State your unpopular pop culture opinion. This is a safe space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’m a lifelong Dem who didn’t follow Kirk, so I don’t know each and every thing he ever said.

BUT

I do recall an extensive npr segment many years ago featuring an economist/sociologist basically said couples are “doing it wrong” when it comes to having kids and maximizing earning potential.

In short, the expert said the best move is to find a partner in your early 20s and quickly have a kid or two (if you want them). I think they suggested doing it by mid-20s. This way, you can opt to have a parent stay home until the kid (or younger kid) is in pre-k and you still have time to enter/reenter the workforce.

Again, the research was focused on the best financial choices and maximizing earning potential. It went beyond the typical anti poverty talking points to focus on educated people…again, essentially saying too many people are doing it wrong by waiting too long to marry and have kids by pointing out the impact to careers, high cost of childcare, etc.

Religion wasn’t part of the equation. Politics certainly weren’t discussed (this was a segment from many years ago before the US lost its collective mind and became so divided).

I had heard that at some point. And while they are probably right, society isn’t structured now in a way to make this easy. It was easier in the 50s when you married young, could be a SAHM, live on one income, etc etc. But things changed (for better and worse) and it just isn’t easy anymore. Most come out of college with debt, people want to play around rather than settle down in their 20s-there are myriad reasons. I got married at 26, and was on the younger end of most of my friends. Had my first at 28-felt like a teen mom in the DC area.

Understood.

But blindly criticizing a different perspective that actually has a lot of positive implications and is grounded in facts/research/data seems silly. But that’s where we are.

Values and priorities have changed. But they could shift a bit and that wouldn’t be crazy or the end of the world.

Anyway, I just wanted to put that out there since so many people are dismissing different perspectives right out of the gate simply because the messenger isn’t on the correct end of the political spectrum.

I think the thing people don’t like about right wing and/or religious pressure to marry young is the patriarchal messages behind it. Like women’s only purpose is to procreate and be a wife. Sorry, that’s gross.

Yes, biologically and by some financial perspectives, getting married and starting a family younger can be better. But I don’t know if there is an easy way to reverse the trends that have people delaying it.

There was a book years ago about "Red Families," "Blue Families," and their approach to family formation. Generally speaking, in conservative cultures, the expectation is that having a family would transform someone immature into an adult. Whereas, in liberal cultures, the expectation is that one would become an adult and only then have a family. ("Red Families v. Blue Families: Legal Polarization and the Creation of Culture.")

"In red America, families form adults; in blue America, adults form families.” The expectation in red states is that people will have children early and the parents will grow into their responsibilities. The expectation in blue states is that people will wait to have families until their education and financial situation is more secure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’m a lifelong Dem who didn’t follow Kirk, so I don’t know each and every thing he ever said.

BUT

I do recall an extensive npr segment many years ago featuring an economist/sociologist basically said couples are “doing it wrong” when it comes to having kids and maximizing earning potential.

In short, the expert said the best move is to find a partner in your early 20s and quickly have a kid or two (if you want them). I think they suggested doing it by mid-20s. This way, you can opt to have a parent stay home until the kid (or younger kid) is in pre-k and you still have time to enter/reenter the workforce.

Again, the research was focused on the best financial choices and maximizing earning potential. It went beyond the typical anti poverty talking points to focus on educated people…again, essentially saying too many people are doing it wrong by waiting too long to marry and have kids by pointing out the impact to careers, high cost of childcare, etc.

Religion wasn’t part of the equation. Politics certainly weren’t discussed (this was a segment from many years ago before the US lost its collective mind and became so divided).

I had heard that at some point. And while they are probably right, society isn’t structured now in a way to make this easy. It was easier in the 50s when you married young, could be a SAHM, live on one income, etc etc. But things changed (for better and worse) and it just isn’t easy anymore. Most come out of college with debt, people want to play around rather than settle down in their 20s-there are myriad reasons. I got married at 26, and was on the younger end of most of my friends. Had my first at 28-felt like a teen mom in the DC area.

Understood.

But blindly criticizing a different perspective that actually has a lot of positive implications and is grounded in facts/research/data seems silly. But that’s where we are.

Values and priorities have changed. But they could shift a bit and that wouldn’t be crazy or the end of the world.

