Why Is the Pundit Class Suddenly So Marriage-Obsessed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because society is struggling, children are struggling and our birth rate is falling.

That doesn't mean that their ideas will work, but I think that's why it's coming up.

Also, control of women is a priority for some pundit groups.

Agreed. The research is quite clear that children raised in two parent households fair much better, even when controlling for income. It really does a disservice to children and society to ignore reality.

There are serious correlation/causation questions that need to be answered before this tells us very much that we can use.

NP - No, there aren’t. No one reasonable disagrees that children fare better when there are more resources (attention (since neither mommy or daddy is dating other unrelated parties), money (since only paying for 1 household) etc.) going towards their care.

Economist here and I have to agree that that link between correlation and causation is very clear here.

Psychiatrist here, and I agree.
It’s kind of baffling to me that someone can acknowledge that the way children grow up has a profound effect on their adult lives and then, at the same time, say that adults have total and complete agency over their lives.

Those things can not possibly both be true. It’s illogical.

You can't seriously be suggesting that a child in a dysfunctional two parent household is better off than a child raised by a functional single parent.

No.

I’m saying that a child raised in a dysfunctional home will likely be a dysfunctional adult and have difficulty with relationships.

It’s not like people can choose to be good partners, parents, employees, and they’ve just decided that they don’t want to.

If you disagree with me and say that people can and do make that choice as an adult, then why are we talking about how children are raised? If your childhood doesn’t affect your adult life, then what does it matter how functional the home is?

Pp again…
And if your childhood DOES affect your adult life (as it certainly does), then why are we pretending that anything a pundit says is going to make a difference in how people live their lives and maintain their relationships with their children and significant others?

There are huge genetic, biological, social, and psychological factors at play here. It doesn’t matter if the pundits are wrong or right. Unless they can have an effect on actual social policy, they can’t change anything. And even then, they can’t change much.

I admit I don't follow this conversation, but the pundits absolutely can change things. They are framing the conversation, and the conversation influences individual opinion and ultimately social policy. Many people are now convinced that single liberal women are to blame for a problem they just found out existed.

I guess it can change a conversation for a brief period of time. But it’s not ultimately going to change how children are raised.

I guess this makes sense since that’s the point. No one in this really cares about single mothers and their children.

I keep forgetting that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because society is struggling, children are struggling and our birth rate is falling.

That doesn't mean that their ideas will work, but I think that's why it's coming up.

Also, control of women is a priority for some pundit groups.

Agreed. The research is quite clear that children raised in two parent households fair much better, even when controlling for income. It really does a disservice to children and society to ignore reality.

Which makes me wonder how “the research” questions get framed. Most children do well when they have strong, stable, ongoing relationships with more than one adult. There are two parent families with unmarried parents. There are families and households that include very involved extended family members. How many different types of families did “the research” actually look at?

It really does a disservice to children and society to ignore the reality that there are multiple types of families — and some serious drawbacks to the white western focus on nuclear families which often have extended family and community ties.

This. Social science research is particularly vulnerable to bias, and many of the "research" studies that vilify female-led households were supported by orgnaizations that are invested in a particular outcome. Kind of like the corn industry sponsoring studies that say corn syrup isn't bad for you.

“White western focus”.

When you framed the conversation in that way you can easily shut down productive discourse about difficult issues. Or ignore the majority of studies showing single parent household produce a much larger amount of young people who ends up as future criminals or making poor decisions like drug dependency.

I’m sorry, but the studies show, be it a CIS couple or a same sex couple, a two parent household has enormous benefits for offspring.

Look at DC. Look at 12 year old repeat offender car jackers. Where are the fathers? 80% of them are not there. This is not some secret.

So you think what? That the solution is to tell the 12 year old carjackers that when they are 22, they should settle down, get married, and create a functional 2 parent household for the next 20+ years?

I mean, if the 12 year old car jackers are capable of this, then does it matter that much what they were like at 12?

Or is your plan to just sterilize these kids?

Or maybe you want to reduce prison sentences for fathers who live in the home so fewer kids are growing up without a dad?

