot of interviews and have a lot of data in the book, Adult Sibling Relationships, that I wrote with Michael Woolley, we did a lot of focus on the fact that it appears that when we talk to sisters, as opposed to brothers, sisters play a much more fundamental role in communicating with each other and with their brothers, in keeping connections open. I’m very interested, as you said, in men’s roles, and I’ve been studying men’s and women’s roles because you can’t study one without the other for my whole career. And men still fundamentally leave a lot of the emotional work in the family to the women. It may not be true of any particular person listening to this podcast, but in general and across a wider spectrum, women are more central in many of these families, and sisters are more emotionally focused and are going to spend more time trying to make the relationships work than our brothers. We did find differences between brothers. The older brothers, those 65 and over, tended to be much more the traditional man than the younger brothers, those in their 40s who tended to be more open and more emotionally expressive.

So I’m. Optimistic that men are moving in a good direction in terms of being able to play a more central emotional role and not just the functional financial roles that they sometimes play in family caregiving as parents age.

Brett McKay: Returning to the parents’ influence on a childhood sibling relationship and maybe how that affects the relationship in adulthood, you mentioned some factors. Parents, maybe their birth order may influence how they treat different kids. So if your parents are middle child, maybe they’ll focus more on the middle child. The parent’s job and kind of what’s going on in their life can influence the relationship. Any other things that parents do that can cause either the siblings in a relationship to draw closer together or to have conflict? Any other things you found in your research?

Geoffrey Greif: Yeah, that’s a really important question and this continues throughout life. So we found pretty clear data that if you are raised in a household where someone is favored much more than someone else, that obviously has an important impact both at the time and later. And we found strong connections between people who believe one or the other of their siblings themselves or the other sibling or siblings were favored and how close they were into adulthood. Now, of course, we’re looking at only siblings in adulthood, but we asked them to reflect back and we didn’t define in any great way what being favored meant. It was sort of a feeling. So if there is a favored sibling, there are two sides of that. Being favored can be of course really pleasant, but it can also be very unpleasant depending upon the way that the being favored plays out. Now there are some families where it was played off. It wasn’t a big deal. If there are a bunch of siblings and dad likes to hunt and I’ll say a son, it could be a daughter likes to hunt, everybody can sort of joke and say, oh, we know they really love each other.

They just go off all together all the time and hunt. And it’s not seen as necessarily being dismissed as a child. It’s just a public and comfortable acknowledgement that a parent and child really enjoy usually an activity together. So that can work out very well. Obviously, when favoritism comes to the feeling that someone is being neglected or not loved or not supportive, that’s also a very, very dangerous and more painful kind of experience for someone to have. So favoritism is a big thing and it can continue on into adulthood. There are of course, the other thorny issues around child rearing. If I have two children and one of them is born with a disability, I may have to spend more time and do more with that child. And in those families, there should be a great deal of communication about that. But you often get families where someone may have a hidden disability, a hidden challenge, a hidden disability where it’s sort of talked about, but not talked about, and maybe a child needs more support and more time and the less disabled or less challenged child doesn’t get quite as much attention. And that’s a really difficult thing for any family to balance.

So favoring is one issue. The second one is parental interference in the relationship. And again, parents should, if they can, let their children work out issues to the extent that they can without being interfered with. There are of course, times when parents, and we have a few chapters in the book on this, where parents have to step in and have to protect one child from another. There was a chapter where we interviewed a guy in his 60s who talked about having been physically abused by his older brother. Parents naturally had to step in there to protect them. But parents should be trying to stay out of their kids’ lives when they need to work things out, because if children are left to work things out as children, they’ll learn how to work things out as adults. So favoritism and interference that begins in childhood does affect how close children are when they become adults and how close they are with their siblings.

Brett McKay: Something that’s also interesting with favoritism is that there’s research that there’s more tension with adult siblings when there’s the perception that the father favors one of the siblings more, but the perception of a mother’s favoritism isn’t predictive of sibling tension. And something else that’s interesting about favoritism is that the child who feels like he or she is the unfavored one, their tendency for depression goes up and that tendency for depression carries with them into adulthood.

Geoffrey Greif: Yeah. Yeah. I think if you grow up thinking that you are not favored by your parents, then you are going to maybe be more likely to struggle with connections when you get into adulthood. You’re sitting in a classroom and the teacher doesn’t call on you, but your hand is up. That’s kind of a revisiting of what happens when you’re at home or you go to a fraternity party, a sorority party, a dance, and people are not sort of willing to dance with you or approach you or talk to you. You may think to yourself, here it goes again. I’m sort of being overlooked. That’s why some of these things that can begin as a kernel can sprout and continue to grow into adulthood.

Brett McKay: With the favoritism thing, it seems kind of tricky because there is a big subjective element to that. One child could feel like, “Well, mom and dad favor the other kid,” but it subjectively feels like everyone else looks like, not really. That’s, I guess, another factor. If just one child has a propensity to kind of have a negativity bias about everything, that can affect the relationship between siblings.

Geoffrey Greif: Yeah. It kind of opens up the question and maybe something I should have started with, a statement that no two people grow up in the same family. Yes, I’ve got an older brother and older sister and we grew up together, but I never had the experience of having me as a brother. So… And having the same configuration, we all are going to have different narratives on what our family history is like and what an event is like. No two people can agree a hundred percent on anything that they observe because they’re coming at it from a totally different perspective with a different person in the room than themselves. So the notion of a family narrative and I was favored, no, I was not favored, no, I was favored, no, I was not favored from one sibling to the next, or I was favored here, but I remember six months later you were favored there. Those are all narratives that families are going to have to work through.

Brett McKay: You also talk about in your research that a parent’s relationship with their own siblings can also influence the relationship their own children have with each other. What does the research say there?

Geoffrey Greif: Yeah, very interesting. What we found and we had to think about it for a while, we asked both sisters and brothers, in this case, mothers and fathers also, siblings that were parents, if they were close, if they perceived their parents as being close, I should say, with their own siblings when they were growing up. So if I grew up in a household where I saw my father being close with his siblings, I was more apt to be close with my siblings. So to be more succinct, father closeness or the perception of father closeness with his siblings would often tend to make somebody more close with their own siblings. And about a third of the people we interviewed said that they believed their father was close with his siblings. When it came to mothers, 80% of the people we interviewed said their mothers were close with their siblings, and that did not have the same effect. So, mothers were seen as being much more close in general, as we’ve said, with siblings, where it was in the minority that fathers said they were close with their siblings. So in those cases, having a father and growing up in a home where a father put a lot of value and was close with his siblings would tend to improve one’s own relationship with one’s own siblings.

Brett McKay: So just to recap here, kids who have a father who’s close with his siblings tend to be close themselves, but a mother being close to her siblings doesn’t seem to influence the closeness of her own children. Though what’s interesting is that there’s some research out there that shows that if a mother had a negative relationship with her siblings, her children are more likely to have positive relationships with each other. And the thinking is it’s because those moms try to correct for things that went wrong in their birth families. And so they’re intentionally trying to cultivate with their own kids a sibling experience and bond that they didn’t get to experience themselves. We’re going to take a quick break for a word from our sponsors.

And now back to the show. So as you said earlier at the beginning, our sibling relationship is the longest relationship we have. And this is a person that’s in our lives that we, I don’t know, we kind of compare ourselves to them, like how we’re doing. In your research, do you find that children and then even maybe adults like shape their own identity in order to differentiate themselves from their siblings?

Geoffrey Greif: Yeah, not so much my own research because I didn’t do a lot on children. But yeah, from what I’ve read, it seems to be that siblings have to sort of find their own place in a family. And if your brother or sister is a great cellist, you may then decide to pick up the violin instead. So you’re not directly competing with the older and at least the beginning, the more competent player. Now, if you pick up the cello, as did your older sibling and you’re much better immediately, you may continue along with it. And these kinds of hidden or not maybe always overt forms of competition or choosing a different path can of course continue throughout life. And those can lead to all kinds of feelings. And one of the themes of the book about siblings and from our research is that these relationships are defined in our book as being a combination of great affection, but also often affected by ambivalence and ambiguity. That when we talk to people about their relationships and you talked about it initially, about how your sibling may be your best friend and the person to whom you’re closest in the world or your siblings.

