The `No-Kids' Clause: A New York Times article profiles a few men—all middle-aged, divorced (often multiple times), and extremely wealthy—who want to get married again, usually to women much younger than themselves, but not have any more kids. These guys insist that their wives-to-be sign a prenuptial agreement that includes a ``will not bear children" clause.
Some libertarians might defend these pre-nup provisions as legitimate agreements between consulting adults. Besides, they could reduce marital discord and divorce. Couples with serious disagreements about having children should probably not get married in the first place. So what's not to like?
What's not to like is the materialism, individualism, and perpetual adolescence that appear to be driving these people's lives. One New York matchmaker, who charges clients $15,000 (!) to set them up with women, explained, ``Even if you are financially secure, kids are expensive and demanding of time. Now these men have the freedom to shower their trophy wives with gifts from Harry Winston and spur-of-the-moment trips to Paris. You can't do that with a crying baby."
In fact, one study suggests that materialistic attitudes are one of the strongest predictors of holding negative attitudes about having had children. Echoing the matchmaker, the researchers write that parents who place a high value on money and possessions found that childrearing interfered with their ``consumer-oriented lifestyles structured around career, leisure, spontaneity, and `freedom.'"
Some of the wives interviewed seemed content treating their husbands like children. ``[By not having children,] I have more time to spend on Jonathan," said one. ``This way, we get to be kids together." Another explained, ``Men like to be the child and taken care of. They don't want you to be distracted by a baby."
Other women changed their minds as they grew older. One divorced her husband after a 10-year marriage because, she said, ``now, at 41, I want a baby." Another told the Times that she thought if her husband truly loved her, he would accept her yearning to become a mother. He didn't. The couple is now separated and the woman recently became pregnant through artificial insemination.
These ``no-child" prenuptial agreements are the apotheosis of the contemporary notion that marriage is just like any other business contract. Rather than a unique partnership, with its own status, grounded in commitment and mutual self-giving, marriages are increasingly circumscribed by various rules designed to maximize each spouse's self-interest. Today, ``Marriage [is] less than a contract," notes James Q. Wilson, ``because a contract holds two parties together on condition of achieving some goal, whereas a marriage, since the 1960s, is a voluntary arrangement that can be broken at will."
This individualistic, laissez-faire approach is fundamentally at odds with family life, especially raising children, explains Jennifer Roback Morse, an economist who revised her libertarian views after having kids. ``We have allowed the legal mechanism to take over every aspect of life," she writes. ``In the process, the legalistic mentality has squeezed out or corrupted institutions and relationships that ought to be dominated by teamwork and partnership." Indeed, in trying to protect their marriage by agreeing to self-interested pre-nuptial regulations, couples alter—and weaken—the institution of marriage itself.
The most ironic—and striking—reason given by some of the men and women who didn't want more kids was the desire to protect children from the breakdown of marriage. ``I could afford another family," said a divorced investment banker, ``but not the emotional turmoil my kids endured because of my divorce. I don't ever want to go there again." And one divorced woman admits, ``I asked for the divorce and exposed my kids to a lot of pain. I didn't want them to ever feel displaced or replaced. New children offer new hope, and I didn't want their status diluted."
Thus, my charges of selfishness and adolescent-style individualism may be at least partly unfair. Maybe the real issue is divorce. Posted by Tom Sylvester, Oct 31, 2026 | Link. More fathers are fulfilling their child support obligations. Posted by Tom Sylvester, Oct 28, 2026 | Link.
And another thing… -- actually, a prediction. Especially since The Case for Marriage was published in 2000, there has been new and widespread recognition, in both the scholarly and public discussion, of the health (and other) benefits typically associated with marriage. I suspect that what we are seeing now, in Lerner's article (see below), is the first manifestation of a new way of criticizing this idea. The "case for marriage" argument is that married persons typically enjoy better health than unmarried persons, in part due to selection effects, and in part due to the benefits of marriage. The new line of criticism is that while good marriages may, possibly, be associated with some (so-called) health benefits, bad marriages are demonstrably bad for one's health, especially if you are a woman. This way of arguing not-so-subtly changes the focus from looking at marriage as a social institution to looking at differences between individual "good" and "bad" marriages, with the implication that looking at marriage overall, from a social perspective, is somehow illegitimate. It's also a directly revival of the old Jesse Bernard idea -- challenged at length in The Case for Marriage and elsewhere -- that you can't properly talk about "marriage," but only "his" marriage and "her" marriage, since marriage tends to be good for men and bad for women. Stay tuned. This should be a good discussion. Posted by David Blankenhorn, Oct. 25, 2002 | Link.
