Should policies be created that encourage traditional family structures?

Sounds like we are basically on the same page here. You're not denying gender differences in brain structure, chemistry and experience and expression of emotion.

 

That depends on who you are referring to that is doing the "wanting" and what they are being wanted to "do"... This is no different than how you feel. We all vote for and argue for what we want in society. Every law limits freedom.

Citing that men don’t often fight for custody ignores why this is the case: many are discouraged by the legal bias, high costs, or societal narratives that mothers are inherently more fit.

The low contest rate is not a sign of disinterest, but disillusionment with a tilted system.

Also, you’re conflating who suffers most financially with who is more supported by the system. These aren’t the same. A person can struggle while still being favored in legal rulings and social sympathy.

Men may not experience the same poverty rates post-divorce, but they disproportionately suffer from: 1.) losing daily contact with their kids, 2.) being presumed unfit caregivers, 3.) paying alimony/child support while being labeled ‘deadbeats’ if they fall behind.

Acknowledging women’s financial hardships doesn’t erase the reality that courts, media, and even extended families tend to rally around mothers. That’s the 'support' I was referring to—and that is well-documented.

Regardless of who has more support though, I think we should be discussing strategies to help avoid these horrendous outcomes, this the reason for my OP. Shouldn't we be encouraging traditional family structures to strengthen society and decrease these types of negative outcomes?

 

You make a lot of statements that I have issues with. To ease response I will only quote your specific words from your last responses by numbering them and then responding to them.

1-people used to think physical abuse was ok too, it wasn't... even though many did it.

I am not sure who you refer to but the people who "used to think physical abuse" was ok were they not doing this because they were taught by their religious teachers that women were inferior and were property of men and so beating them for being insubordinate was acceptable no different than beating a slave, cattle, a child? Do you not see the same religious values that interpret adultery as a crime led the inconsistent application of it as only a crime women engaged in, not men? I think to be very frank with you, the doctrines you refer to come from orthodox interpretation of Islam. Christianity, Judaism and other religions that defined or define to this day women and children as less than worthy of the same rights as men.

2-I think if adultry was illegal, there would be less physical abuse by partners, as one could just call the cops to do the abusing legally.

First off can you even begin to imagine the phone calls at police stations of people callingto say they suspect their husband/wife of cheating? That makes no practical sense. Next domestic violence does not only happen as a result of adultery, of course not. If anything the statistics show many conditions that trigger domestic violence other than adultery.

3-What if studies showed that most couples who stay together through rough patches end up happier long-term?

There are studies that try correlate the types of values, personalities, people that are more likely to remain married and work through problems yes, but there are a huge number of variables and there is no data to definitively make any conclusions that people who stay together end up happier long term.

Here are some examples of what has been found but I myself do not believe any studies in and by themselves are sufficiently definitive to indicate people who do not engage in adultery are more likely to stay married or be long term happy-intuitively one would think it must be true but the data to prove it is just not there one way or the other:

https://ifstudies.org/blog/want-to-avoid-divorce-wait-to-get-married-but-not-too-long/

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7117091/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/divorce-stats-that-can-predict-your-marriages-success/

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/a...by-gender-race-and-educational-attainment.htm


4-So tax incentives, monetary incentives, lack of incentives for single parenthood, cultural change and education aimed at teaching ways to improve outcomes, wouldn't improve this? Would anything improve this?

Education and counseling can always be a help for some before, during and after any relationship to learn from negative behaviour and how to identify it, what triggers it and finding alternative ways that are positive to resolve anything negative, of course. In regards to the other things you mentioned if you are suggesting cutting benefits to single parents will encourage them to stay married I would say that has obvious issues. The most obvious would be it could punish a spouse and child by forcing them to stay with a dangerous, violent or very bad parent and force relationships to continue that should not. I also think your assumption that people get divorced because they get tax breaks may be mistaken or inaccurate.

5- Also, if the state should help people avoid unwanted kids through abortion and birth control, then whan’t it also support traditional norms that prevent broken homes? You can’t have it both ways: either the state helps shape society or it doesn’t.

I do not know what the above means. The state as you refer to it does try fund programs to promote family unity through counseling. The state tries to provide support programs in the best interests of children and that always includes trying to repair parental relationships as a basoc component. In fact if anything very religious fundamentalist people do NOT want the state providing programs with counseling and they want specific religious churches and organizations with specific religious beliefs to do it. That is where the problems come in. With specific religious interventions, the religiuous values are not neutral and impose biases that may unintentionally make matters worse for one of the parents or children. Moden pastoral counseling today actually teaches clergy involved in such counseling to remain neutral and non judgemental but unfortunately in the more orthodox religious approaches the counseling the clergy provide can be very counter productive to repairing abusive behaviour and may condone it.