Anyway, I just wanted to put that out there since so many people are dismissing different perspectives right out of the gate simply because the messenger isn’t on the correct end of the political spectrum.

I think the thing people don’t like about right wing and/or religious pressure to marry young is the patriarchal messages behind it. Like women’s only purpose is to procreate and be a wife. Sorry, that’s gross.

Yes, biologically and by some financial perspectives, getting married and starting a family younger can be better. But I don’t know if there is an easy way to reverse the trends that have people delaying it.

There was a book years ago about "Red Families," "Blue Families," and their approach to family formation. Generally speaking, in conservative cultures, the expectation is that having a family would transform someone immature into an adult. Whereas, in liberal cultures, the expectation is that one would become an adult and only then have a family. ("Red Families v. Blue Families: Legal Polarization and the Creation of Culture.")

"In red America, families form adults; in blue America, adults form families.” The expectation in red states is that people will have children early and the parents will grow into their responsibilities. The expectation in blue states is that people will wait to have families until their education and financial situation is more secure.

Interesting. Of course, then you can turn that around to see the hypocrisy re:reproductive rights and safety nets for families. Those same conservatives always scream about not having kids until you are ready for responsibility, especially financial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’m a lifelong Dem who didn’t follow Kirk, so I don’t know each and every thing he ever said.

BUT

I do recall an extensive npr segment many years ago featuring an economist/sociologist basically said couples are “doing it wrong” when it comes to having kids and maximizing earning potential.

In short, the expert said the best move is to find a partner in your early 20s and quickly have a kid or two (if you want them). I think they suggested doing it by mid-20s. This way, you can opt to have a parent stay home until the kid (or younger kid) is in pre-k and you still have time to enter/reenter the workforce.

Again, the research was focused on the best financial choices and maximizing earning potential. It went beyond the typical anti poverty talking points to focus on educated people…again, essentially saying too many people are doing it wrong by waiting too long to marry and have kids by pointing out the impact to careers, high cost of childcare, etc.

Religion wasn’t part of the equation. Politics certainly weren’t discussed (this was a segment from many years ago before the US lost its collective mind and became so divided).

I had heard that at some point. And while they are probably right, society isn’t structured now in a way to make this easy. It was easier in the 50s when you married young, could be a SAHM, live on one income, etc etc. But things changed (for better and worse) and it just isn’t easy anymore. Most come out of college with debt, people want to play around rather than settle down in their 20s-there are myriad reasons. I got married at 26, and was on the younger end of most of my friends. Had my first at 28-felt like a teen mom in the DC area.

Understood.

But blindly criticizing a different perspective that actually has a lot of positive implications and is grounded in facts/research/data seems silly. But that’s where we are.

Values and priorities have changed. But they could shift a bit and that wouldn’t be crazy or the end of the world.

Anyway, I just wanted to put that out there since so many people are dismissing different perspectives right out of the gate simply because the messenger isn’t on the correct end of the political spectrum.

I think the thing people don’t like about right wing and/or religious pressure to marry young is the patriarchal messages behind it. Like women’s only purpose is to procreate and be a wife. Sorry, that’s gross.

Yes, biologically and by some financial perspectives, getting married and starting a family younger can be better. But I don’t know if there is an easy way to reverse the trends that have people delaying it.

There was a book years ago about "Red Families," "Blue Families," and their approach to family formation. Generally speaking, in conservative cultures, the expectation is that having a family would transform someone immature into an adult. Whereas, in liberal cultures, the expectation is that one would become an adult and only then have a family. ("Red Families v. Blue Families: Legal Polarization and the Creation of Culture.")

"In red America, families form adults; in blue America, adults form families.” The expectation in red states is that people will have children early and the parents will grow into their responsibilities. The expectation in blue states is that people will wait to have families until their education and financial situation is more secure.

Yikes, this explains a lot about my extended family. I don't think the blue family theory works very well in practice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’m a lifelong Dem who didn’t follow Kirk, so I don’t know each and every thing he ever said.

BUT

I do recall an extensive npr segment many years ago featuring an economist/sociologist basically said couples are “doing it wrong” when it comes to having kids and maximizing earning potential.

In short, the expert said the best move is to find a partner in your early 20s and quickly have a kid or two (if you want them). I think they suggested doing it by mid-20s. This way, you can opt to have a parent stay home until the kid (or younger kid) is in pre-k and you still have time to enter/reenter the workforce.