And a lot of people said, I trust my siblings. I’m very close to them. They’re my best friend. I love being with them. There were also the minority of people that said that I’m mixed about my sibling. I haven’t been close to him my whole life. We grew up, we moved apart. Maybe we’ve come back together now to take care of mom and dad. And that’s been a struggle. So there might be a lot of ambivalent feelings. And just as we can all remember, maybe the million complimentary things we heard from our father or mother, maybe we can also remember the one or two, at least less complimentary things and those loom large. We have so many communications with our siblings that of course, some of them are likely to be negative and maybe those stick with us longer or perceived as being negative. And those can affect how we feel. Yes, I want my brother to do well in life, but do I want him to do as well as me? Or do I want to sort of say, aha, I won because that’s the way we used to compete as brothers when we were young.

So I think that’s a normal thing that we’re trying to help people to understand that it’s okay to have ambivalent feelings and still love your sibling. And that affection is a very strong feeling and it tends to grow over time. The other word to get in here is of course, the ambiguity. A lot of siblings we interviewed did not understand why their brother or sister did certain things as an adult. Why did she marry that idiot or why did he marry that jerk? I can’t understand it. I can’t understand their behavior. I don’t know why they continue to treat me like I’m 12 when I’m a competent adult who is navigating the world. So all these sorts of things, and I can’t understand why they’re close to dad or mom after all the horrible things he or she has done to them. So there’s the three A’s, the affection, the ambivalence, and the ambiguity that really, if you think about it and step back, I think characterize a lot of adult relationships. And again, we’re trying to say in the book, these are normal. Don’t think it has to be a Norman Rockwell kind of loving family.

There’re going to be ups and downs in families across 40, 50 years of family life together or 60 or 70 years of family life together or even longer now. So expect ups and downs, but try and focus on things that are working on the love that should be shown in many families.

Brett McKay: Staying in childhood and we’ll move on to young adulthood. I think a lot of research talks about how the parents influence children and shape children and sort of teaching them and whatever. But there’s other research that says, actually kids probably spend more time with each other, with their sibling than mom and dad. So what sorts of things are we learning from our siblings in childhood that carry with us into adulthood?

Geoffrey Greif: Well, we learn of course how to share the bathroom, how to share the kitchen, maybe how to share a bedroom or in some families even have to share a bed with a sibling. So there’s a lot of very, I could almost say forced physical closeness that comes along depending upon the size of the house and the number of children. And those can form a blueprint for how one forms intimate relationships as an adult. In some cases, it doesn’t mean you can’t change the way you were raised, but it will certainly influence what you are thinking about, how you feel about women and men and closeness. So I think all those early experiences do set the stage for, but do not have to be the final act on what happens when one comes into adulthood.

Brett McKay: Okay. So when you’re a kid, you probably spend a lot of time with your siblings, especially if they’re close in age to you. That’s like, it can be like the first 18 years of your life. You’ve got this person that you’re just constantly in contact with. How does the relationship change as siblings shift into adulthood?

Geoffrey Greif: Yeah. I think one of the greatest tasks in life is to figure out how to grow up, move away from home, perhaps with a partner, perhaps not yet still stay connected to the family. So that’s where the struggle comes in. How do we all grow up, perhaps get married, perhaps have kids yet still stay loyal or connected to our family? And so many people do grow up. They do leave home. They move out of town. They move away and they’re balancing their lives. They’re balancing maybe their partner or their spouse’s lives and families. And they’re trying to figure out how to stay close to both sides of a family in adulthood. And then as they age and their parents age and become ill, they then as siblings have to come back together as a group to figure out how to do the caretaking of parents, and how to negotiate if the parents die, when the parents die, how to negotiate the estate. And there may be well-meaning parents that will call me into the room and say, “Geoff, I want you to have that painting on the wall after I die.”

And I say, “That’s great. I’ve always loved that painting. Thanks, dad.” And then my brother comes in or my sister comes in and my dad tells my brother or sister the exact same thing because he forgot that he told me, well, my father dies. And then we struggle over who’s supposed to get that painting. And how parents divide up their estate. And of course, some siblings need more than others. Siblings may marry people that are school teachers and not earning much money or marrying people in business that are earning a huge amount of money. So there are always those things that maybe start to reverberate down to, well, here’s the favoritism again that happened when I was six. Or here I thought I had grown up and separated from the family and established myself as a competent adult, but I’m back again, dealing with the same issues I’ve always had to deal with the family. There they go again, repeating these patterns of favoritism or my being dismissed or my being favored. And I don’t want the burden of taking care of my other siblings. So there’s so many factors that can affect that.

Brett McKay: Okay. So, it sounds like when you shift into a young adulthood, that relationship with your sibling could drift apart, especially if you move out of state and you move far away from them. And then also you’re just getting busy with life, raising your own family, work, et cetera. And then as you shift into middle age and your parents get older and you have to be concerned about their health and helping them out, that’s when siblings are likely to come back together again.

Geoffrey Greif: Right. And of course, if they stayed in touch and stayed close, then that’s not a struggle for them. But if they moved away and they felt the need to establish an identity strongly different from their family identity, that may make other siblings somewhat resentful of them all of a sudden coming back into the fold if that person has drifted too far from the family.

Brett McKay: So let’s speak about that sort of young adulthood period. I guess the factors that influence whether siblings stay connected through that sort of young adulthood period, like 20s, 30s, maybe early 40s, is if they had a good relationship when they were kids and maybe they saw their parents had a good relationship with their siblings, that pattern is likely to follow through with them, correct?

Geoffrey Greif: Yes, it is. And of course, who they marry is important too. If they marry someone that values family life and staying connected to everybody on both sides of the family, they’re more likely to stay in touch and to be a force for pulling the family together. Some people grow up and are attracted to people that will help them separate from their families. Others are attracted to people that will help them to stay connected to their family. So there are all these different factors that come in play as you grow up and begin to establish a work life, establish a partner life, and then have children that maybe pull the family further apart or help the family to stay together.

Brett McKay: Yeah, I think it’s always interesting to kind of survey your friends about their relationship with their siblings. And like, some friends are like, “Yeah, I talk to my sister every day. We FaceTime each other.” And then there’s some other people that’s like, “Yeah, we call each other on Christmas and say, Merry Christmas. And that’s about it.” And it’s not like they’d hate their siblings. It’s like, “well, we’re just busy and it’s just not a priority for either of us.”

Geoffrey Greif: Right. Probably the seeds for that could have been sown in childhood or maybe they were sown in adulthood. Maybe they met somebody or have married somebody who is pulling them in a certain direction or maybe doesn’t even like the family all that much too. There are so many different factors that can come into play when people move away and have to go away to school for a special program or have to take a job on a different coast. So many of these factors can affect what happens with these relationships across the lifespan.

Brett McKay: And you mentioned another one early on, gender can play a factor. Sisters typically do more work to stay connected with siblings. Brothers, not so much.

Geoffrey Greif: Right. And of course, traditionally when taking care of older parents, the women would be the ones doing the physical care and sort of checking in while the brothers might be handling the money. And that’s at least historically because men were more likely to be in the workforce than women. That of course has changed with women taking much greater role in helping with the finances and men feeling more comfortable and helping with the physical care, the driving, the cleaning up around the house. So all these things are becoming more, I guess, intermixed and less specific to any one gender.

Brett McKay: So returning to this idea of classifying sibling relationships as affectionate, ambivalent and ambiguous. So you said the research shows in your surveys that most people, they have like an affectionate relationship with their sibling, but then also even those affectionate things can be sort of pocketed with ambiguity or ambivalence. And then some of them might just be completely ambivalent. I’m curious, how do two people who spend so much time together for perhaps two decades end up feeling completely ambivalent towards each other? How does that happen and what does an ambivalent sibling relationship look like?

