Why Is the Pundit Class Suddenly So Marriage-Obsessed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for linking, I haven’t read it yet but I definitely will.

I admit I was bummed about the editorial in the Washington post about it. Instead of telling men that they should stop being red-pillers, or call upon the government to make marriage and having children less of a financial burden, they basically told women that we should be okay dating and marrying people who don’t think we deserve bodily autonomy. That’s what we get from a supposedly liberal magazine?

Yup. It doesn't take long to notice a theme in all of these pieces - (that have been written since the '90's - keep up Politico!) women need to change to figure out how to continue their long legacy of their default job of managing the home and children while also working and men just need to keep doing the same thing. Much easier to continue blaming women that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

This shifts the responsibilities of men (the father) even more squarely onto the shoulders of even more women than just the mother. This is not sustainable for a healthy culture.

It also creates a self-fulfilling cycle of male irresponsibility—Disengaged, low-investment, irresponsible men leave women alone with kids who raise disengaged, irresponsible boys, who grow up into disengaged, irresponsible men that women leave, etc etc. Look at cultural circles where this is de facto the case: their outcomes are abysmal.

We saw evidence of this in the precipitous drop in crime rates in the 90s. Post-Roe v. Wade, women who weren't in a position to raise children well were more likely to get abortions. That led to fewer damaged, irresponsible boys and, therefore, lower crime rates. We should reinstate Roe.

I disagree—all the millenial women complaining presently got married to loser manchildren who were not aborted after Roe. It’s the product of a decimation of moral virtue and cultural values, which is what the pundits are ostensibly trying to restore.

The past was, more or less, a moral hell hole. Just look at how we treated gay people until very recently.

It's not so black and white. Yes as to the treatment of gay people. But in the past, it was, for example, much easier to support a family on one relatively low income. It was easier to pay for housing, medical care (even though it was inferior in many ways), and education. People tended to be more connected to their communities because it was where they were raised, so they had families, friends, churches, and other charitable organizations willing and able to help. Society has become, in many ways, much more cruel generally even as we moreso recognize that it is wrong to mistreat people based on sexual orientation, gender, race, etc.

I think a lot of the good aspects you note about life in the past is probably colored by nostalgia. How good was life for the average black woman? The average West Virginian white laborer (an example I raise, because I remember reading about Bobby Kennedy highlighting Appalachian poverty in 1968)? The wife of the average Southern rural sharecropper?

Probably my only point is that generalizations are hard to substantiate and, as the man said, "the good old days weren't always good, and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems."

Agree. I remember an older friend of mine used to comment that movies did not depict the past as she remembered it: that in the 1930s everything looked dirtier and simpler and people had very little—one skillet in the kitchen kind of thing. I think lots of marriages were terrible and people may have stayed together but it was because of social mores at the time. People often got married strictly because of pregnancy—the shotgun marriage, because of the shame of illegitimacy. I’m sure many of these marriages were fine, but I’m sure many were not. People also did get divorced; in researching my genealogy I found several in the 19th and early 20th century, along with people who obviously deserted their families and in one case the divorced wife called herself became a “widow” in her next marriage in a different state. I think workarounds like this existed. There was a dark joke: “He went out for a pack of cigarettes and never came back.” There were people who separated and lived apart and/or had affairs. I’m sure that lots or most gay people married and lived a lie. I think marriage is hard and neither I nor my parents or my husband’s parents got divorced, but I don’t understand the idea that it’s necessarily a better state for people because more people did in the past.

[Anonymous]

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.

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?

These are two separate concepts. Nuclear family is the centerpiece in many cultures and the focal.point of stability. In countries like India there is very little divorce (for reasons good and bad).

Those cultures also value their extended family - people live close, help, feel responsibility. But my point is that thinking marriage & nuclear family is important does not have to mean it's an island where the "ideal" or norm is to be separated from your other family and friends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

This shifts the responsibilities of men (the father) even more squarely onto the shoulders of even more women than just the mother. This is not sustainable for a healthy culture.

It also creates a self-fulfilling cycle of male irresponsibility—Disengaged, low-investment, irresponsible men leave women alone with kids who raise disengaged, irresponsible boys, who grow up into disengaged, irresponsible men that women leave, etc etc. Look at cultural circles where this is de facto the case: their outcomes are abysmal.

