Why Is the Pundit Class Suddenly So Marriage-Obsessed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“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?“

Except the trope that men don’t wash dishes is just that. Anyway, enjoy your divisive tik tok videos, ladies!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You act this is a big loss for women. It’s not. The vast majority of people want to pair up at some point in their lives, but women are much happier being single than men are. All women want is a partner with whom their life is better with than it is being alone and it’s absurd that so many men can’t meet that standard. You should be embarrassed for your sex.

(Happily married straight woman here, by the way)

[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 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.

In your analysis I assume the HHI income of the stable couple and stable single parent are the same- Yes?

As someone who cohabitated for 10 years before marriage and had a kid at year 5 in the relationship then got married in year 10- getting married is awful for our taxes. So, there's my n=1 on that.

The only reason we married is because it's too expensive/time consuming to try and finagle all of the antiquated laws and regulations that the fed has about pensions and retirement and SS benefits for those situations when you have long-term unmarried couples. I never cared about getting married but didnt have anything against it either. When push came to shove for long-term financial planning, we got married because it was easier than spending significant funds to manage what takes $55 and a marriage license to accomplish.

[Anonymous]

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.

I dont know- my grandparents were from a more traditional culture and while both lost their moms at young ages and had active loving fathers, grandparents etc, the more westernized one who grew up with no step siblings/parent was much more functional/well adjusted- one of them grew up in a polygamous family, lots of love, money and support but there is a HUGE difference in success between the different types of upbringing in that family- the ones who had no mother were emotional basket cases and passed their trauma down, just lived off of inheritance. the ones with moms and a dad did better, had careers, much better adjusted. other side of the family that was more westernized is SOOOO much more normal and has more degrees, better paying jobs etc .. despite the polygamous grandparent coming from enormous generational wealt, their family are also grasping and lazy and bad at school and try to weasel out of hard work at every opportunity. the 2 parent nuclear family is the best way, maybe living near extended family and having strong bonds is good but the constant drama of a parents love life is a drain on emotional resources parents who are married to their kids' other parent just dont have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You act this is a big loss for women. It’s not. The vast majority of people want to pair up at some point in their lives, but women are much happier being single than men are. All women want is a partner with whom their life is better with than it is being alone and it’s absurd that so many men can’t meet that standard. You should be embarrassed for your sex.

(Happily married straight woman here, by the way)

And that’s fine.

My point was that a lot of men will be fine with that sort of arrangement, as well. But because men generally are drawn to a need for sex and fun, they will probably just decide to pursue those objectives through casual dating and doing whatever activities bring happiness.

Basically we’ll see a lot more single people on the whole. Some folks will be sad about it. Men, definitely. Men die earlier from the loneliness epidemic. But for women there will be problems in other areas.

My guess is a lot of child free women will increasingly, in their late 30’s, be faced with the anxiety and uncertainty that comes with knowing they couldn’t settle down and have a child. Or maybe they won’t.

I really have no point other than marriage rates, for everyone except wealthy dual income couples, is indeed declining. That women increasingly don’t want to shoulder what they feel is an inequitable duty split in a domestic environment and so are eschewing marriage. Also, I feel like the internet and tik tok seem to be presenting marriage as an overall shtty institution and it’s helping lower marriage rates.

Who knows! But I guess we’re all in this brave new world together. As a man, I can see that marriage could be unappealing for both sexes (or however someone identifies). I know that men more frequently get stuck in dead bedrooms, so perhaps this marriage free future will work for all. Men can hang with their friends more and get more casual sex through dating apps and women can buy Gucci with all the money they save from not having kids and go to brunch and what not.

[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 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.

So what? It’s not like most people are choosing to be single parents. Most people would choose to be in happy, loving stable relationships.

That doesn’t work out for every person. What’s the point of kicking someone when they’re down?

[Anonymous]

I see a lot of women having children through sperm donation and living with other women to raise them. More men with addictions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Guys.