Geoffrey Greif: Well, we grow up and we witness somebody else doing things that aren’t very nice to other people or to themselves. You may be in high school with your older or younger sibling and you don’t like their behavior. And that sort of begins a narrative in your head or continues a narrative in your head that my sibling wasn’t very nice to me when we were young and I see he’s not very nice to other people too. And yeah, he’s my sibling and mom and dad said we should always be close, but I don’t feel all that close to him because he’s just not the kind of person that I enjoy being around. So there are paths that people can take and there are ways that people can sort of not connect that may help to build a narrative that maybe has existed in the family for a variety of generations ahead and it’s getting played out. You hear your parents talk about not liking their own siblings or you don’t trust Uncle Joe or don’t trust Aunt Millie. And so you begin to be cautious around family and that can sort of feed into this narrative of I don’t really like this person but I’m stuck with them.

Brett McKay: And then also, yeah, you see your siblings how they treat your parents. Maybe they just cause a lot of stress and problems for your parents and you kind of resent that and you’re like, geez, I just don’t want anything to do with you because you’re causing mom and dad just so much grief.

Geoffrey Greif: Right. I think that’s a really good point. I think this notion that, and again, this gentleman who was in his 60s who was abused by his brother said in the interview that the brother was such a difficult person that the family never took vacations. They were just so focused on trying to control his behavior that there was sort of no fun in the family. He for whatever reason sucked all the fun out of the family. So I think that things can get going that make being together as a family just not as much fun as it might be if everybody enjoyed playing the same games together on Saturday night. If there’s somebody who was hanging out in his room and not wanting to join the crowd, it’s going to draw down the fun from the family.

Brett McKay: I think another factor that could play into the ambivalence between siblings is there’s research out there that shows that personality wise, two siblings are nearly as dissimilar as two people randomly drawn from the population. So siblings, they might look alike, they’ve got this shared history, but they often just don’t have a lot in common and their personalities just don’t jive. So I think that could be another factor that could contribute to ambivalence. So we talked about ambivalence and then with ambiguity, this is something where your sibling does something where you’re not sure what that meant. So for example, they didn’t invite you to this thing and you’re thinking, “Well, what does that mean?” And that ambiguity can actually lead to greater feelings of ambivalence.

Geoffrey Greif: Yes. I think the two definitely do feed each other. If you don’t understand why someone has acted towards you or towards somebody else, you tend to be a little bit more cautious around them and that’s going to engender more mixed feelings towards that person.

Brett McKay: Let’s talk about siblings who just decide to just completely cut off or sever the relationship with their sibling. What does the research say about that? Like what causes those cutoffs?

Geoffrey Greif: People sometimes, again, don’t know why their siblings drift off. And the more siblings there are, if you’re one of five or six siblings, there’s more likely to be somebody who has decided to row his own way through the waters of life. So, it can be because of something perceived or something that happened at the hands of a parent that people want nothing to do with the family. It can be the feeling that I just don’t fit in here. It can be having a relationship with somebody, a partner or spouse that pulls you away from the family. It can be that you’re spinning in one direction and the other family members are spinning in another direction. There’s nothing really to do with anybody, just that you never really connected on any deep level and you may stay in touch every so often, but you really enjoy not being with the family. You don’t want to be put back into a role that’s uncomfortable. You have people that don’t go to their high school reunion 50 years later because they never had a good time in high school.

They didn’t like themselves in high school or they were bullied or not liked in high school. So, why go back to your reunion if it was never a happy time of your life? I think that’s the same sort of pattern that can happen in families. If you just struggled your whole life with connecting to your family members, it’s going to make it less fun to stay in touch and you may need, out of your own protection for your mental health or physical health, to stay away from your family.

Brett McKay: Can those rifts ever be mended? Have you seen people where there was a big cutoff, but then they kind of work together to bring the relationship back?

Geoffrey Greif: Yes, absolutely. And it happened with, again, this guy that I talked about that was physically abused by his older brother. They are now back in touch and this guy just flew out to spend a few days with his older brother who is now in his late 70s and pretty frail. So aside from that extreme example, people can always change. I can pick up a book and read something and change how I feel about someone. I can watch a movie and say, oh, those siblings got closer. Why can’t I get closer with mine? Maybe I’ll reach out. And I would encourage people to write a narrative for themselves that makes them feel good about their sibling relations. Even if you’ve got a sibling who is out of touch and seemingly doesn’t want anything to do with you, you may feel better about yourself if you continue to reach out once a year or once a month with a card or an email. Even if that sibling does not respond, you might like yourself more if you have written a narrative where you’re the one that’s reaching out.

Brett McKay: So returning to the sibling relationship in middle age. So they start coming back together because mom and dad has an issue. How does the relationship change? When you were kids, there might’ve been favoritism and sort of resentment about that. Does that stuff stay there or do you tend to grow out of that as you get into your 40s, 50s, and 60s?

Geoffrey Greif: We found a very clear change across time. People tend to trust each other more. They tend to be less competitive. They tend to like their siblings more across time. I think they tend to value their siblings more with time. That’s the great part about growing old. You become less focused on the small stuff and maybe more focused on the existential stuff. And siblings sometimes, even if they’re married, will turn to each other for care. There was one case that is an interview I did with a group of sisters. One of the sisters had died about a year before the interview I did. And the other sisters didn’t think that she had been well taken care of by her husband as she was dying. So, they sort of got on their horses and were trying to help out a lot and disagreed with the way she was being taken care of by her husband. So those kinds of things can cause people that are close to get closer. And the example of the brother can cause somebody who was very distant and cut off to decide over time, “let’s try and make something meaningful out of this last stage of our lives.”

Brett McKay: But as you said, there could be some conflict in middle age too. But it’s usually around mom and dad. Like what are we going to do with mom and dad or how are we going to do the estate? I thought it was interesting. There was some research in the book where you highlighted that in some sibling relationships, they actually start drawing further apart after mom and dad died. Did I read that right?

Geoffrey Greif: Yes, absolutely. So, you know, it’s not surprising, but at the death of the first or second parent, three things can happen in the sibling relationship. You draw closer because maybe mom was keeping people apart or you just never enjoyed the interaction with mom. You become more distant because mom’s house was where you went for Thanksgiving and she was the magnet that drew everyone together for the holidays. Or the death has no impact. My mother died at the age of 98 a few years ago after having dementia for a few years. So, we had already adjusted. We had accepted she was going to die, that she was no longer a force, that we were going to work out how to take care of her, which the three of us did. And her death didn’t change our relationship at all because we had already absorbed her loss into the ongoing relationship that we had prior to her death.

Brett McKay: I’m curious, is there any insight from your work and then maybe the research of others on what parents can do who have kids at home right now to ensure their kids have strong sibling relationships from childhood into adulthood?

Geoffrey Greif: I think when parents show that they are trying to maintain a healthy relationship with their own sibling, first of all, that can be a role model. Secondly, I think discussions around how difficult emotional relationships are handled with others, which happens all the time when people talk over the dinner table about what happened at work or what happened at school or what happened with friends or family, I think all those are a template for children as to how parents might expect the children to handle their own relationships. So I’d be very aware of how intimate relationships, friendships are, and work relationships, and sibling relationships are all talked about because those are going to be important life lessons that children are going to hear and will affect how they see their own sibling. And of course, parents need to be attuned to when siblings need to be given their own identity, their own time with a parent. All those things are important in terms of not forcing siblings together if you can give them some space from each other. And of course, on the other hand, allowing closeness if that’s what they want.

Brett McKay: What about people who’ve got adult siblings and they want to strengthen those relationships? Anything from the research or your work there that can help?

Geoffrey Greif: Reach out to them. Most of the requests I get for help, I get people who read the book and say, “Can you help me with a relationship I wish I was closer”? Is usually what we get. The other side of that is that, “I don’t want to be as close as this sibling wants to be with me.” So it’s usually around someone has drifted away and I want to reestablish a relationship. One approach I got from somebody a few years ago was that something happened between my sister and me many years ago, and she will never forgive me for that, yet I’m trying to get this relationship to work. And she thinks the sister sort of made more of it than she wanted to make of it. So there can be a lot of things around how close to get to a sibling that bring people into treatment. And again, I think to work that out, you’re going to want to have to have both people willing to change or open up a little bit about what they want the relationship to be and drop what the relationship was. That requires maybe some level of forgiveness, depending upon who feels they need to forgive.