For Better or For Worse, So-Called: Good marriages tend to have beneficial effects on health while bad marriages tend to have negative effects, especially for women, reports the New York Times. Though the article doesn't contain surprising new findings, it does mention interesting research on how marital stress is harmful to health. By and large, these findings on the relationship between marital status and health are accurately reported. Still, the reporter, Sharon Lerner, clearly has an ideological axe to grind, and uses several techniques in her story to imply that those whom she calls marriage ``advocates" are untrustworthy or misguided. First, when writing about the overall health benefits that marriage appears to provide, she either refers to the phenomenon as the ``so-called marriage benefit," or she uses scare quotes. Yet when Lerner reports the negative effects of marriage, there are no qualifiers: ``Women seem to bear the brunt of marriage's negative health consequences," and ``...the strong negative effect on women...." The only time she mentions the (so-called) ``marriage benefit" without a dismissive qualifier is when she's not actually talking about marriage: ``The marriage benefit probably extends also to gay couples in committed romantic relationships and to unmarried heterosexual couples who have been together for years, many researchers agree." That may be true. But she offers disclaimers only when discussing the possible benefits of good marriages, about which she clearly seems to be skeptical, but never when reporting the effects of bad marriages, about which she seems to be certain. She doesn't write, for example: ``Many researchers agree that the negative effects from marital stress would also extend to cohabiting couples that fight a lot." Or that cohabiting couples that don't intend to marry are more likely to fight than married couples (also here). Nor does she mention the recent large-scale study that suggests that women get a mental health boost from marriage. Second, scholarly skeptics of the (so-called) ``marriage benefit" are referred to simply as ``researchers" or as ``many". For example: ``Many have argued that the difference in life expectancy is actually because healthier people are more likely to marry." And: ``As with the overall `marriage benefit', which for women is smaller than for men and possibly even nonexistent, according to some researchers women are more vulnerable to relationship-related health problems." On the other hand, those scholars who are not skeptics of the (so-called) ``marriage benefit" are not ``many," and they are not merely ``researchers." Instead, they are ``advocates." Sure, some ``marriage advocates" may also happen to be respected researchers, such as Linda Waite. But contrary to Lerner's suggestion, these researchers typically point to both selection effects and a marriage benefit to account for health differences between married and unmarried persons. Next, Lerner doesn't even want to admit that the current weight of social science evidence clearly suggests that, overall, being married is good for your health. All she can get herself to concede is that ``marriage is being packaged as a boon to health...." Not recognized, mind you, but packaged! Packaged by whom? Well, by advocates! Sharon Lerner previously skewered marriage promotion efforts for the Village Voice. Thus, her ``objective reporting" in the New York Times should come as little surprise. (Research mentioned in the article is available in pdf form here and here.) Posted by Tom Sylvester, Oct 25, 2026 | Link.
Terry Bradshaw, the famous football quarterback and broadcaster who's been divorced three times, has written a new book on how to live a happy life, called Keep It Simple. Posted by David Blankenhorn, 10-21-02 | Link.
Salon continues its examination of divorce by posting one woman's reflections on overcoming her marital breakup. She writes that she read many self-help books, including ``something called The Good Divorce, which at the time struck me as the Good Holocaust." Posted by Tom Sylvester, 10-18-02 | Link.
Watch James Q. Wilson and Irwin Garfinkel discuss the state of marriage. Posted by Tom Sylvester, 10-09-02 | Link.
``Marriage not miserable for women." How's that for a ringing endorsement of matrimony? Despite the headline, this Associated Press article on the recent study of 10,000 adults in Australia explains how new research has largely discredited the pessimistic-- good for him, bad for her -- view of marriage popularized by the prominent sociologist Jessie Bernard in her 1972 book, The Future of Marriage. Sociologist David De Vaus, the study's author, tells the AP, ``It would be a pity if women decided not to get married based on information that it damages their mental health, when in fact the evidence shows the opposite."