6- Maybe we should be focusing more on duty, compatibility, and shared values... things with more stability than fleeting emotions.

Well when you raise comments like the above you present subjective ideals. In actual marriage or relationship counseling the counselor does not play the role of telling people what values they should have or how to think. It is a matter of taking the values the persons conflicted have and then working with them to emphasize the positive ones in their script and how to stop focusing on the negative ones that are not working. So certainly building an agreement or more compatible relationship based on shared values is a component but those shared values must already exist-imposing them on the couple if they are not there, may not work. Suggesting positive alternatives to negative behaviour patterns is the exercise but the more you direct or tell or Judge or order or impose on someone in assisting them explore positive alternatives the less likely it will help. Positive change must begin and end with the conflicted parties making the decision to engage in those positive changes not being told to and threatening people to change by pointing out negative consequences does not work in fact it creates resistance.

7-Nobody’s talking about forced marriage. But if we removed financial rewards for single parenting and increased the cultural value of stable, two-parent homes, wouldn’t we see better outcomes over time?

If you punish people by taking away support they need to get away from an abusive relationship y ou of coruse force them to remain in a marriage or other abusive relationship. I am surprised you do not understand or are aware that most abused children and women stay in marriages or broken relationships because they feel they have no support if they were to leave. You seem to have no idea just how many abused people are trapped because they have nowhere to go or any way to feed them or their children?


8-It's certainly societies job to share important outcomes results that help citizens make decisions... Do you disagree? Do you disagree society has an interest in incentivizing better outcomes?

I am not sure what you are getting at. Decisions as to who we love, live with, have a life with, have children with, have relationships, begin and end with the individual. When we make such decisions we know emotional attachment, financial needs, other factors might distort our decisions and lead to bad choices. We all make good and bad choices depending on our life choices and it is naive to think a government can play the role through "incentives" to assure everyone makes the right decisions. That just does not happen. At best government services react to people who make bad choices. Incentivize is another word for manipulation, i.e., in the example you give what you think is "good" manipulation. Bottomn line-if you manipulate someone with money, etc., to do something, they will but it does not achieve the same result as someone who chooses to do something based on positive reasons and free choice. Government has limitations-at best it can respond to a fire in progress but trying to prevent it in the first place is much more difficult because of practical limitations as to privacy and individual, human and civil rights. More to the point the values you mention usually are stated in a framework to represent the bias religious views of the people who impose the help based on political consideration imposing specific opinions as to what those values should be.

9-If we’re already using government to fund childcare, school curriculums and food assistance, t9-hen we are influencing family life. The question isn't whether we influence... it's how. Should we keep subsidizing unstable arrangements or should we promote those that research shows benefit children most?

Yes childcare, school curriculums, food assistance are some of many examples you can share as to how family life is influenced. You are also dead on in then sayinhg its not whether its done, its how its done. Yes indeed. Well stated and therein lies the problem. Certain programs we can all agree are of help such as the ones you mentioned and you know as much as me how contraversial it is tryingt o create a cirriculum everyone is happy with these days. Now you ask should gpovernments sundisdize unstable arrangements. I am not sure what you mean without examples to comment on that. If that is happening you would need to provide examples and if its happening is it intentional or unintentional. Next deciding what benefits children the most we already know and can be summarized as:

a-assuring children eat properly, i.e., achieve meals at school to assure a balanced diet with necessary vitamins and protein;

b-programs that allow children of any environment to obtain physical exercise, proper clothing to deal with the weather, education and activities that allow children to grow and build and fix things, i.e., gardening, painting, woodwork, sculpturing, looking after animals, studying music, learning to write with one's hands, sew, engage in both individual and group sports and activities where the children work together, curriculum that is neutral and teaches children to observe and detail what they observe, developing discussions to learn by teaching children to see more than one solution or way to approach an issue, conflict.


10-It's not just Christian's that push back on gay marriage and child mutilation.

People who push back on hgay marriage come in all varieties yes and when Christian are more likely to be orthodox and/or fundamentalist or traditional Catholic. In regard to child mutilation I do not know what you mean. Some people feel any circumcision of boys is child mutilation. I am not sure if that is what you mean. There is in fact still wide spread practice of female circumcision and that is considered mutilation if that is what you mean but I am not sure what you refer to and how that relates to what you are saying.

11-There are non religious reasons to do those things as well.

If you are referring to circumcision being practiced as a hygiene measure yes, but again I am not sure it is even remotely relevant to the discussion at hand.

12-Let’s not forget a lot of the ways religions have helped.

Religious practices have both helped and harmed as is the case with any human motivated intervention. The point is religion can justify using specific approaches whose biases and assumptions may cause unintended negative conequences and we can say that about any preconceived, biased approach by we humans.