And that’s going to be a willingness to move forward. The important thing to remember is that how those relationships get worked out in adulthood, send a powerful message to your own family. So if I’m not close to my siblings, am I sending a difficult message to my own children about how important I think their relationship is? And that’s where you can attempt to change the narrative and say, I’m going to try and reach out, even if she doesn’t respond to me, even if he doesn’t respond, I’m going to feel better about myself if I want to continue to try and build a positive, healthy relationship. And that’s how you should handle other relationships in your life is the message to give your kids.

Brett McKay: Well, Geoffrey, this has been a great conversation. Is there someplace people can go to learn more about the book and your work?

Geoffrey Greif: I guess aside from going to Amazon and looking at the book, and that’s where sort of most of the information will be, will be in the book.

Brett McKay: Fantastic. Well, Geoffrey Greif, thanks for your time. It’s been a pleasure.

Geoffrey Greif: Thank you, Brett. This was great.

Brett McKay: My guest there is Geoffrey Greif. He’s the co-author of the book, Adult Siblings. It’s available on amazon.com. Check out our show notes at aom.is/siblings, where can you find links to resources, where we delve deeper into this topic.

Well that wraps up another edition of the AOM Podcast. Make sure to check out our website at artofmanliness.com where you can find our podcast archives, as well as thousands of articles written over the years about pretty much anything you can think of. And if you’d like to enjoy ad-free episodes of the AOM Podcast, you could do so on Stitcher Premium. Head over to stitcherpremium.com, sign up, use code MANLY as a checkout for a free month trial. Once you’re signed up, download the Stitcher app on Android or iOS, and you can start enjoying ad-free episodes of the AOM Podcast. And if you haven’t done so already, I’d appreciate if you take one minute to give us a review of our podcast on Spotify. It helps out a lot. And if you’ve done that already, thank you. Please consider sharing the show with a friend or family member who you think could get something out of it. As always, thank you for the continued support. Until next time, this is Brett McKay, reminding you to not only listen to AOM Podcasts, but put what you’ve heard into action.

Help support independent publishing. Make a donation to The Art of Manliness! Thanks for the support!

With our archives now 3,500+ articles deep, we’ve decided to republish a classic piece each Sunday to help our newer readers discover some of the best, evergreen gems from the past. This article was originally published in November 2019.

According to a survey cited by psychology professor Robert Emmons, when parents were asked what they worried about most regarding their children, the majority didn’t name drugs, sex, global warming, political crisis, or the economic future.

Instead, two-thirds of parents said their primary concern about their kids was their sense of entitlement.

They’re right to worry. A sense of entitlement breeds a number of negative qualities: envy, resentment, selfishness, greed, petulant indignation, laziness, detachment, and a lack of resilience.

Entitlement can be caused in part by kids being given too much, too easily — being spoiled, without having to work for their largesse. Yet everyone knows poor kids who still feel entitled, and rich ones who don’t.

The central factor in entitlement is thus not the amount of good stuff in a child’s life, but his or her attitude toward that stuff.

Entitlement is essentially ingratitude, and gratitude is thus its antidote. Where entitlement says, “I’m owed that,” gratitude says, “The world doesn’t owe me anything.” Where entitlement says, “I deserve this,” gratitude says, “Everything I get is a gift.”

Whereas entitlement is the origin of many vices, gratitude, as Cicero said, is the greatest of virtues, because it is the fount of all the rest. The research-backed benefits of gratitude read like a laundry list of everything parents most desire for their children: in terms of physical health, it boosts the immune system and improves sleep; in terms of mental health, it bolsters resilience to stress and lowers depression; in terms of character, it strengthens the qualities of humility, compassion, forgiveness, and generosity, as well as feelings of closeness and connection to others. Humans who feel grateful, whether young or old, want to give back by being better people and supporting others. In a study done by Emmons, the leading scientific expert on gratitude, he found that “kids who were more grateful than their peers at age ten were, by age fourteen, undertaking more community activities and were more socially integrated.”

The fortunate thing about gratitude is that it not only comes with all these benefits, it isn’t, as we often think, just a feeling — something that spontaneously happens to you. Rather, it is more like a skill, something you can intentionally practice, get better at — and develop in your children. Today we’ll take a look at how.

How to Develop Gratitude in Your Kids

Emmons defines gratitude as having two parts: “(1) affirming goodness in one’s life and (2) recognizing that the sources of this goodness lie at least partially outside the self.” The following methods of instilling gratitude in your kids work on both prongs of the equation.

Prompt them to say “Please” and “Thank you.”

This is the simplest of fundamentals, and a habit that sets a child up to have gratitude interwoven in all of their daily interactions for the rest of their lives. The connection between “Thank you” and gratefulness is clear; “Please” also works toward it by diminishing the demanding attitude which marks entitlement.

You should start prompting your kids to say “Please” and “Thank you” from an early age, though Emmons notes that “most children don’t manage to produce [these phrases] spontaneously until sometime between the ages of four and six.” It may take hundreds of “What do we say’s?” before they get the habit down themselves; just keep up the consistent nudges.

Prompt them to think outside themselves.

Kids are intrinsically egocentric creatures. They feel like the world revolves around them, and don’t often think about the sacrifices which are made by those who create that world for them. Parents can help prompt their children to look beyond this narrow view and think more about things from the perspective of their “benefactors.”

In a study done by Emmons, he found three techniques were effective in doing this: 

1. Point out intentions: From a child’s (or an immature adult’s!) perspective, of course things are done for them. Of course things are set up for them, given to them. Regularly take the time to point out that, in fact, this isn’t the case — that things did not happen by accident, by chance, or by natural course, but that someone intentionally made them happen for him or her. “Mom was able to find the right color shirt because she deliberately went to three different stores, knowing how important it was to you.” “Your friend shared his computer on purpose, so you didn’t feel left out.” “It’s sure nice the waiter found your glasses; that’s not part of his job.” “Your teacher stayed after school to help you with your homework, not because she enjoys tutoring, but because she wanted to help you understand the problem.”
2. Ask about cost: Have an ongoing discussion with your kids about the fact that when people choose to do something for them, they have to sacrifice something else — their time, money, personal preferences, etc. “What did your brother give up by taking you to the movies tonight?” “What do you think your Sunday school teacher gives up to prepare your lessons each week?”
3. Ask how much X helped you: Kids should be taught to strive for a healthy level of self-sufficiency while humbly acknowledging the ways they are, like all humans, also dependent on others (as children, almost entirely so!). Help them recognize this fact by asking things like, “How much did your friend help you with your homework?” “How much did Dad bringing your notes to school help with your class?”

Emmons’ study found that giving kids any of these prompts resulted in their having feelings of greater happiness and being more likely to express gratitude to others.

Expect them to write thank you notes.

Gratitude isn’t just a feeling to be experienced, but a moral virtue to be expressed. Saying “Thank you” is nice, but when someone does something from a distance and can’t be thanked in person (e.g., Grandma sends a gift) or does something extra special for your child, a verbal thank you isn’t sufficient and a written note is appropriate. Not only will its recipient appreciate knowing that their gesture/gift was received and enjoyed, but the effect boomerangs back on the writer; studies show that both children and adults who pen thank you notes experience greater levels of happiness and gratitude.

Get your kid into the thank you note habit as early as possible, tailoring your expectations for the form the note should take according to their age and cognitive/writing abilities; here are some general suggestions:

• 3-6 years old: The child can draw a picture and/or scrawl a scribble, and kids on the older side of this range can sign their name. The parent talks about why they’re making the note, adds a short written thank you message to their child’s creation, and addresses the envelope.
• 7-9 years old: The child writes a very short, simple, 1-2 sentence thank you message — “Thank you for the gift” — and signs it. The parent may address the envelope if the child is on the younger end and his handwriting is still questionably legible.
• 10+ years old: The child can add a few sentences to their simple expression of gratitude, describing what they liked about the gift or plan to do with it and perhaps a bit of what’s new in their life in general. The child can address the envelope.