What’s the point of saying this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because society is struggling, children are struggling and our birth rate is falling.

That doesn't mean that their ideas will work, but I think that's why it's coming up.

Also, control of women is a priority for some pundit groups.

Agreed. The research is quite clear that children raised in two parent households fair much better, even when controlling for income. It really does a disservice to children and society to ignore reality.

Which makes me wonder how “the research” questions get framed. Most children do well when they have strong, stable, ongoing relationships with more than one adult. There are two parent families with unmarried parents. There are families and households that include very involved extended family members. How many different types of families did “the research” actually look at?

It really does a disservice to children and society to ignore the reality that there are multiple types of families — and some serious drawbacks to the white western focus on nuclear families which often have extended family and community ties.

Amen. More than one adult raising a child is very important but who says that means kids flounder without a nuclear family? I know some people who have have never married but have become important figures in the lives of their nieces and nephews. In fact being part of a strong community before having children might be a bigger guarantee of stability for your children than being married.

Aunts or uncles? That’s insane unless they are defacto caretaker (babysitter etc)

It’s insane to develop a close relationship with your aunt? To get guidance, support, etc from her, to the point where she is an important figure in your life?

I know that Americans are very individualist but to call an aunt becoming an important figure in the life of her niece “insane” is wild.

[Anonymous]

Lots of young single grandmothers and aunties raise their grandchildren with single mothers. That’s common in some circles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/01/06/marriage-political-expert-roundtable-00133856

Very interesting long read in Politico mag this week

What’s a pundit?

From this thread I’d guess it means MAGA or something nowadays?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t think of another institution that has financially, emotionally, and physically ruined more women and made more women desperately unhappy than marriage. It’s telling that not one person among the experts interviewed for OP’s article could name a there single benefit to women of getting married. Speaking as a very unhappily married millennial woman, I am thrilled to see that more and more women in the next generation are sidestepping the hellpit that marriage is for most of us.

LOL there's no benefit to a 2nd income?

No benefit to sharing the burdens of raising kids (for those who want them)?

Okay then.

Why would a single woman need a second income? Use your brain, honey.

And as far as your second question goes, isn’t it time we stopped pretending that most men are actually helping to raise their offspring? Existing in the same household while refusing to care for their own offspring beyond resentfully and incompetently doing what they’re nagged into is the norm for most men. Yes, I said “most,” not “some.”

No one said that a single woman need a second income, but you cannot deny that the second income is a benefit.

I am in shock that your surroundings are that way. Maybe put more efforts in bettering yourself and you will be surprised to find out that most of man do raise their children, and do help around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because society is struggling, children are struggling and our birth rate is falling.

That doesn't mean that their ideas will work, but I think that's why it's coming up.

Also, control of women is a priority for some pundit groups.

Agreed. The research is quite clear that children raised in two parent households fair much better, even when controlling for income. It really does a disservice to children and society to ignore reality.

Which makes me wonder how “the research” questions get framed. Most children do well when they have strong, stable, ongoing relationships with more than one adult. There are two parent families with unmarried parents. There are families and households that include very involved extended family members. How many different types of families did “the research” actually look at?

It really does a disservice to children and society to ignore the reality that there are multiple types of families — and some serious drawbacks to the white western focus on nuclear families which often have extended family and community ties.

This. Social science research is particularly vulnerable to bias, and many of the "research" studies that vilify female-led households were supported by orgnaizations that are invested in a particular outcome. Kind of like the corn industry sponsoring studies that say corn syrup isn't bad for you.

“White western focus”.

When you framed the conversation in that way you can easily shut down productive discourse about difficult issues. Or ignore the majority of studies showing single parent household produce a much larger amount of young people who ends up as future criminals or making poor decisions like drug dependency.

I’m sorry, but the studies show, be it a CIS couple or a same sex couple, a two parent household has enormous benefits for offspring.

Look at DC. Look at 12 year old repeat offender car jackers. Where are the fathers? 80% of them are not there. This is not some secret.

