Chinese forego marriage, repeating failed Western life script

Is gender inequality really the problem?

Nicole M. King | Aug 11 2017 | comment

Wedding couple at the Temple of Heaven in Beijing. By Daniel Case via Wikimedia Commons

The News Story: Why People Aren’t Getting Married in China

Like most other developed nations, the Chinese are now facing the unthinkable in a formerly marriage- and family-centric culture. After a decade of increasing marriage rates, China has now seen its second straight year of drops in marriages, accompanied by a rise in older marriages.

These trends, according to the BBC, have even the government worried, specifically about the hordes of “leftover” men—China has more men than women due to decades of its one-child policy and a cultural preference for males, and now these men, unsurprisingly, are unable to find wives. So what is the culprit, other than a skewed marital market? Xuan Li, author of the BBC story, identifies gender inequality as a key component keeping women from the altar. Li writes that many Chinese women are interested in marriage, but “[t]oo much is at stake. In a country where gender equality has been stalling, if not deteriorating, over the past decade, women face enduring discrimination in education and the workplace.” And Chinese law gives women little protection in case their marriage falls apart. Such women, Li writes, “have every reason not to trade their career or personal freedom for a wedding.”

But research in America—a country that most agree has a higher level of gender parity—suggests that Chinese women may be choosing the wrong path.

(Source: Xuan Li, “Why People Aren’t Getting Married in China,” BBC, August 5, 2017.)

The Research: Liberated But Unhappy

The evidence continues to mount that the interests of American women have not been served by the social and economic changes of the past 40 years that feminists claimed would liberate them. But a working paper written by professors at the Wharton School of Business for the National Bureau of Economic Research, reveals that American women no longer report, as they did in the 1970s, higher levels of happiness than men.

Charting a robust pattern over several decades that has been unnoticed by scholars, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers find that the reported decline in female happiness is not only absolute and relative to that of men, but is also “pervasive” and “ubiquitous” across demographic groups, datasets, counties, and measures of subjective well-being. Their findings prompt them to ask the provocative question, “Did men garner a disproportionate share of the benefits of the women’s movement?

Looking at the United States, the economists examine data from the General Social Survey, which included the question to respondents in almost every year from 1972 to 2006, “Would you say that you are very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy?” Women were more likely than men to report being “very happy” in the 1970s, but the differential begins to evaporate in the 1980s. In a regression that combined the answers into a single happiness index by gender, the authors found a statistically significant trend of declining female happiness through 2006. They also found similar declines in women’s happiness, relative to men, using data from the Virginia Slim’s American Women’s Opinion Polls, which have been conducted every five years since 1970, and the Monitoring the Future study, which has polled high school seniors annually since 1976.

Extensive statistical analyses, however, were not able to isolate factors that might be responsible for the downward pattern. Controlling for changes in the composition of the U.S. population since the 1970s, as well as for socioeconomic factors, had little effect on the overall decline in female subjective happiness. The authors also disaggregated the data by martial status, employment status, and fertility outcomes, finding little impact of these variables on the overall pattern. Noting the same trend in subjective unhappiness among all categories of women, the authors believe their findings cast doubt on the theory “that trends in marriage and divorce, single parenthood, or work-family balance are at the root of the happiness declines among women.”

Nonetheless, in searching for explanations of their findings, the economists cannot escape identifying “macro trends” documented by other scholars—such as decreased social cohesion, increased anxiety and neuroticism, and increased household risk—that are associated with the sexual revolution and which may have affected women differently than men, even women who follow a traditional life script. Moreover, Stevenson and Wolfers speculate that “changes brought about through the women’s movement may have decreased women’s happiness.” While not an indictment of feminism, the mere inference by academics operating under the restraints of political correctness confirms that their findings ought to be taken seriously.

(Source: Bryce Christensen and Robert W. Patterson, The Family in America 24.2 [Spring 2010]. Study: Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, “The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness,” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Papers Series No. 14969, May 2009.)

August 11, 2017

A few weeks ago, when the debate over what was the best next step for dying British baby Charlie Gard was at its height, a philosophy professor, Gary Comstock, wrote in the New York Times about his own loss of an infant son. You might remember that we commented on it at the time. The experience was so harrowing that he had eventually come to the conclusion that it is best for everyone concerned if such a baby was euthanized rather than simply allowed to die.

Actually, "simply" is not quite the right word, because, as another philosophy professor who lost a baby son in similar circumstances points out, a speciality known as perinatal and palliative care is now available (or should be avaiable) to mitigate any suffering the baby might have, as well as the suffering of the parents. For a sympathetic but principled response to Gary Comstock's proposal, read Aaron Cobb's A tale of two Sams: you should not actively euthanize your baby.

The launch of our editor's book on bioethics, The Great Human Dignity Heist, took place at Parliament House in Sydney yesterday. For the multitudes around the world who could not be there, we have published an interview with Michael about the book -- an informative and fun read with a link at the end to the publisher. This a great book to place strategically in your sitting room to catch the eye of guests who have no idea how many bad ideas bioethicists have.