Encourage your kids to write their thank you notes sooner after receiving a gift/gesture, rather than later.

Talk about their genealogy.

Nobody can truly be a self-made man, who’s earned everything’s he’s got, as the very fact he exists is premised on the existence of his ancestors. His life has been built on the scaffolding of those who’ve come before.

Teaching your kids that they’re part of a story much larger than themselves can reduce their egocentrism and sense of entitlement, allowing them to see their lives as more of a gift. Perhaps that’s why research has shown that one of the best predictors of a child’s emotional health and happiness is their ability to answer questions about their family history.

So share stories with your kids about their grandparents, great-grandparents, and on back. Talk about what you’ve been learning about your family history from doing your own genealogical research.

Encourage grateful contemplation.

Part of why humans young and old are bad at gratitude is that our brains are wired for negativity. Positive moments slide off our minds like Teflon, while negative stuff sticks like Velcro.

To counteract this phenomenon, it’s helpful (for parent and child alike), for Mom and Dad to encourage greater reflection on and absorption of the good things — big and small — that happen in life. While taking a walk, you can say, “Wow! Let’s stop for a moment and really look at this sunset. It’s beautiful.” While leaving Grandpa and Grandma’s house, you can remind them, “Isn’t it nice your grandparents live close by? Some kids’ grandparents live all the way across the country and they only get to see them a couple times per year.” Prompt your kids to let positive moments soak into their brains a little more.

You can also move gratitude to the forefront of your children’s minds by asking them to name something they’re grateful for when they come home from school, you’re sitting around the dinner table, or you’re tucking them in at night.

Do service together.  

Gratitude produces the feeling: “In light of all I have been given, how can I not give back?” Invite your children into this feeling by involving them in acts of service. Work at a food bank together (kids can often pitch in starting around age 12); have them come with you to help clean up an elderly neighbor’s yard; pick up trash together at a local park; have them help pick out toys (either new or gently used from their own collection) to donate to the toy drive; ask if they’d like to contribute a little of their money to a charity.     

Model grateful behavior.

In the survey cited at the start, of the parents who worried about their kids’ sense of entitlement, 85% blamed themselves for creating it.

Parents can combat rather than enable entitlement, by being an example of the grateful behavior they want to see in their children. In my podcast interview with Emmons, he noted that one of the questions he’s asked most is: “How can I get so-and-so to be more grateful?” His answer?

“You become a role model for those people around you”:

there are a few studies looking developmentally with parents and kids. They find that the best predictor of a child’s gratitude is the mother’s or the father’s gratitude. Then, it’s the expression of gratitude within the family, so becoming a role model, and then encouraging gratitude, reinforcing gratitude when you see it in your children are some of the best ways in which you can raise a grateful child.

Spouses’ should thank each other for everything, even for the routine chores that are “expected” of them; say “Thank you for making dinner,” “Thank you for doing the dishes,” “Thank you for taking out the trash,” even when it happens every day; remember, no one inherently deserves anything; it’s all a gift. Let your kids also overhear you thanking the waiter, the cashier, the flight attendant. Let them see you writing your own thank you notes.

Give credit and praise to others too. When celebrating a success, talk to your kids about the other people who helped make it happen: “I’m proud of this, but I couldn’t have done it without ____!”

If you want grateful kids, watch whether you yourself approach life with an attitude of getting what you’re owed, or being delighted with what you’re gifted. As Emmons observes, gratitude “is more often caught than taught.”

Be sure to listen to our podcast with Dr. Emmons all about gratitude: 

Sources:

Gratitude Works! By Robert A. Emmons

The Little Book of Gratitude by Robert A. Emmons

Help support independent publishing. Make a donation to The Art of Manliness! Thanks for the support!

With our archives now 3,500+ articles deep, we’ve decided to republish a classic piece each Sunday to help our newer readers discover some of the best, evergreen gems from the past. This article was originally published in June 2016.

Six years later, we’re still doing weekly marriage meetings ourselves, and still finding them greatly beneficial. And when it comes to readers saying, “I tried the advice in X article and had success with it,” we probably get more feedback of that kind about this post than any other. 

The institution of marriage arguably carries a heavier weight of pressures and expectations in the present age than it has in any time previous. Spouses don’t just partner up for purely economic and procreative purposes — they expect to be romantic lovers, best friends, co-parents, and sometimes even business partners.

Balancing all of those roles might seem like a burden, and it certainly can be. Husbands and wives may both be working — and not just one job, but several. There are kids to raise and schedules to juggle. Family members can end up feeling like ships passing in the night.

But modern marriage is also an incredible opportunity — one that, if managed right, can be an unending source of joy and satisfaction. It’s you and her, against the world, building your world.

But if you want to plan and tackle life’s greatest adventures side-by-side, you’ve got to stay in-sync and work effectively as a team. As marriage therapist Marcia N. Berger puts it:

the art of marriage is really the art of keeping up to date with your partner, of staying on track with your own and each other’s life goals as they emerge, exist, and change. It is about supporting each other and staying connected emotionally, intellectually, physically, and spiritually.

So how do you stay connected on all those levels?

Enter the weekly marriage meeting.

Berger suggests holding a short weekly meeting with your spouse that’s broken into four parts: Appreciation (expressing gratitude to your spouse), Chores (making sure to-dos are getting done), Plan for Good Times (scheduling date nights, as well as individual and family activities), and Problems/Challenges (addressing conflicts/issues/changes in the relationship and in life in general).

The structure of the marriage meeting is designed to rekindle your romance, solidify your friendship, nip potential conflicts in the bud, and help you smoothly run your household economy. If you’ve already got a great marriage, then marriage meetings will enhance it. If your marriage has been struggling, the meetings can help you get your relationship back on track.

We’ve recently started making marriage meetings a habit, have found them to be really beneficial, and would recommend them to others. So today we’ll walk you through the four parts of marriage meetings, as well as the nuts and bolts of how to implement them in your relationship.

The Benefits of Marriage Meetings

You may be wondering what the point is of holding an “official” weekly marriage meeting. If you and your wife talk about things like chores and activities in passing, then why sit down for a discussion during a dedicated time?

The answer is that you’ll go deeper on the things you’re already talking about superficially in snatches. You’ll also open up on things you keep meaning to mention, but haven’t — either because you keep forgetting or because you’ve felt uncomfortable and it never seems like the right time to talk about it.

Marriage meetings offload concerns and ideas that are crouching on your mental bandwidth and bring closure to loose ends. They ensure you’re on the same page about everything that’s going on internally and externally, and contribute to a home and family life that’s more orderly and harmonious. And they don’t just reconnect you as a couple during that time; in smoothing out snarls, encouraging appreciation, and laying plans for fun, they create the conditions for greater connection the rest of the time as well.

Consider marriage meetings as a weekly fueling stop — periodic maintenance for your relationship. You can only get so far off track in seven days! Checking in each week thus ensures your relationship is always headed in the right direction.

The device might seem contrived, but if we’ve learned anything in life, it’s that nothing happens haphazardly. If you want a satisfying, fun-filled, long-lasting marriage, you’ve got to be intentional about it. And marriage meetings are a key way of doing that.