So you think what? That the solution is to tell the 12 year old carjackers that when they are 22, they should settle down, get married, and create a functional 2 parent household for the next 20+ years?

I mean, if the 12 year old car jackers are capable of this, then does it matter that much what they were like at 12?

Or is your plan to just sterilize these kids?

Or maybe you want to reduce prison sentences for fathers who live in the home so fewer kids are growing up without a dad?

What’s the point of saying this?

Wtf are you talking about?

That post was in response to the poster who was arguing that the “western white” perspective of viewing two parent households as being more beneficial overall than single parent, female led households, was not accurate.

No. I don’t want to sterilize kids. My point was single parent households produce worse outcomes like poorer overall career achievement and higher incidences of drug use. It’s not rocket science. No we don’t need to foist marriage on people. Nor should we. My only point is that kids do better if they have two parents be they gay or straight. And that’s no coming from a “patriarchal western white” perspective. It’s what the majority of studies show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t think of another institution that has financially, emotionally, and physically ruined more women and made more women desperately unhappy than marriage. It’s telling that not one person among the experts interviewed for OP’s article could name a there single benefit to women of getting married. Speaking as a very unhappily married millennial woman, I am thrilled to see that more and more women in the next generation are sidestepping the hellpit that marriage is for most of us.

LOL there's no benefit to a 2nd income?

No benefit to sharing the burdens of raising kids (for those who want them)?

Okay then.

Why would a single woman need a second income? Use your brain, honey.

And as far as your second question goes, isn’t it time we stopped pretending that most men are actually helping to raise their offspring? Existing in the same household while refusing to care for their own offspring beyond resentfully and incompetently doing what they’re nagged into is the norm for most men. Yes, I said “most,” not “some.”

No one said that a single woman need a second income, but you cannot deny that the second income is a benefit.

I am in shock that your surroundings are that way. Maybe put more efforts in bettering yourself and you will be surprised to find out that most of man do raise their children, and do help around.

Seriously, what kind of shtty husband do you got? lol. Yes, all fathers are terrible and don’t help with their kids…weirdo.

[Anonymous]

https://coveteur.com/great-divorce

Apparently not just the pundits (I am familiar with zero listed in OPs article). But also the TikTokkers. Or are TikTokkers pundits too?

[Anonymous]

“When the options are to enjoy your own money, peace, time, and friends, or to spend that time, money, and mental energy taking care of a grown-ass man who can’t wash a dish, refuses to learn, and overall might have some pretty messed up expectations for your emotional and physical labor–can it really come as that much of a surprise that more women are choosing the former?“

[Anonymous]

I’m actually fine with radfem liberal women not marrying or procreating.
I’m not sure why there is a push to try to change people’s minds in this.
I think I’d really enjoy a future that has fewer offspring raised by this blue-haired frenzy of women who have no use for the emasculated society of men that their cultural religion has created.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so it’s looking like the consensus on here is that marriage is bad. Especially for women. Women should go it alone. Men are bad partners who don’t pull their load and are man children. And it’s totally cool for kids to have a one parent household and that’s just as good as a two parent (even if all that science stuff says it’s not.) sounds good and let’s see where America is in 30 years.

You're like the spouse who responds to any criticism with "I can't ever do anything right; you hate me." Marriage can be good, it can be bad. The scoldy morality police should spend more time thinking about how marriage could be made a better institution for everyone; and how to structure things so that kids in single family households don't suffer any more than they need to when marriages don't work out.

This. So much of the subtext us "women need to lower their standards and get married" rather than "we should make societal changes to meaningfully support marriage and childbearing."

I think this is a chicken and the egg scenario.
No, women shouldn’t have to “lower their standards and get married”
But if they raise their standards for ACCESS to their time, love, bodies, attention so that marriage is the requirement for this rather than available at the same level through simply dating, then men will begin to shift their behaviors and attentions accordingly.
As it is, high quality men in their twenties and thirties can easily wine, dine, date, have sex with, travel with, co-habitate with any number of different women because women have allowed that under the guise of sexual liberation. But the truth is, if women locked that down, men would have to shape up in order to win the affection, attention, and partnership of a high-quality woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://coveteur.com/great-divorce

Apparently not just the pundits (I am familiar with zero listed in OPs article). But also the TikTokkers. Or are TikTokkers pundits too?