The full study -- ``Marriage and mental health: Does marriage improve the mental health of men at the expense of women?"-- is available as a pdf file here. Posted by Tom Sylvester, 10-08-02 | Link.
The New York Times reports on Natalie Krinsky, a Yale University junior who writes an in-depth sex column for her school newspaper. Krinsky, like other student newspaper sex columnists, writes in a bold and cynical tone about an array of sexual practices and relationship conundrums. Her tone reminded me of many of the women we interviewed at elite universities (including Yale) for a report we released last year on the hookup culture on college campuses. Ms. Krinsky's sex column shocks even baby boomers with its scintillating tips, yet at the same time she writes that she is "still waiting for love, actually, scratch that, ANYONE who is interested in commitment to knock on my door."
In a nationally representative survey, we found that most college women today say that marriage (that ultimate commitment) is a very important goal in their life, and many of them say that they would like to meet their future husband at college. At the same time, they live in a campus hook up culture -- where the widely accepted norm is for college women and men is to have fleeting, alcohol-fueled sexual encounters with no expectation of commitment -- that hinders their goals for the future.
Is it possible that the hip cynicism employed by Krinsky and other women is in fact a genuine distress with the situation they find themselves in? Is it possible that older adults, including those baby boomers who ushered in the sexual revolution, did a good job of teaching today's young people about the mechanics of sex, but not about how to build a meaningful relationship? And is it possible -- just possible -- that even the hardiest college-age man might be intimidated by the idea of being committed to a woman who writes cynically about oral sex, bondage, breast stimulation, and more, in columns read by hundreds of thousands of people? Posted by Elizabeth Marquardt, 10-08-02 | Link.
Survey Says…: The Pew Hispanic Center and the Kaiser Family Foundation recently released a survey (Adobe Acrobat Reader needed) on Hispanic voters. Pollsters asked, ``Thinking about your own values and morals, I'd like you to tell me whether you think, in general, [something] is acceptable or unacceptable." Sixty-one percent of Latinos, 74 percent of whites, and 61 percent of blacks reported that, in general, they found divorce ``acceptable." Respondents were less supportive of unwed childbearing, with 59 percent of Latinos, 53 percent of whites, and 56 percent of blacks replying that ``having a child without being married" is acceptable. These data match other opinion surveys. A slight majority of Americans appear to believe that, in general, there's little wrong with having a child out of wedlock, a situation in which that child is likely to grow up without his or her father.
It's worth adding, though, that these attitudes strongly shift if you ask about what Americans want for their own children. Paul Offner of the Brookings Institution reports (Adobe Acrobat Reader needed) that 70 percent of African Americans say that it would be unacceptable for a daughter to have a child out of wedlock. As James Q. Wilson notes, ``Something is going on here. Half of us approve of other people's daughters having children out of wedlock, but hardly any of us approve of that for our daughters." So, are Americans afraid of being judgmental, or do we just not care so much about the well-being of other people's children? Posted by Tom Sylvester, 10-08-02 | Link.
Marriage and Black Women: A recent NCHS report indicated that, among racial groups, black women are least likely to marry, and this article in the Washington Times explores the reasons why. In it, the report's author points to unwed pregnancy, poverty, and ``growing up in a home without two biological parents," and a professor from Indiana University suggests men's attitudes regarding infidelity and women's equality as well as the shortage of ``marriageable" men. For a more historical explanation, see James Q. Wilson's Public Interest piece, ``Slavery and the Black Family." One related trend, possibly resulting in part from the shortage of black men, is the sharp rise in marriages between white men and black women. But while more intermarriage can certainly be viewed as a good thing, it seems clear that the lack-of-marriage problem won't be solved without raising the educational and economic status of African American men. Posted by Tom Sylvester, 10-07-02 | Link.
Why Are Rock Bands So Angry?, Part II: An article in the Washington Times continues the discussion on divorce and rock music. Posted by Tom Sylvester, 10-07-02 | Link
Reuters reports on a new study on marriage and mental health. Posted by Tom Sylvester, 10-03-02 | Link
A Newsweek cover story on teen depression states that ``some researchers think that the stress of a high divorce rate, rising academic expectations and social pressure may be pushing more kids over the edge." Posted by Tom Sylvester, 10-02-02 | Link |