How to Execute a Marriage Meeting

The following are some of the guidelines Berger suggests for implementing and carrying out a marriage meeting: 

• Meet weekly. Doing the meeting at the same time each week can help make it a habit, but schedules change, and it’s fine to adjust the time as circumstances dictate.
• Meet as just the two of you. This is a private meeting. No kids. If you’re already doing a weekly family meeting, that’s great; one does not supplant the other, but rather complements it. Meeting as husband and wife will ensure you’re on the same page when holding council with your kids.
• Minimize distractions/interruptions. The best place to do a meeting is a comfortable, quiet spot in your home. Schedule a time when the kids are napping or doing screen time during the day, or after they go to bed at night (though it’s best not to do it when you’re tired). Turn off the TV and your phones if you can. If you need your phone for scheduling, exercise self-control in not looking at distracting apps.
• Sit together. Berger advises against sitting across a table from each other, as that can feel confrontational, and recommends sitting side-by-side instead. However you position yourselves, she suggests sitting “close enough to feel like partners handling a project together.”
• Jot down notes during the week. It’s useful to jot down notes in the days leading up to meeting on things you’d like to talk about. But you don’t need to have a set agenda at the meeting, unless you’re the uber-organized type. It can be free-flowing.
• Bring your organizational devices/notebooks/apps to the meeting. You’re going to be scheduling stuff and will want to write down dates and to-dos. So bring your paper or digital planner, or use other apps to keep track of these. We use Todoist for both our business and personal to-dos, as well as Google calendar.
• Keep the meeting to about 20-30 minutes. 20-30 minutes is long enough to cover the four stages of the meeting, but short enough to keep it focused and productive. The meeting might be a little on the longer side when you first start out and are getting the hang of it, or when you have more than usual to discuss; they’ll become shorter as you get consistent and more efficient at the habit. [Update: Our meetings only take 15 minutes these days.] Try to generally err on the side of shorter over longer, so it doesn’t feel like a drag. 
• Cultivate a positive atmosphere. Each spouse is responsible for coming to the meeting in a good mood and with an upbeat, patient, positive attitude. Each spouse should try to use a supportive tone throughout the meeting and abstain from any griping or criticism. (Constructively working on issues is okay — but not snark or empty complaining.) “A good goal for each meeting,” Berger says, “is that it should inspire you to want to meet again a week later.”
• Allow both partners to feel ownership in the meeting. The more verbal partner should allow the less verbal partner to speak first at times, and should actively solicit feedback, instead of dominating the meeting.

While some of these guidelines, like keeping a positive attitude, are essential for the success of your marriage meetings, others can be tweaked and experimented with. See what works for you as a couple.

The 4 Parts of a Marriage Meeting

Experimentation can continue with exactly how you run your marriage meetings, but we’d recommend keeping to the four parts Berger recommends, done in this order; as you’ll see, it’s been structured in a deliberate way.

Appreciation

Appreciation kicks off each marriage meeting, and it consists of a simple, and yet surprisingly encouraging exchange of gratitude. Each person says “everything you can think of that you specifically liked or admired about your partner during the past week.”

Here are the guidelines for how the Appreciation part of a marriage meeting should work:

• Plan ahead. If you’re someone who finds it hard to remember the things you’re grateful for, or to articulate them on the spot, take notes in a journal or app; when your spouse does something you appreciate, jot it down. Of course, you should thank them on the spot too; it’s fine to repeat things you’re grateful for at the meeting.
• While one spouse speaks, the other listens. You’ll take turns expressing your gratitude, and while one spouse is speaking the other actively listens and does not interrupt.
• Be specific. General compliments are fine sometimes, but you should typically try to get as specific as possible; sharing details shows you were paying attention. So “I appreciated the amazingly delicious pot roast and blueberry cobbler you made on Tuesday” rather than “I appreciate your cooking.”
• Ask yourself “What else?” The goal here is to try to share everything you appreciated about your spouse the previous week. Once you’ve said a few things, ask yourself “What else?” to try to jog your memory and dislodge a few more compliments.
• Keep it 100% positive. This is not the time for expressing complaints or disappointment. Avoid backhanded compliments — criticism in the guise of gratitude, e.g., “I appreciate that you actually washed the dishes last night for once instead of leaving them in the sink like you usually do.”
• Touch on physical characteristics, behaviors, and character traits — big or small. Your appreciations can run the gamut — everything you like and admire about your spouse is on the table. Don’t take anything for granted — be grateful even for small stuff. Here are some examples to get your gears turning:
  • I appreciate how you never check your smartphone when you’re playing with the kids or talking to me.
  • You looked amazing in your blue dress at the party on Saturday night.
  • Thank you for sticking up for me when your mom tried to criticize my decision.
  • Thanks for taking the kids to the doctor this week.
  • I appreciate the conversation we had at dinner last night. Thanks for always reading interesting things and having interesting things to talk about.
  • Thanks for always greeting me with a kiss when I come home from work.
  • You’re such a good mom.
  • Thanks for letting me know you’d be coming home late on Tuesday.
  • I appreciate you watching the kids so I could go play basketball.
  • I appreciate you cleaning up the bedroom yesterday.
  • I appreciate the hot sex we had last night.
  • I appreciate you filling the car up with gas for me.
  • Thanks for complimenting my work in front of your family.

The Appreciation part of a marriage meeting has several benefits. The open expression of gratitude rekindles feelings of warmth and intimacy, and makes each partner feel, well, appreciated. And, through the power of positive reinforcement, in showing your spouse you notice the things they do, they’ll be more likely to do those things in the future. Paying more attention to the things you appreciate in your spouse will help you cultivate a more grateful mindset about life in general as well.

Starting with Appreciation also importantly sets a warm, positive, supportive vibe for the rest of the meeting.

Even if you’re awesome about expressing appreciation for each other on a regular, daily basis, this is still a beneficial exercise. We both really enjoy this portion of the marriage meeting; you end up thinking of things you forgot to show appreciation for during the week, and it’s just really unexpectedly affirming to be acknowledged for who you are and what you do.

Chores (Including To-Dos/Finances)

Berger calls Chores “the business part of the meeting. Each of you says what you think needs to be done. You agree on priorities, timelines, and who will do each task. Teamwork is promoted and jobs get handled.”

You don’t have to talk about chores for which you’ve already established a routine and division of duties that’s working well. Instead, discuss chores that aren’t getting done and are occasional rather than reoccurring.

Negotiate and brainstorm ways to get neglected chores done more effectively and consistently. One spouse can volunteer to take on a task, or you can decide to take turns, or delegate it to one of the children in the family or to outside help (like hiring a housekeeper).

Don’t demand that your spouse do a certain chore, but instead try to compromise. Don’t fall into the tit-for-tat trap either, where you insist on things being split evenly. Strive instead for a flexible, generous, reasonable give-and-take. One partner can do more chores if the other works more paid hours; it may not be equal, but it’s fair.

Really, you should ideally not think about the division of duties much at all; in the healthiest of relationships, partners often just see an undone chore and tackle it without asking whose job it is, without debate, and without having to exactly divvy up and assign tasks. You’re in this together, after all.

If that describes your relationship, then just use the Chores part of your marriage meeting to discuss other to-dos — things around the house that need to be fixed, appointments that need to be made, etc. Decide who will take care of that to-do, create an action step (“Call plumber”), and set a deadline to have the task finished. Todoist makes this very easy — you can share the list between you, assign the to-do to you or your wife, and set a date for its completion; if it doesn’t get checked off by the deadline, todoist will send you a reminder that it’s overdue.

You can also use this part of the meeting to talk about your finances, if there are things to discuss in that area.

At your next meeting, review what got done, offer progress reports, discuss why undone tasks weren’t completed by the deadline, and set new goals and priorities for the coming week.

If an issue concerning chores, to-dos, or finances runs into a significant conflict, and/or becomes heated/emotional, then table it for the moment, and move its discussion to the Problems & Challenges part of the meeting.

Plan for Good Times

In the foreword to Berger’s Marriage Meetings, therapist Linda Bloom notes that “cultivating a loving partnership isn’t just about ‘working on our relationship’; it’s also about co-creating experiences that bring pleasure and happiness into each spouse’s life.”

In fact, we’d say happy marriages have almost nothing to do with “working on our relationship,” and about 99% to do with striving to be an excellent, interesting, well-balanced person yourself, and doing things with your spouse that solidify your friendship and promote flourishing.