Again, the research was focused on the best financial choices and maximizing earning potential. It went beyond the typical anti poverty talking points to focus on educated people…again, essentially saying too many people are doing it wrong by waiting too long to marry and have kids by pointing out the impact to careers, high cost of childcare, etc.

Religion wasn’t part of the equation. Politics certainly weren’t discussed (this was a segment from many years ago before the US lost its collective mind and became so divided).

I had heard that at some point. And while they are probably right, society isn’t structured now in a way to make this easy. It was easier in the 50s when you married young, could be a SAHM, live on one income, etc etc. But things changed (for better and worse) and it just isn’t easy anymore. Most come out of college with debt, people want to play around rather than settle down in their 20s-there are myriad reasons. I got married at 26, and was on the younger end of most of my friends. Had my first at 28-felt like a teen mom in the DC area.

Understood.

But blindly criticizing a different perspective that actually has a lot of positive implications and is grounded in facts/research/data seems silly. But that’s where we are.

Values and priorities have changed. But they could shift a bit and that wouldn’t be crazy or the end of the world.

Anyway, I just wanted to put that out there since so many people are dismissing different perspectives right out of the gate simply because the messenger isn’t on the correct end of the political spectrum.

I think the thing people don’t like about right wing and/or religious pressure to marry young is the patriarchal messages behind it. Like women’s only purpose is to procreate and be a wife. Sorry, that’s gross.

Yes, biologically and by some financial perspectives, getting married and starting a family younger can be better. But I don’t know if there is an easy way to reverse the trends that have people delaying it.

There was a book years ago about "Red Families," "Blue Families," and their approach to family formation. Generally speaking, in conservative cultures, the expectation is that having a family would transform someone immature into an adult. Whereas, in liberal cultures, the expectation is that one would become an adult and only then have a family. ("Red Families v. Blue Families: Legal Polarization and the Creation of Culture.")

"In red America, families form adults; in blue America, adults form families.” The expectation in red states is that people will have children early and the parents will grow into their responsibilities. The expectation in blue states is that people will wait to have families until their education and financial situation is more secure.

Interesting. Of course, then you can turn that around to see the hypocrisy re:reproductive rights and safety nets for families. Those same conservatives always scream about not having kids until you are ready for responsibility, especially financial.

That's almost entirely about regulating sexual activity. Conservatives often rail against "consequence free sex." So, screaming about not having kids until you're ready for responsibility is yet another way of them saying "don't have sex."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’m a lifelong Dem who didn’t follow Kirk, so I don’t know each and every thing he ever said.

BUT

I do recall an extensive npr segment many years ago featuring an economist/sociologist basically said couples are “doing it wrong” when it comes to having kids and maximizing earning potential.

In short, the expert said the best move is to find a partner in your early 20s and quickly have a kid or two (if you want them). I think they suggested doing it by mid-20s. This way, you can opt to have a parent stay home until the kid (or younger kid) is in pre-k and you still have time to enter/reenter the workforce.

Again, the research was focused on the best financial choices and maximizing earning potential. It went beyond the typical anti poverty talking points to focus on educated people…again, essentially saying too many people are doing it wrong by waiting too long to marry and have kids by pointing out the impact to careers, high cost of childcare, etc.

Religion wasn’t part of the equation. Politics certainly weren’t discussed (this was a segment from many years ago before the US lost its collective mind and became so divided).

I had heard that at some point. And while they are probably right, society isn’t structured now in a way to make this easy. It was easier in the 50s when you married young, could be a SAHM, live on one income, etc etc. But things changed (for better and worse) and it just isn’t easy anymore. Most come out of college with debt, people want to play around rather than settle down in their 20s-there are myriad reasons. I got married at 26, and was on the younger end of most of my friends. Had my first at 28-felt like a teen mom in the DC area.

Understood.

But blindly criticizing a different perspective that actually has a lot of positive implications and is grounded in facts/research/data seems silly. But that’s where we are.

Values and priorities have changed. But they could shift a bit and that wouldn’t be crazy or the end of the world.

Anyway, I just wanted to put that out there since so many people are dismissing different perspectives right out of the gate simply because the messenger isn’t on the correct end of the political spectrum.

I think the thing people don’t like about right wing and/or religious pressure to marry young is the patriarchal messages behind it. Like women’s only purpose is to procreate and be a wife. Sorry, that’s gross.