We saw evidence of this in the precipitous drop in crime rates in the 90s. Post-Roe v. Wade, women who weren't in a position to raise children well were more likely to get abortions. That led to fewer damaged, irresponsible boys and, therefore, lower crime rates. We should reinstate Roe.

I disagree—all the millenial women complaining presently got married to loser manchildren who were not aborted after Roe. It’s the product of a decimation of moral virtue and cultural values, which is what the pundits are ostensibly trying to restore.

The past was, more or less, a moral hell hole. Just look at how we treated gay people until very recently.

It's not so black and white. Yes as to the treatment of gay people. But in the past, it was, for example, much easier to support a family on one relatively low income. It was easier to pay for housing, medical care (even though it was inferior in many ways), and education. People tended to be more connected to their communities because it was where they were raised, so they had families, friends, churches, and other charitable organizations willing and able to help. Society has become, in many ways, much more cruel generally even as we moreso recognize that it is wrong to mistreat people based on sexual orientation, gender, race, etc.

I think a lot of the good aspects you note about life in the past is probably colored by nostalgia. How good was life for the average black woman? The average West Virginian white laborer (an example I raise, because I remember reading about Bobby Kennedy highlighting Appalachian poverty in 1968)? The wife of the average Southern rural sharecropper?

Probably my only point is that generalizations are hard to substantiate and, as the man said, "the good old days weren't always good, and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems."

Agree. I remember an older friend of mine used to comment that movies did not depict the past as she remembered it: that in the 1930s everything looked dirtier and simpler and people had very little—one skillet in the kitchen kind of thing. I think lots of marriages were terrible and people may have stayed together but it was because of social mores at the time. People often got married strictly because of pregnancy—the shotgun marriage, because of the shame of illegitimacy. I’m sure many of these marriages were fine, but I’m sure many were not. People also did get divorced; in researching my genealogy I found several in the 19th and early 20th century, along with people who obviously deserted their families and in one case the divorced wife called herself became a “widow” in her next marriage in a different state. I think workarounds like this existed. There was a dark joke: “He went out for a pack of cigarettes and never came back.” There were people who separated and lived apart and/or had affairs. I’m sure that lots or most gay people married and lived a lie. I think marriage is hard and neither I nor my parents or my husband’s parents got divorced, but I don’t understand the idea that it’s necessarily a better state for people because more people did in the past.

There is quite a lot of research's that indicates children raised in two parent households have significantly better outcomes, even when controlling for income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

This shifts the responsibilities of men (the father) even more squarely onto the shoulders of even more women than just the mother. This is not sustainable for a healthy culture.

It also creates a self-fulfilling cycle of male irresponsibility—Disengaged, low-investment, irresponsible men leave women alone with kids who raise disengaged, irresponsible boys, who grow up into disengaged, irresponsible men that women leave, etc etc. Look at cultural circles where this is de facto the case: their outcomes are abysmal.

We saw evidence of this in the precipitous drop in crime rates in the 90s. Post-Roe v. Wade, women who weren't in a position to raise children well were more likely to get abortions. That led to fewer damaged, irresponsible boys and, therefore, lower crime rates. We should reinstate Roe.

I disagree—all the millenial women complaining presently got married to loser manchildren who were not aborted after Roe. It’s the product of a decimation of moral virtue and cultural values, which is what the pundits are ostensibly trying to restore.

The past was, more or less, a moral hell hole. Just look at how we treated gay people until very recently.

It's not so black and white. Yes as to the treatment of gay people. But in the past, it was, for example, much easier to support a family on one relatively low income. It was easier to pay for housing, medical care (even though it was inferior in many ways), and education. People tended to be more connected to their communities because it was where they were raised, so they had families, friends, churches, and other charitable organizations willing and able to help. Society has become, in many ways, much more cruel generally even as we moreso recognize that it is wrong to mistreat people based on sexual orientation, gender, race, etc.

I think a lot of the good aspects you note about life in the past is probably colored by nostalgia. How good was life for the average black woman? The average West Virginian white laborer (an example I raise, because I remember reading about Bobby Kennedy highlighting Appalachian poverty in 1968)? The wife of the average Southern rural sharecropper?

Probably my only point is that generalizations are hard to substantiate and, as the man said, "the good old days weren't always good, and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems."