It’s an SES thing, not a race thing

It’s also a cultural thing. You don’t see low income Thai or Vietnamese or chinese fathers running off of their kids and the mother. If they do it’s to send back hefty remittances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“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?“

Touche.

Damn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

So what? It’s not like most people are choosing to be single parents. Most people would choose to be in happy, loving stable relationships.

That doesn’t work out for every person. What’s the point of kicking someone when they’re down?

Stay. On. Topic.

Stop adding emotion into a discussion led by logic and facts.

Two parent households do better. That is the point of my post. No one is punching down at single moms or dads.

And the post was to rebuff a poster who said “western white” (nuclear two person) families could not be shown to produce better outcomes on the whole. That’s false by all credible evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

So what? It’s not like most people are choosing to be single parents. Most people would choose to be in happy, loving stable relationships.

That doesn’t work out for every person. What’s the point of kicking someone when they’re down?

Stay. On. Topic.

Stop adding emotion into a discussion led by logic and facts.

Two parent households do better. That is the point of my post. No one is punching down at single moms or dads.

And the post was to rebuff a poster who said “western white” (nuclear two person) families could not be shown to produce better outcomes on the whole. That’s false by all credible evidence.

Two parent households do better IF the two parents are both functional adults who get along.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

So what? It’s not like most people are choosing to be single parents. Most people would choose to be in happy, loving stable relationships.

That doesn’t work out for every person. What’s the point of kicking someone when they’re down?

Stay. On. Topic.

Stop adding emotion into a discussion led by logic and facts.

Two parent households do better. That is the point of my post. No one is punching down at single moms or dads.

And the post was to rebuff a poster who said “western white” (nuclear two person) families could not be shown to produce better outcomes on the whole. That’s false by all credible evidence.

Two parent households do better IF the two parents are both functional adults who get along.

Yes. Again, generally on the whole they are shown to be better. That is the entire point. We all understand what you are saying that there are poor examples. But on the whole better. That’s all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

So what? It’s not like most people are choosing to be single parents. Most people would choose to be in happy, loving stable relationships.

That doesn’t work out for every person. What’s the point of kicking someone when they’re down?

Stay. On. Topic.

Stop adding emotion into a discussion led by logic and facts.

Two parent households do better. That is the point of my post. No one is punching down at single moms or dads.

And the post was to rebuff a poster who said “western white” (nuclear two person) families could not be shown to produce better outcomes on the whole. That’s false by all credible evidence.

I am on topic.


Two parent households do better. White kids do better. It’s better if you have more money or are more conventionally attractive.

So what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

So what? It’s not like most people are choosing to be single parents. Most people would choose to be in happy, loving stable relationships.

That doesn’t work out for every person. What’s the point of kicking someone when they’re down?

Stay. On. Topic.

Stop adding emotion into a discussion led by logic and facts.

Two parent households do better. That is the point of my post. No one is punching down at single moms or dads.

And the post was to rebuff a poster who said “western white” (nuclear two person) families could not be shown to produce better outcomes on the whole. That’s false by all credible evidence.

Two parent households do better IF the two parents are both functional adults who get along.

NP

I agree.

Two parents actively parenting and adding value to the household, kids, goals will always have more firepower and resources than One parent doing it all, whether single or has a deadbeat partner. Even a good nanny can’t make up for it.

[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.

I don't know that this comment really deserves a response, but I want to say it is undisputed that western culture more highly values the nuclear family and separating from extended family and friends. This is evident even in what people from different cultures focus on in art. As to child development, in America, studies about show that a child does better with one adult to whom they are attached, but the measure of a child's outcomes are based on autonomy, individuation, and self-exploration. In other cultures, success in development is based on dependence on others and collective harmony, so the idea that the nuclear family is what's best for a child makes no sense.

Tell me a culture that doesn't highly value a two-parent family and that is also economically successful?