Yes, biologically and by some financial perspectives, getting married and starting a family younger can be better. But I don’t know if there is an easy way to reverse the trends that have people delaying it.

There was a book years ago about "Red Families," "Blue Families," and their approach to family formation. Generally speaking, in conservative cultures, the expectation is that having a family would transform someone immature into an adult. Whereas, in liberal cultures, the expectation is that one would become an adult and only then have a family. ("Red Families v. Blue Families: Legal Polarization and the Creation of Culture.")

"In red America, families form adults; in blue America, adults form families.” The expectation in red states is that people will have children early and the parents will grow into their responsibilities. The expectation in blue states is that people will wait to have families until their education and financial situation is more secure.

How can you raise kids when you are a kid yourself? If I had kids my early 20s, I would have screwed them up for sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’m a lifelong Dem who didn’t follow Kirk, so I don’t know each and every thing he ever said.

BUT

I do recall an extensive npr segment many years ago featuring an economist/sociologist basically said couples are “doing it wrong” when it comes to having kids and maximizing earning potential.

In short, the expert said the best move is to find a partner in your early 20s and quickly have a kid or two (if you want them). I think they suggested doing it by mid-20s. This way, you can opt to have a parent stay home until the kid (or younger kid) is in pre-k and you still have time to enter/reenter the workforce.

Again, the research was focused on the best financial choices and maximizing earning potential. It went beyond the typical anti poverty talking points to focus on educated people…again, essentially saying too many people are doing it wrong by waiting too long to marry and have kids by pointing out the impact to careers, high cost of childcare, etc.

Religion wasn’t part of the equation. Politics certainly weren’t discussed (this was a segment from many years ago before the US lost its collective mind and became so divided).

I had heard that at some point. And while they are probably right, society isn’t structured now in a way to make this easy. It was easier in the 50s when you married young, could be a SAHM, live on one income, etc etc. But things changed (for better and worse) and it just isn’t easy anymore. Most come out of college with debt, people want to play around rather than settle down in their 20s-there are myriad reasons. I got married at 26, and was on the younger end of most of my friends. Had my first at 28-felt like a teen mom in the DC area.

Understood.

But blindly criticizing a different perspective that actually has a lot of positive implications and is grounded in facts/research/data seems silly. But that’s where we are.

Values and priorities have changed. But they could shift a bit and that wouldn’t be crazy or the end of the world.

Anyway, I just wanted to put that out there since so many people are dismissing different perspectives right out of the gate simply because the messenger isn’t on the correct end of the political spectrum.

I think the thing people don’t like about right wing and/or religious pressure to marry young is the patriarchal messages behind it. Like women’s only purpose is to procreate and be a wife. Sorry, that’s gross.

Yes, biologically and by some financial perspectives, getting married and starting a family younger can be better. But I don’t know if there is an easy way to reverse the trends that have people delaying it.

There was a book years ago about "Red Families," "Blue Families," and their approach to family formation. Generally speaking, in conservative cultures, the expectation is that having a family would transform someone immature into an adult. Whereas, in liberal cultures, the expectation is that one would become an adult and only then have a family. ("Red Families v. Blue Families: Legal Polarization and the Creation of Culture.")

"In red America, families form adults; in blue America, adults form families.” The expectation in red states is that people will have children early and the parents will grow into their responsibilities. The expectation in blue states is that people will wait to have families until their education and financial situation is more secure.

How can you raise kids when you are a kid yourself? If I had kids my early 20s, I would have screwed them up for sure.

Everyone matures at a different pace. I know plenty of people who had their first baby sometime between 22 and 26 and they are excellent parents.

Interestingly, all the couples I know who married in their early/mid 20s are still together (in their 40s/50s). And we are from blue states and red states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’m a lifelong Dem who didn’t follow Kirk, so I don’t know each and every thing he ever said.

BUT

I do recall an extensive npr segment many years ago featuring an economist/sociologist basically said couples are “doing it wrong” when it comes to having kids and maximizing earning potential.

In short, the expert said the best move is to find a partner in your early 20s and quickly have a kid or two (if you want them). I think they suggested doing it by mid-20s. This way, you can opt to have a parent stay home until the kid (or younger kid) is in pre-k and you still have time to enter/reenter the workforce.