Agree. I remember an older friend of mine used to comment that movies did not depict the past as she remembered it: that in the 1930s everything looked dirtier and simpler and people had very little—one skillet in the kitchen kind of thing. I think lots of marriages were terrible and people may have stayed together but it was because of social mores at the time. People often got married strictly because of pregnancy—the shotgun marriage, because of the shame of illegitimacy. I’m sure many of these marriages were fine, but I’m sure many were not. People also did get divorced; in researching my genealogy I found several in the 19th and early 20th century, along with people who obviously deserted their families and in one case the divorced wife called herself became a “widow” in her next marriage in a different state. I think workarounds like this existed. There was a dark joke: “He went out for a pack of cigarettes and never came back.” There were people who separated and lived apart and/or had affairs. I’m sure that lots or most gay people married and lived a lie. I think marriage is hard and neither I nor my parents or my husband’s parents got divorced, but I don’t understand the idea that it’s necessarily a better state for people because more people did in the past.

There is quite a lot of research's that indicates children raised in two parent households have significantly better outcomes, even when controlling for income.

The PP talked about a whole lot of factors of which income was only one. Also, not for nothing, but the well-being of the parents is also worth something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

This shifts the responsibilities of men (the father) even more squarely onto the shoulders of even more women than just the mother. This is not sustainable for a healthy culture.

It also creates a self-fulfilling cycle of male irresponsibility—Disengaged, low-investment, irresponsible men leave women alone with kids who raise disengaged, irresponsible boys, who grow up into disengaged, irresponsible men that women leave, etc etc. Look at cultural circles where this is de facto the case: their outcomes are abysmal.

We saw evidence of this in the precipitous drop in crime rates in the 90s. Post-Roe v. Wade, women who weren't in a position to raise children well were more likely to get abortions. That led to fewer damaged, irresponsible boys and, therefore, lower crime rates. We should reinstate Roe.

I disagree—all the millenial women complaining presently got married to loser manchildren who were not aborted after Roe. It’s the product of a decimation of moral virtue and cultural values, which is what the pundits are ostensibly trying to restore.

The past was, more or less, a moral hell hole. Just look at how we treated gay people until very recently.

It's not so black and white. Yes as to the treatment of gay people. But in the past, it was, for example, much easier to support a family on one relatively low income. It was easier to pay for housing, medical care (even though it was inferior in many ways), and education. People tended to be more connected to their communities because it was where they were raised, so they had families, friends, churches, and other charitable organizations willing and able to help. Society has become, in many ways, much more cruel generally even as we moreso recognize that it is wrong to mistreat people based on sexual orientation, gender, race, etc.

I think a lot of the good aspects you note about life in the past is probably colored by nostalgia. How good was life for the average black woman? The average West Virginian white laborer (an example I raise, because I remember reading about Bobby Kennedy highlighting Appalachian poverty in 1968)? The wife of the average Southern rural sharecropper?

Probably my only point is that generalizations are hard to substantiate and, as the man said, "the good old days weren't always good, and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems."

Agree. I remember an older friend of mine used to comment that movies did not depict the past as she remembered it: that in the 1930s everything looked dirtier and simpler and people had very little—one skillet in the kitchen kind of thing. I think lots of marriages were terrible and people may have stayed together but it was because of social mores at the time. People often got married strictly because of pregnancy—the shotgun marriage, because of the shame of illegitimacy. I’m sure many of these marriages were fine, but I’m sure many were not. People also did get divorced; in researching my genealogy I found several in the 19th and early 20th century, along with people who obviously deserted their families and in one case the divorced wife called herself became a “widow” in her next marriage in a different state. I think workarounds like this existed. There was a dark joke: “He went out for a pack of cigarettes and never came back.” There were people who separated and lived apart and/or had affairs. I’m sure that lots or most gay people married and lived a lie. I think marriage is hard and neither I nor my parents or my husband’s parents got divorced, but I don’t understand the idea that it’s necessarily a better state for people because more people did in the past.

There is quite a lot of research's that indicates children raised in two parent households have significantly better outcomes, even when controlling for income.

The PP talked about a whole lot of factors of which income was only one. Also, not for nothing, but the well-being of the parents is also worth something.

The PPs post concludes with the sentiment they don’t understand why people are supporting marriage just because it was more popular in the past. There is no reason to get married and stay married because more people did it in the past. The reason is that it provides better outcomes for children.

[Anonymous]

lol. So basically the future is just a bunch of easily offended Gen Z era and millennials who can’t handle a tough job, play on their phones all day, complain about injustice everywhere and if they get pregnant won’t raise it in a two partner household because “marriage is patriarchy” essentially? Sounds great. I’m sure America will continue to expand its economic dominance with such a bright future.

