Why Is the Pundit Class Suddenly So Marriage-Obsessed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Writing scoldy articles about marriage makes David Brooks feel better about leaving his wife for his much younger research assistant.

Yup. David Brooks is so NOT the person to push the importance of marriage.

Hard disagree. He liked it so much he did it twice. And who knows, when this RA ages out there may even be a third…

Lol Good point!

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:American men are getting married...in other countries, to women in Thailand, the Philippines, Columbia, Vietnam, etc.

And these women are only marrying them because they are economically disadvantaged. If they weren't they'd never look at them or likely try to leave their home country. Men benefit in a marriage when a woman is pushed to marry them due to socioeconomic needs. You're seeing that once women become educated and can support themselves well financially they become picky and in some cases forgo marriage all together. Even if they want children they can do it on their own now if they so choose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is not a very feminist thing to do to get married to a a man!

Because most feminists don’t have the looks to attract a man.

[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.

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Point to the line in the article where it said that.

I said the editorial board “basically said that,” so you need to use some inferences here. The article said:

“In another era, political or ideological differences might have had less impact on marriage rates. But, increasingly, the political is personal. A 2021 survey of college students found that 71 percent of Democrats would not date someone with opposing views.”

“This mismatch means that someone will need to compromise. As the researchers Lyman Stone and Brad Wilcox have noted, about 1 in 5 young singles will have little choice but to marry someone outside their ideological tribe. The other option is that they decline to get married at all — not an ideal outcome considering the data showing that marriage is good for the health of societies and individuals alike”

The article didn’t say anything about *why* democrats don’t want to marry someone with different ideologies. They didn’t say anything about overturning roe v. Wade, the increasing expectation that women to earn money without accompanying expectations that men will do more childcare and housework, or the way that children—one of the big drivers of marriage—is financially not an option unless both partners have good jobs. They act like compromise is the only way to fix things, and democrats are the weak link.

Also I strongly suspect that the democrats who are willing to compromise on views are mostly men.

[Anonymous]

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.

The research does. This bickering about single parent households isn't helping anyone. Single parent households need more money and help. And marriage lessons to stop doing behaviors of the 3 As and get along better.

[Anonymous]

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.

+1

My parents had a successful traditional marriage and are still in love after 56 years.
Even so, I knew by my early twenties that marriage was a bad deal for women. I'm so glad that younger women are figuring this out.

And it’s bad deal for a man if the woman they marry eventually displays her true colors in a few years and is overly neurotic, critical, hostile, rude, controlling and withholds intimacy for a variety of reasons (such as for control). Or she withholds intimacy because she views it as a special activity reserved only for special occasions and not something that should happen with regular frequency as a normal course of marriage. And that’s even if the man she married does a 50/50 domestic duty split and she doesn’t have a grudge over a perceived imbalance in that area which could cause her resentment and to lose interest in intimacy.

I’m sorry, but the man bashing on here was getting to me. Men can be forced with putting up with a lot in marriage, as well. However, it’s more common that they’re expected to suffer in silence.

I get it. marriage is hard. Gen Z Millennials are already suffering from emotional fragility, as is a stereotypical assumption. Couple that with the social justice movememt and me too and Tik Tok, and with career and money woes and bada bing bada boom here we are…a relatively poor, easily offended, quivering mass of people who would rather be alone or just hang with their buds eating brunch.

[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.

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.

But this argument ignores many assumptions - the hugest being the acceptance of our currently structured society (in terms of child care, caregiving in general, pay inequity, health care and college costs), and another being that children wouldn't have more resources where Mom and Dad can both work and both contribute equally to childcare. Women's careers are hampered by the current structure. Pay gap aside. I know a lot of 2 parent families that are earning $150k/50K, where, with proper societal support, they could be earning 150K/150K. The women are smart and could earn more but are hampered by unevenly split childcare loads.

I'd like to see a comparison between one and two parent families in European countries which have equal parental leave, public or financially supported childcare from age 1, good public schools, a food safety net, universal low cost healthcare and low cost university. That describes many European and Nordic countries.

US society is set up to 1) not pay women equally and 2) not allow or facilitate them to work equally and 3) push women out of the work force to capture women's free or low cost labor in childcare, eldercare and caregiving occupations. No wonder 2 parent families look better.

And the idea that 2 parent families like better is *on average*. There are many families where one parent's dysfunctionality means it is better divorce (abuse, addiction, mental illness, etc.) and raise a child in a healthy home 50% of the time. These divorced families have no support to make up for the one parent's dysfunction.

+1 all of this

[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.

+1

My parents had a successful traditional marriage and are still in love after 56 years.
Even so, I knew by my early twenties that marriage was a bad deal for women. I'm so glad that younger women are figuring this out.