Follow the money

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because society is struggling, children are struggling and our birth rate is falling.

That doesn't mean that their ideas will work, but I think that's why it's coming up.

Also, control of women is a priority for some pundit groups.

Agreed. The research is quite clear that children raised in two parent households fair much better, even when controlling for income. It really does a disservice to children and society to ignore reality.

There are serious correlation/causation questions that need to be answered before this tells us very much that we can use.

NP - No, there aren’t. No one reasonable disagrees that children fare better when there are more resources (attention (since neither mommy or daddy is dating other unrelated parties), money (since only paying for 1 household) etc.) going towards their care.

Economist here and I have to agree that that link between correlation and causation is very clear here.

Psychiatrist here, and I agree.
It’s kind of baffling to me that someone can acknowledge that the way children grow up has a profound effect on their adult lives and then, at the same time, say that adults have total and complete agency over their lives.

Those things can not possibly both be true. It’s illogical.

You can't seriously be suggesting that a child in a dysfunctional two parent household is better off than a child raised by a functional single parent.

No one said that.

If a child is in a 2 parent household that is chaotic and full of argument and so forth then it’s okay if the parents divorce because the child will be spared the dysfunction. Okay, no argument there.

On the whole however, studies and stats confirm, OUTCOMES ARE BETTER FOR KIDS (crime, school etc) TO BE RAISED IN A LOVING TWO PARENT HOUSEHOLD THAN IN A SINGLE PARENT HOUSEHOLD. Less incarceration, better everything.

You cant regulate LOVING and STABLE. And that itsnt directly caused by marriage.

Okay. Let me simplify and strip out hyperbole.

Let’s start at a baseline where there is a stable single parent in charge of their child.

And there is another stable couple who are raising a child.

The overwhelming statistics are that the child raised by the couple will have more favorable long term outcomes than the single parent.

The couple doesn’t have to be married, as long as they cohabitate and both contribute to raising the child in a stable environment.

However, if they are married that would probably be beneficial to them from a tax perspective, but that’s another discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so it’s looking like the consensus on here is that marriage is bad. Especially for women. Women should go it alone. Men are bad partners who don’t pull their load and are man children. And it’s totally cool for kids to have a one parent household and that’s just as good as a two parent (even if all that science stuff says it’s not.) sounds good and let’s see where America is in 30 years.

You're like the spouse who responds to any criticism with "I can't ever do anything right; you hate me." Marriage can be good, it can be bad. The scoldy morality police should spend more time thinking about how marriage could be made a better institution for everyone; and how to structure things so that kids in single family households don't suffer any more than they need to when marriages don't work out.

This. So much of the subtext us "women need to lower their standards and get married" rather than "we should make societal changes to meaningfully support marriage and childbearing."

I think this is a chicken and the egg scenario.
No, women shouldn’t have to “lower their standards and get married”
But if they raise their standards for ACCESS to their time, love, bodies, attention so that marriage is the requirement for this rather than available at the same level through simply dating, then men will begin to shift their behaviors and attentions accordingly.
As it is, high quality men in their twenties and thirties can easily wine, dine, date, have sex with, travel with, co-habitate with any number of different women because women have allowed that under the guise of sexual liberation. But the truth is, if women locked that down, men would have to shape up in order to win the affection, attention, and partnership of a high-quality woman.

“Locked it down”? It sounds like you’re suggesting these women withhold intimacy as a power play.

Yeah, I don’t know about that.

Men are not idiots.

I can see the future, and if it’s populated by a ton of angry, resentful women lamenting the “failures” of men on tik tok…men will go their own way, pursue their own interests, and yes, probably avoid being tied to a misanthrope culture or critical partner who is constantly disappointed.