[Anonymous]

The biggest factor protecting girls from sexual abuse is living with their fathers. It is great to talk about hypothetical functional single moms. But two bad parents can at least take turns being functional. A single mom with addictions or bad boyfriends is tragic.

Lately, Drug Stores are closing because shoplifters steal everything but the Father's Day cards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The biggest factor protecting girls from sexual abuse is living with their fathers. It is great to talk about hypothetical functional single moms. But two bad parents can at least take turns being functional. A single mom with addictions or bad boyfriends is tragic.

Lately, Drug Stores are closing because shoplifters steal everything but the Father's Day cards.

Sounds like men have a lot of work to do to save the institution of marriage.

[Anonymous]

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.

Nope. There are many many options beyond “marriage “ and “going it alone”, and none of them necessarily require viewing men as “bad partners”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:lol. So basically the future is just a bunch of easily offended Gen Z era and millennials who can’t handle a tough job, play on their phones all day, complain about injustice everywhere and if they get pregnant won’t raise it in a two partner household because “marriage is patriarchy” essentially? Sounds great. I’m sure America will continue to expand its economic dominance with such a bright future.

As a demographic, Boomers are the most likely to be aggrieved snowflakes. You can't believe how many things my father is upset about in a given day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Lately, Drug Stores are closing because shoplifters steal everything but the Father's Day cards.

You were duped by the shoplifter non-stories. Hilarious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

This shifts the responsibilities of men (the father) even more squarely onto the shoulders of even more women than just the mother. This is not sustainable for a healthy culture.

It also creates a self-fulfilling cycle of male irresponsibility—Disengaged, low-investment, irresponsible men leave women alone with kids who raise disengaged, irresponsible boys, who grow up into disengaged, irresponsible men that women leave, etc etc. Look at cultural circles where this is de facto the case: their outcomes are abysmal.

We saw evidence of this in the precipitous drop in crime rates in the 90s. Post-Roe v. Wade, women who weren't in a position to raise children well were more likely to get abortions. That led to fewer damaged, irresponsible boys and, therefore, lower crime rates. We should reinstate Roe.

I disagree—all the millenial women complaining presently got married to loser manchildren who were not aborted after Roe. It’s the product of a decimation of moral virtue and cultural values, which is what the pundits are ostensibly trying to restore.

The past was, more or less, a moral hell hole. Just look at how we treated gay people until very recently.

It's not so black and white. Yes as to the treatment of gay people. But in the past, it was, for example, much easier to support a family on one relatively low income. It was easier to pay for housing, medical care (even though it was inferior in many ways), and education. People tended to be more connected to their communities because it was where they were raised, so they had families, friends, churches, and other charitable organizations willing and able to help. Society has become, in many ways, much more cruel generally even as we moreso recognize that it is wrong to mistreat people based on sexual orientation, gender, race, etc.

I think a lot of the good aspects you note about life in the past is probably colored by nostalgia. How good was life for the average black woman? The average West Virginian white laborer (an example I raise, because I remember reading about Bobby Kennedy highlighting Appalachian poverty in 1968)? The wife of the average Southern rural sharecropper?

Probably my only point is that generalizations are hard to substantiate and, as the man said, "the good old days weren't always good, and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems."

Agree. I remember an older friend of mine used to comment that movies did not depict the past as she remembered it: that in the 1930s everything looked dirtier and simpler and people had very little—one skillet in the kitchen kind of thing. I think lots of marriages were terrible and people may have stayed together but it was because of social mores at the time. People often got married strictly because of pregnancy—the shotgun marriage, because of the shame of illegitimacy. I’m sure many of these marriages were fine, but I’m sure many were not. People also did get divorced; in researching my genealogy I found several in the 19th and early 20th century, along with people who obviously deserted their families and in one case the divorced wife called herself became a “widow” in her next marriage in a different state. I think workarounds like this existed. There was a dark joke: “He went out for a pack of cigarettes and never came back.” There were people who separated and lived apart and/or had affairs. I’m sure that lots or most gay people married and lived a lie. I think marriage is hard and neither I nor my parents or my husband’s parents got divorced, but I don’t understand the idea that it’s necessarily a better state for people because more people did in the past.