The “Plan for Good Times” portion of your marriage meeting helps you take concrete steps to do just that. You plan for:

• A date for just the two of you. Regular date nights can help you keep the romantic spark alive. Remember, even if you’re busy or feel you can’t afford a regular night on the town, you can always plan a romantic at-home date.
• Individual activities. When you and your wife met, a lot of what drew you to each other was the fact that you each had your own interests and hobbies, and you took care of yourself. You embodied an attractive vitality. Don’t let that deteriorate after you get married by becoming complacent and losing yourself in the relationship. At your weekly marriage meeting, each partner should let the other know of at least one activity they’d like to do by themselves or with a friend. It’s not selfish; alone time renews an energy that’s ultimately good for your marriage and your whole family.
• Activities with mutual friends. Hanging out with others together has a strange way of renewing your own feelings of happiness and love for each other. You don’t necessarily have to go out together with friends every week, but aim for at least once or twice a month.
• Family recreation. A family that has fun together, stays together. Instead of sitting around all weekend long, get out and do a microadventure. You can come up with some ideas at your marriage meeting, and then run them by your kids at your family meeting.
• Family/couple vacations. Talk about how your plans are progressing for your next trip.

It’s easy to talk about date nights and microadventures, but if you don’t sit down and decide on a specific activity and time, you’ll usually end up taking the path of least resistance and do nothing. By intentionally making plans for good times, you’ll end up with a lot more fun in your life. Date nights maintain intimacy, while hanging out alone, with friends, and as a family creates bonds and memories that both elevate your individual happiness, and the happiness of your relationship as well.

Problems & Challenges

The Problems & Challenges part of the marriage meeting comes last by design. By this time the two of you are feeling appreciated, are confident that chores will get done, and are already looking forward to the fun things you’ve planned to do together. You should hopefully be feeling upbeat and have the confidence to tackle any challenges you may be facing with each other, or from life in general.

In this part of the meeting, “each of you can bring up any concern — money, sex, in-laws, parenting, changing schedules, or something else.” Here are some examples of the kinds of things you might talk about during Problems & Challenges:

• The (mis)behavior of one of your children and what to do about it
• Spouse isn’t backing you up when you’re disciplining the kids
• In-laws have been coming over too often (or you haven’t visited your own parents enough)
• Where to spend Thanksgiving/Christmas
• Where to send a kid for school
• Unhappiness with how much time spouse is spending at work
• Lack of intimacy/unhappiness with the frequency of sex
• Mutual or individual unhappiness with the church you’re attending
• Mutual or individual struggle with faith
• The frequency with which overnight guests have been visiting
• Spouse always leaves kitchen a mess
• Spouse makes critical comments about you in front of family/friends
• Conflict over budget
• Schedule of activities feels too packed
• Spouse is consistently in bad mood after work
• The desire to change jobs
• Whether to accept a job
• Spouse sabotages your diet
• Spouse has been drinking a lot

Problems & Challenges isn’t a chance to air a laundry list of grievances. Each spouse can pick, at the most, two issues to bring up per meeting.

Each partner should explain their side of things, or talk about the pros and cons of various choices. Brainstorm ideas for addressing the issue, and try to reach a compromise or mutually agreed upon decision.

If one partner tends to go on and on, endlessly coming up with new issues and angles to talk about, and they get offended if you try to wrap things up, agree to use a timer and set it for 20 minutes. Then the timer can end things impersonally. If you haven’t resolved something by the sound of the beep, agree to revisit the issue next week.

If you and your wife struggle to discuss issues without it becoming heated and acrimonious, review our articles on the commandments of clean communication and how to communicate your needs in a relationship.

At your first few meetings, instead of bringing up serious, sensitive, contentious issues straight off, talk about things that will be fairly easy to resolve. That way you’ll build confidence in your ability to discuss and address issues together and come to associate the meetings with enjoyment rather than tension; having your first marriage meeting be acrimonious may cause you to drop the idea altogether.

Keep in mind that research says that almost 70% of marriage problems never get resolved. That doesn’t mean they invariably lead to divorce. In healthy relationships, spouses are able to accept that their partner isn’t ever going to change; yet they feel that their partner’s positive traits outweigh their flaws, and are grateful for them on the whole. Instead of solving problems, you can simply learn to manage them.

Happily, the stronger you keep your love and friendship, the easier that management process is; you won’t notice things that bother you nearly as much. When you stay connected with each other and are physically, emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually tight, you’ll naturally have few interpersonal issues to talk about during Problems & Challenges; you can simply discuss the challenges you’re facing together — side-by-side, looking out at the world as partners in crime and everything else.

And what helps you arrive at this level of harmony and intimacy? Holding a weekly marriage meeting, of course!

For an audio rundown of how to do a marriage meeting, listen to our interview with Marcia: 

___________________________

Source:

Marriage Meetings for Lasting Love: 30 Minutes a Week to the Relationship You’ve Always Wanted by Marcia Naomi Berger

Help support independent publishing. Make a donation to The Art of Manliness! Thanks for the support!

Sometimes people criticize the youth of today for their failure to launch into adulthood. They think those stuck in prolonged adolescence are lazy, soft, and unambitious.

Other people lay the blame at the feet of the mothers and fathers of these young adults. They say that parents coddle their kids, indefinitely extending their childhood.

These critiques (along with many other cultural and economic forces) may partly explain the phenomenon of arrested development. But there’s another, deeper factor which underlies and drives them both: an insufficient pull and too-conflicted push.

For many, adulthood means trading a life entirely devoted to learning for one in which you only read (maybe) two books a year. It means swapping a full schedule of sports, clubs, and music lessons for having exactly zero hobbies (unless watching Netflix counts). It means going from hanging out with peers for the bulk of each day to (maybe) seeing friends a few hours a month. It means shifting from experiencing plenty of firsts to being stuck in a hamster wheel of thousandths.

From the outside looking in, young people see the life which is lived by most adults, and understandably aren’t sure they want the same. And the grown-ups living those lives aren’t sure they want them either: They’re not unhappy, but they’re not happy either, and this ambivalence subconsciously lends a mixed message to their parenting; while one part of themselves nudges their kids towards maturity, another says, “Don’t be in a hurry to grow up — it doesn’t get better on this side of the fence!”

Adulthood means taking on more responsibilities, and in turn, receiving more privileges. Unless we do something worthwhile — fun, interesting, desirable — with those privileges, young people won’t want to apply to the society of grown-ups, and adults won’t be able to wholeheartedly encourage them to join its ranks.

Help support independent publishing. Make a donation to The Art of Manliness! Thanks for the support!

You wake up early on a dark, cold morning to meet your friend for a run. But he’s a no-show at the trailhead. “Sorry, man!” he texts you later. “I overslept.” “No worries!” you reply.

At work, Janet peeks her downcast face into your cubicle. “I was going through our records,” she confesses, “and it looks like I sent the wrong numbers to Acme Co.” “That’s ok,” you assure her. “We’ll get it straightened out.”

On the way home, you stop by a restaurant to pick up a take-out order that was supposed to be ready at 5:30. You’re still sitting there at 6. “Sorry about the wait,” the hostess tells you. “No biggie,” you respond. “I can see you’re slammed.”

That night, as you sit down to eat dinner, your son reaches across the table, knocking over a glass and spilling water all over the food. “Geezus, Tommy!!” you explode. “How could you be so stupid?!”

One of life’s great ironies is that we often treat friends, co-workers, and even strangers better than we do our own family.

With the former group, we’re still eager to be liked and make a good impression. We’re still concerned about what they think of us.

With the latter, our familiarity, the underlying ties of vow and duty and blood, can lead us to presume upon their fidelity.

It’s nice to be able to let your hair down with those with whom you’re closest. But such comfortableness should never become a license to drop the kind of patient politeness and basic civility you would offer everyone else.

Too often we give the cream of ourselves to those we really don’t give a fig about, while offering our dregs to those who mean the most.

When really, of course, it ought to be the other way round.

Help support independent publishing. Make a donation to The Art of Manliness! Thanks for the support!

Like most modern kids, our children get some screen time each day to watch YouTube videos or play Minecraft or Zelda.

And like most modern parents, Kate and I want to make sure our kids don’t come across anything they shouldn’t — like porn — while they’re on their screens. There are some gnarly things on the net that you really don’t want your eight-year-old to see.

While we’ve laid down some ground rules for screen time that allow us to check in on what our kids are consuming — e.g., you can only watch screens in communal places in the home — it’s impossible to keep an eye on them all the time.

So I’ve tried various internet filters to fill that gap. And by trying various internet filters, I mean I’ve tried pretty much every iteration on the market in order to find the best one.