Again, the research was focused on the best financial choices and maximizing earning potential. It went beyond the typical anti poverty talking points to focus on educated people…again, essentially saying too many people are doing it wrong by waiting too long to marry and have kids by pointing out the impact to careers, high cost of childcare, etc.

Religion wasn’t part of the equation. Politics certainly weren’t discussed (this was a segment from many years ago before the US lost its collective mind and became so divided).

I had heard that at some point. And while they are probably right, society isn’t structured now in a way to make this easy. It was easier in the 50s when you married young, could be a SAHM, live on one income, etc etc. But things changed (for better and worse) and it just isn’t easy anymore. Most come out of college with debt, people want to play around rather than settle down in their 20s-there are myriad reasons. I got married at 26, and was on the younger end of most of my friends. Had my first at 28-felt like a teen mom in the DC area.

Understood.

But blindly criticizing a different perspective that actually has a lot of positive implications and is grounded in facts/research/data seems silly. But that’s where we are.

Values and priorities have changed. But they could shift a bit and that wouldn’t be crazy or the end of the world.

Anyway, I just wanted to put that out there since so many people are dismissing different perspectives right out of the gate simply because the messenger isn’t on the correct end of the political spectrum.

I think the thing people don’t like about right wing and/or religious pressure to marry young is the patriarchal messages behind it. Like women’s only purpose is to procreate and be a wife. Sorry, that’s gross.

Yes, biologically and by some financial perspectives, getting married and starting a family younger can be better. But I don’t know if there is an easy way to reverse the trends that have people delaying it.

There was a book years ago about "Red Families," "Blue Families," and their approach to family formation. Generally speaking, in conservative cultures, the expectation is that having a family would transform someone immature into an adult. Whereas, in liberal cultures, the expectation is that one would become an adult and only then have a family. ("Red Families v. Blue Families: Legal Polarization and the Creation of Culture.")

"In red America, families form adults; in blue America, adults form families.” The expectation in red states is that people will have children early and the parents will grow into their responsibilities. The expectation in blue states is that people will wait to have families until their education and financial situation is more secure.

Huh. This absolutely does not apply to urban areas, which are completely blue.

[Anonymous]

Taylor Swift is vapid.

(If anyone is compelled to respond, realize that I won't be responding. Just using the opportunity since so often I have to hold my tongue and this was advertised as a safe space.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Taylor Swift is vapid.

(If anyone is compelled to respond, realize that I won't be responding. Just using the opportunity since so often I have to hold my tongue and this was advertised as a safe space.)

I agree!

She has figured out how to make zillions and good for her, she churns out record after record with lots of lyrics, but I’ve never heard her in an interview say anything particularly thoughtful.

[Anonymous]

This is gonna sound really mean, but I feel like Zelda Williams is always complaining about something weird her fans are doing regarding her dad, and I just don't care. I'm not defending them, they are absolute freaks, but also...I don't know, why are you always in the news about this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is gonna sound really mean, but I feel like Zelda Williams is always complaining about something weird her fans are doing regarding her dad, and I just don't care. I'm not defending them, they are absolute freaks, but also...I don't know, why are you always in the news about this?

Who TF is this? I feel like you must read entirely different news than I do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is gonna sound really mean, but I feel like Zelda Williams is always complaining about something weird her fans are doing regarding her dad, and I just don't care. I'm not defending them, they are absolute freaks, but also...I don't know, why are you always in the news about this?

Who TF is this? I feel like you must read entirely different news than I do.

Robin Williams’ daughter.

[Anonymous]

I don't know who Jen Hatmaker is, and I don't care about Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds.

To take it a step further I can't even tell Ryan Reynolds apart from Ryan Gosling.

[Anonymous]

Jonah Hill looks much better as a fat person than a thin one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know who Jen Hatmaker is, and I don't care about Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds.

To take it a step further I can't even tell Ryan Reynolds apart from Ryan Gosling.

Are you me? From the few times I've dipped my toe in the massive Hatmaker thread, I get the impression it's mainly for atheists who want to gloat about Christians losing their way, or something something, and it seems like a huge waste of time to me. I don't have the energy or time to get caught up on the Blake-Ryan debate. And ITA about the two Ryans, I can't tell them apart. Who are these people who have endless time to spend obsessing about Hatmaker or Reynolds?