 

Why did you share this link?

How are other avenues stacked against them?

Let's debate all this in a different thread. Let's stick to just what you and I have said in this thread

The way you've been using these words, even "harmful" or "insidious" seems like it could be quite subjective... I'm looking more for concrete examples

I'm not sure how this comment has anything to do with how the term mansplaining is sexist or not

If this is the case, using your own definition of mansplaining, there's no way for us to know whether people that argue what I'm arguing are mansplaining, because there are both men and women that argue what I'm arguing.

Additionally, if mansplaining is, by definition, something only a man can do, then it’s inherently sexist—because it labels behavior based not on what is said, but on the sex of the person saying it. It shuts down actual debate by targeting the speaker, not the substance.

 

How do?

Men are judged on their behaviors as well, including in the following ways:

1.) Performance as a provider
Ability to provide for them self and for their wife and family

2.) Ability to manage their aggression in order to be a standup member of society and family

3.) avoid infidelity

4.) make a contribution to society

5.) ability to produce a family

6.) overall attractiveness to others and to women

7.) ability to hold a family together, not break it up and not run away from it

And so on

That's certainly one outcome of education, but there are other outcomes and consequences as well.

Setting aside whether or not what you are saying is true, how does this apply to our current argument?

The idea that men have no strengths is an example of the very reductionist thinking you seem to criticize in others. I’d be happy to explore this further if you’re genuinely interested in an honest conversation.

You’ve repeated “you don’t get to decide what other people should be doing” several times now—but I’m not trying to decide anyone’s life for them. I’m offering a perspective based on outcomes, patterns and cultural shifts. If we can’t even discuss what tends to lead to stronger relationships, more stable households or healthier children without being told we’re overstepping, how can we ever advocate for improvement as a society?

And let’s be honest—if I'm understanding where you're coming from correctly (feminists, Democrats, leftists and progressives) your side does try to prescribe lifestyles. You often push for the normalization of abortion, promote certain sexual behaviors as empowering, challenge traditional family roles and reshape institutions like education and media to reflect progressive ideals. So why is it acceptable to aggressively push those values, but it's considered oppressive to simply advocate for stability, commitment or moral restraint?

 

I'm glad you're sharing these things. I didn't have much to say to a lot of your above comments. Many of my seemingly "vague" comments that you were replying to can find clarification in OP which attempts to lay out some potential ways to help improve family stability.

Let me ask: if a divorce occured simply because the two fell out of love, for irreconcilable differences, because they didn't want to argue so much and so on, would they end up in your court?

How is this achieved?

I agree

Sounds good

I agree

Thanks for sharing

 

I understand the limitations of correlation and the difficulties in drawing conclusions from complex data. However, the thought experiment still stands: If it were shown that a cooling-off period during conflict improved long-term marital satisfaction (not in abusive situations), wouldn’t it be worth exploring as policy or at least as cultural advice? We already delay many decisions that could be rash—cooling-off periods exist in other areas of life, like firearm purchases or major legal filings. Why not apply it to divorce, especially where children are involved?

I’m not suggesting cutting benefits to abuse victims—those cases need protection. But let’s be honest: a large number of divorces aren’t due to violence but emotional dissatisfaction or lifestyle drift. So the idea is about designing incentives that support working through problems, not forcing people to stay in toxic situations. Right now, many policies reward instability over perseverance.

The state already influences personal decisions—abortion access, birth control funding, sex ed curricula, etc. If we're comfortable with the state shaping behavior in the name of individual freedom, why shy away from shaping behavior that leads to long-term familial stability? If we say “don’t have kids you can’t raise,” then shouldn’t we also say “do your best to raise them in a stable, two-parent home”?

I agree that counseling should respect the couple’s values, but aren’t some values—like commitment, respect, and sacrifice—objectively more helpful than others like self-indulgence or avoidance? Therapists can still nudge people toward better values without imposing dogma. There's a difference between guiding and judging.

Again, no one’s saying force people to stay in abusive relationships. But currently, the system often makes single parenthood more financially viable than struggling through a tough marriage. Shouldn’t we at least make stability a goal worth aiming for, rather than treating all outcomes as equal?

I’m not suggesting government “manipulate” people with incentives. We should at least acknowledge though, that incentives already exist. We incentivize homeownership, college savings, renewable energy... Why not reward behavior that reduces social costs and improves child outcomes?

So, programs that allow divorce (not due to egregious issues like abuse or infidelity) to result in a single parents being either close to or as well off as they were when they were married (or even better off). Such as in a way that combines any combination of welfare, alimony and child support that could lead to this.

Am I to assume you mean that a solid home/family foundation isn't actually the best thing we can provide to children? Or did you unintentionally leave that out?