What I found in all my testing is that the cost of most internet filters is about the same. Look to spend $10-$20 a month for filtering multiple devices.

The most significant difference between filters is in their ease of use. Some of them are just a massive pain in the butt to install and manage, and even when you get them installed, they don’t work correctly.

For example, I gave NetNanny a try, but man, it took me the better part of a day to install the software on my kids’ iPads. And then, after I got it installed, my kids couldn’t connect to the internet because the VPN service NetNanny uses for the filtering was wonky. So I uninstalled it.

I then tried out a service called MobiCip. I had high hopes for it. The price is one of the cheapest on the internet filtering market — $5 a month for 10 devices — and installation was much easier than with NetNanny. It was only after installation that the problems started popping up. Web browsing slowed to a crawl thanks to my kids’ internet browsing going through a VPN. Filtering was a tad too aggressive as well. A few times a week, my son would come to me with his iPad, complaining he couldn’t check ESPN for football scores because MobiCip blocked ESPN for whatever reason that day. And sometimes, browsing on any page wouldn’t work at all.

So I removed MobiCip from our kids’ devices, which, to add insult to injury, was a massive pain in the butt to do.

I tried several more services until I finally stumbled upon two that 1) filter the internet, so my kids don’t see inappropriate stuff, and 2) are super easy to use and don’t disrupt their internet browsing.

The Two Internet Filters That Have Worked for Our Family

RouterLimits. RouterLimits was a game-changer for internet filtering; it’s super easy to set up and doesn’t disrupt browsing. Unlike most internet filtering software that requires you to install it on each device you want protection on, RouterLimits runs on your internet router, allowing you to manage and filter all of the devices connected to your home’s internet.

Installation and set-up took less than 10 minutes; far superior to the hours-long ordeals involved with other filtering software. It’s $10 a month.

Once you’ve got RouterLimits installed on your router, you can use the service’s dashboard to set up how you want to filter each device connected to your network. You can filter by categories like porn, gambling, and drugs. And/or you can exclude specific web pages.

Another nice feature of RouterLimits is that you can set times that your kids can access the internet via their devices, so it allows you to easily manage their screen time.

The one big downside with RouterLimits is that it only works if your kids’ devices are connected to the internet via your home network. If they’re on a smartphone with cellular service, they could bypass RouterLimits filtering by surfing the internet via wireless.

To solve that issue, you could use the service offered by the parent company of RouterLimits — Bark. It’s a filtering service that you install on your child’s device and it monitors and filters even if your child is connected via cell service.

Bark is a really robust filtering service. It has a lot of options to allow you to monitor your child’s communication on their device so that you can get alerted if he or she is talking about being depressed or is being bullied. They’ll even monitor messages in social media apps like Snapchat and WhatsApp.

But Bark is a pain in the butt to install and set up. It took me an hour and a half just to set it up on one of my kid’s devices. And it’s a bit of an overkill for younger kids. If all you’re trying to do is prevent your kids from seeing boobies while surfing the web, you can just use RouterLimits. Bark might come in handy when your kid is older and has their own smartphone. Right now, my kids just check football scores and watch Minecraft videos.

The other downside of RouterLimits is that you have to purchase it through an authorized service provider. My home network guy happened to be an authorized RouterLimits service provider, so he was able to install it on my router.

If you can’t find an authorized RouterLimits service provider, you can purchase Bark Home (they’ve got a confusing business organization) which is a device that you connect to your router that gives you all the same filtering features as RouterLimits being installed on the router itself. There’s no ongoing subscription fee to use Bark Home; it’s just a one-time payment of $79 for the device. But, I’ve heard that the device slows down your internet.

Canopy App. Another filtering service that I’ve used and had a good experience with is Canopy.

Like RouterLimits, Canopy offers the ability to block entire websites by category. In addition to category-based blocking, Canopy also has a feature that uses artificial intelligence to filter and eliminate explicit content on a webpage your kid is browsing. There are websites out there that may not technically fall into the “harmful” category, and thus won’t be filtered by category-based blockers, but do have some pages with inappropriate content. If you kid lands on one of those pages, he’ll just see a white square where the offending material would have been.

Canopy also has features that allow you to monitor and prevent your kids from sending or receiving sexts, if that’s something you’re concerned about.

You have to install the software on the device you want to filter, but installation is easier than services like NetNanny or MobiCip. Took about 10 minutes for each of my kids’ iPads.

I’ve been happy with the service, and it costs just $10 a month for 5 devices.

If you’re choosing between RouterLimits and Canopy, it’s a coin toss. I don’t think you can go wrong with either one. RouterLimits is easier to install than Canopy (you don’t have to install it on each individual device), but Canopy provides protection on devices even when your kids are off your home network, and also blocks inappropriate images on webpages that don’t get filtered out by category-based blockers.

Don’t Just Rely on Filters to Protect Your Kids Online

It should go without saying that you shouldn’t rely solely on technology to protect your kids online. One big downside that all of these filtering services have is that they can’t block content within an app like TikTok or Instagram (Bark monitors content on apps but can’t block it); they can only block content in a web browser. And according to a Wall Street Journal investigation, apps like TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat are where minors are getting the most exposure to sexually explicit and harmful content.

I’ve seen this dynamic in the lives of young men that I mentor at church. A few months ago we did a workshop on avoiding online pornography and I asked them where they encounter the most porn online. They all unanimously said that it’s on apps like Snapchat or IG. Friends will snap them nudes or they’ll stumble across an OnlyFans creator in the IG discovery section and end up falling down a rabbit hole of porn.

Maybe one day filters will be able to block inappropriate content within apps, but for now they can’t, so they’re not a foolproof way to protect your kids from harmful content.

It’s better to think of online filters as a supplement to your children’s online safety rather than a frontline defense.

The best thing you can do is play an active role in their online lives. Make sure your kids only do screens where you can keep an eye on them and check in on what they’re watching. You don’t have to do it in an accusatory way. Be genuinely curious about their internet browsing habits. Be interested in what they’re interested in.

Make sure to have regular (age-appropriate) conversations about online safety with your kids too. Talk to them about not sharing information online. If they’re old enough, talk to them about pornography and encourage them to let you know if they ever encounter any in their internet surfing. When your kids get smartphones (here are some recommendations on the right age to take that step), have conversations with them about the apps they use and explain to them that what they share online is never really private, even if it seems like it is. The goal with these discussions is to help your kids develop into savvy internet users; individuals who use the internet as a tool and aren’t a tool of the internet.

Help support independent publishing. Make a donation to The Art of Manliness! Thanks for the support!

While embedded on an Army outpost in one of the most dangerous areas of Afghanistan, journalist Sebastian Junger recorded many incisive insights into the nature of martial living, including this one on the soldiers’ nightly routine:

“At eight o’clock the generator cuts out and everyone goes to their bunks; after that, the only men awake are the ones at the guardposts. Sometimes it would occur to me how incredible—how very close to the experience of childhood—it is to be watched over by others while you slowly float off into sleep.”

What works as an evocative analogy for what it’s like to bed down in a war zone, can also be turned back on itself, becoming a surprisingly apt metaphor for healthy parenting.

The amount of time parents spend with their kids has significantly increased since the 1960s, doubling and quadrupling for mothers and fathers, respectively.

The fact that parents are spending more time than ever with their children certainly has its upsides. But there’s also a point of diminishing returns.

In helping with every homework assignment, attending every sports practice, and becoming their children’s perennial playmates, many parents find parenting more burdensome and less enjoyable. Consequently, they may have fewer children than they actually want and take less satisfaction in their domestic duties.

Their children, who never find themselves operating outside their parents’ intensive orbit, lose the chance to develop their independence and self-reliance.

Your kids don’t need you to constantly be center stage; they simply need to know that you’re there. Creating a good upbringing is less about spending every moment with your kids, and more about establishing a safe base within which they can play, explore, and make mistakes, secure in the feeling that Mom and Dad are standing sentry on the perimeter, scanning for danger, ready to have their backs.

Help support independent publishing. Make a donation to The Art of Manliness! Thanks for the support!