And it’s bad deal for a man if the woman they marry eventually displays her true colors in a few years and is overly neurotic, critical, hostile, rude, controlling and withholds intimacy for a variety of reasons (such as for control). Or she withholds intimacy because she views it as a special activity reserved only for special occasions and not something that should happen with regular frequency as a normal course of marriage. And that’s even if the man she married does a 50/50 domestic duty split and she doesn’t have a grudge over a perceived imbalance in that area which could cause her resentment and to lose interest in intimacy.

I’m sorry, but the man bashing on here was getting to me. Men can be forced with putting up with a lot in marriage, as well. However, it’s more common that they’re expected to suffer in silence.

I get it. marriage is hard. Gen Z Millennials are already suffering from emotional fragility, as is a stereotypical assumption. Couple that with the social justice movememt and me too and Tik Tok, and with career and money woes and bada bing bada boom here we are…a relatively poor, easily offended, quivering mass of people who would rather be alone or just hang with their buds eating brunch.

Women stop having sex when there is no intimacy.

[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.

+1

My parents had a successful traditional marriage and are still in love after 56 years.
Even so, I knew by my early twenties that marriage was a bad deal for women. I'm so glad that younger women are figuring this out.

And it’s bad deal for a man if the woman they marry eventually displays her true colors in a few years and is overly neurotic, critical, hostile, rude, controlling and withholds intimacy for a variety of reasons (such as for control). Or she withholds intimacy because she views it as a special activity reserved only for special occasions and not something that should happen with regular frequency as a normal course of marriage. And that’s even if the man she married does a 50/50 domestic duty split and she doesn’t have a grudge over a perceived imbalance in that area which could cause her resentment and to lose interest in intimacy.

I’m sorry, but the man bashing on here was getting to me. Men can be forced with putting up with a lot in marriage, as well. However, it’s more common that they’re expected to suffer in silence.

I get it. marriage is hard. Gen Z Millennials are already suffering from emotional fragility, as is a stereotypical assumption. Couple that with the social justice movememt and me too and Tik Tok, and with career and money woes and bada bing bada boom here we are…a relatively poor, easily offended, quivering mass of people who would rather be alone or just hang with their buds eating brunch.

Yeah, the fact that some men think that marriage is a bad “deal” for men if sexual frequency drops makes marriage sound even more appealing to unmarried women. Ideally marriage is a partnership based on love, not a transaction wherein one partner’s expected currency is consistent sex no matter how much she wants or doesn’t want it. Men who believe otherwise should definitely stay single! I don’t know what’s wrong with the anti-marriage folks, clearly this is a win-win.

Also, I am a woman who has been married for 15 years, and I definitely don’t hate men or think they’re all jerks. I’m not a bitter single man-hater.

[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.

+1

My parents had a successful traditional marriage and are still in love after 56 years.
Even so, I knew by my early twenties that marriage was a bad deal for women. I'm so glad that younger women are figuring this out.

And it’s bad deal for a man if the woman they marry eventually displays her true colors in a few years and is overly neurotic, critical, hostile, rude, controlling and withholds intimacy for a variety of reasons (such as for control). Or she withholds intimacy because she views it as a special activity reserved only for special occasions and not something that should happen with regular frequency as a normal course of marriage. And that’s even if the man she married does a 50/50 domestic duty split and she doesn’t have a grudge over a perceived imbalance in that area which could cause her resentment and to lose interest in intimacy.

I’m sorry, but the man bashing on here was getting to me. Men can be forced with putting up with a lot in marriage, as well. However, it’s more common that they’re expected to suffer in silence.

I get it. marriage is hard. Gen Z Millennials are already suffering from emotional fragility, as is a stereotypical assumption. Couple that with the social justice movememt and me too and Tik Tok, and with career and money woes and bada bing bada boom here we are…a relatively poor, easily offended, quivering mass of people who would rather be alone or just hang with their buds eating brunch.

Women stop having sex when there is no intimacy.

That’s true. But that’s just one example. There are many more factors at play that can lead women to stop wanting sex. You know that. However, by and large, most generally, it is women that decide to cease sex in marriage first. If they feel “touched out” from kids, that their biological imperative or need for sex has been met because they’ve had kids, or they hold resentment or simply don’t see how vital a need it is in marriage.

[Anonymous]

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.

Daily sex whenever you want is a great benefit for woman. Happiness is within, hope you can find it regardless of whether you are married or not. Maybe next time you will have more emotional and intellectual maturity to chose the partner who will make you recognize all the benefits of the marriage.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.”

Married men live longer and are healthier than single men. The same is not true for married women.

No longer true. Men in unhappy marriages have shorter lifespans than divorced men, and married women outlive single women by a couple of years.