There are certainly some that have allowed and or at least pushed for mutilation of children that are unhappy with their sex. They have cut off or mutilated genitals and breasts. Or have given hormones that will permanently affect their health and well being in a negative way.

Many feel incentivizing gay marriage incentivizes a family structure that does not lead to the creation of new life without creating more trauma. A gay man can only have a child of his own by surrogate, which creates an eternal wound in the child who never knows his or her mother. Same for lesbian parents.

These issues, while a little off topic, also show how the left/liberals wants to push a specific ideology and way of life on society and yet they complain that the right/conservatives are being "fascist" or "oppressive" by wanting to encourage traditionalism, especially when it is supported by real life positive outcomes.

I have a different post/thread on how it's possible that religions have worked to identify the ways society can be most successful and prescribed social laws to help realize that success. I think it's fool hearted to think that thousands of years of observation of human behavior could be that much better than one modern study done on a handful of participants

 

I think our individual comments are getting out of hand in terms of length and it's taking forever to answer each one

With that being said, I think I will distill my beliefs down to the basics.

The "decline" of the U.S.A. is not from divorce, it is from billionaires using their vast wealth to control the government so they can get richer.
The foundation of this country is "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". It is the government's duty protect those rights.
There is nothing wrong with giving financial incentives to married folk, we already do that anyway (which was part of the argument why the LGBTQ+ wanted their marriages legally recognized).
People should be free to divorce even if it may harm children in the process. Not allowing divorce is much more harmful to society as a whole than to an individual child.
It is not the government's job to protect us from ourselves.
And since we are talking about marriage, marriage should be available to all, regardless of sexuality.

 

I tried to post on the other thread, but it looks like it is locked down, I can't make any comments.

 

I think we actually have a lot of common ground. We both see the harm that divorce can bring to children, we both think the U.S. is in decline, and we agree that it’s too hard to save and build a stable life in today’s economy. We also both support financial incentives for marriage.

Where we seem to differ is on which marriage situations deserve government support. I believe incentives should primarily go to couples raising their own biological children—because that arrangement statistically tends to produce the most stability and long-term benefit for society. It's not about punishing other arrangements, but rather about prioritizing the ones that deliver the most proven public good.

It seems like part of our disagreement might be that you're concerned about fairness and inclusion, and you may see my view as being too prescriptive or biased toward one lifestyle. I don’t want to force anyone into a traditional model—but I do think we should be honest about which structures most consistently benefit kids and communities.

Would you say that’s a fair summary of your concern?

 

Oh shoot! I may have to make another one or something!

 

Thank you for your response appreciated.

 

Thank you too for response…well written responses on this topic are appreciated by me!

 

Thanks for responses. The 3 of you I mentioned are examples of well thought out debate I appreciate from others.

 

I think family stability is promoted. It certainly isn't being sought against traditional families.

I can't define a bad marriage. Only those in said marriage can determine bad or good.

 

Why discriminate at all?

 

I am not aware of any tax credits or breaks that single parent families get. The EIC doesn't depend on single or married parents. Any low income parent can claim it for their dependent children.

Head of household can also be claimed even if there are no kids? Not 100% certain on that.

AFAIK, the wages/income determines all those breaks. Not the marital status. Except for claiming married filing jointly.

 

Key word being "in theory".

We can see stories like this one, for example: Dad ordered by court to pay for chemical castration of his 10 year old son (posted in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' May 4, 2025)

 

Why are churches relevant, given that a biblical marriage is just a personal agreement between two people to shack up together, and doesn't require a legally signed marriage contract or a marriage celebrant or witnesses?

 

I don't know where you live, but there is no "legally signed marriage contract" in the US and there are no celebrations or witnesses when I apply online for a credit card, yet it is still legally binding. That said, I said "churches and such"

 

Don't people sign marriage documents in your country, and aren't they registered by a government department?

 

In my state the application for a marriage license and the return of it do not have a single contract term in them so no they are not binding contracts as you allege. That you think otherwise is precisely why the government should not be in the marriage business, as I said.

 

I think marriage should be more difficult and reserved for "at fault" cases. It's too easy to abandon a family structure. Maybe it should be also harder to get married. Kind of like the "covenant marriage" thing. Too many kids are getting neglected in the easy break up of the family. I'm glad my youngest was an adult when I got a divorce. He made it through trade school during the divorce and bought his first home at 21.

 

IOW you shouldn't need to get a divorce to marry again, since a marriage is not a binding contract.
And presumably your Dear Leader would like to just say "you're fired" to Melania if she didn't have a prenuptial agreement.

 

I don't have a dear leader and holding hands and jumping a broom to be married and not holding hands and jumping backwards over a broom to no longer be married works just as well as anything else, and is a lot less expensive.