The point is not that the past was an ideal for everybody (or even anybody). The point is that there were many aspects of culture in the past that were more humane and conducive to supporting families with children. In the US, the last 30-40 years have seen massive shifts in wealth, cuts in social safety nets, concentration of power, destruction of unions, etc. etc. So, yes, it is better for LGBT rights, better for women in many ways, better for POC in many ways. But it is foolish to say that we have improved morally as a society in all, or even most, ways.

By the way, on Appalachian poverty, spend some time in rural West Virginia. It's hard to say it is an improvement overall, and lots of evidence to suggest it has gotten worse over the last few decades in many of those communities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Lately, Drug Stores are closing because shoplifters steal everything but the Father's Day cards.

You were duped by the shoplifter non-stories. Hilarious.

Ha ha totally!

And there’s no crime in DC! It was worse in the 80’s! Car jacking is not happening. Do not believe your eyes and ears ha ha.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

This shifts the responsibilities of men (the father) even more squarely onto the shoulders of even more women than just the mother. This is not sustainable for a healthy culture.

It also creates a self-fulfilling cycle of male irresponsibility—Disengaged, low-investment, irresponsible men leave women alone with kids who raise disengaged, irresponsible boys, who grow up into disengaged, irresponsible men that women leave, etc etc. Look at cultural circles where this is de facto the case: their outcomes are abysmal.

We saw evidence of this in the precipitous drop in crime rates in the 90s. Post-Roe v. Wade, women who weren't in a position to raise children well were more likely to get abortions. That led to fewer damaged, irresponsible boys and, therefore, lower crime rates. We should reinstate Roe.

I disagree—all the millenial women complaining presently got married to loser manchildren who were not aborted after Roe. It’s the product of a decimation of moral virtue and cultural values, which is what the pundits are ostensibly trying to restore.

The past was, more or less, a moral hell hole. Just look at how we treated gay people until very recently.

It's not so black and white. Yes as to the treatment of gay people. But in the past, it was, for example, much easier to support a family on one relatively low income. It was easier to pay for housing, medical care (even though it was inferior in many ways), and education. People tended to be more connected to their communities because it was where they were raised, so they had families, friends, churches, and other charitable organizations willing and able to help. Society has become, in many ways, much more cruel generally even as we moreso recognize that it is wrong to mistreat people based on sexual orientation, gender, race, etc.

I think a lot of the good aspects you note about life in the past is probably colored by nostalgia. How good was life for the average black woman? The average West Virginian white laborer (an example I raise, because I remember reading about Bobby Kennedy highlighting Appalachian poverty in 1968)? The wife of the average Southern rural sharecropper?

Probably my only point is that generalizations are hard to substantiate and, as the man said, "the good old days weren't always good, and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems."

Agree. I remember an older friend of mine used to comment that movies did not depict the past as she remembered it: that in the 1930s everything looked dirtier and simpler and people had very little—one skillet in the kitchen kind of thing. I think lots of marriages were terrible and people may have stayed together but it was because of social mores at the time. People often got married strictly because of pregnancy—the shotgun marriage, because of the shame of illegitimacy. I’m sure many of these marriages were fine, but I’m sure many were not. People also did get divorced; in researching my genealogy I found several in the 19th and early 20th century, along with people who obviously deserted their families and in one case the divorced wife called herself became a “widow” in her next marriage in a different state. I think workarounds like this existed. There was a dark joke: “He went out for a pack of cigarettes and never came back.” There were people who separated and lived apart and/or had affairs. I’m sure that lots or most gay people married and lived a lie. I think marriage is hard and neither I nor my parents or my husband’s parents got divorced, but I don’t understand the idea that it’s necessarily a better state for people because more people did in the past.

The point is not that the past was an ideal for everybody (or even anybody). The point is that there were many aspects of culture in the past that were more humane and conducive to supporting families with children. In the US, the last 30-40 years have seen massive shifts in wealth, cuts in social safety nets, concentration of power, destruction of unions, etc. etc. So, yes, it is better for LGBT rights, better for women in many ways, better for POC in many ways. But it is foolish to say that we have improved morally as a society in all, or even most, ways.

By the way, on Appalachian poverty, spend some time in rural West Virginia. It's hard to say it is an improvement overall, and lots of evidence to suggest it has gotten worse over the last few decades in many of those communities.

The overlap of pundits bemoaning the current state of marriage and pundits pushing for a reinvigorated Labor movement is tiny.