Why Is the Pundit Class Suddenly So Marriage-Obsessed?

[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.

No, the consensus is that instead of blaming women for the situation, people should work to fix the underlying issues that make marriage so awful for women. Women *want* to have lifelong partners but not at the expense of everything else good in their lives.

[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.

I can tell you have a very facile understanding of how social safety nets in "Europe" and "Nordic" countries impact women, their salaries, and their job growth.

[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.

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.

[Anonymous]

+1 to dying over consulting David Brooks about this.

I also want to be a fly on the wall when he asks young people about their marriage plans. Is he giving advice? Or shopping?

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

Source?

I’m sorry, but without some sort of quantifiable metrics, I’m going to side with the preponderance of evidence and majority of studies that show two parent households produce better outcomes for children. No one is “vilifying” female led households. If anything, they’re to be lauded. But no, the science does not align with your contention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source?

I’m sorry, but without some sort of quantifiable metrics, I’m going to side with the preponderance of evidence and majority of studies that show two parent households produce better outcomes for children. No one is “vilifying” female led households. If anything, they’re to be lauded. But no, the science does not align with your contention.

Helpful read: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/17/opinion/single-parent-families-income-inequality-college.html

[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.

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.

It's selection bias. Because dysfunctional couples can separate from one another and functional relationships are more likely to remain intact, with two parent households, you're disproportionately seeing the results of kids with functional parents. If we forced dysfunctional couples to stay together, we might see the kids doing worse than they would in a one parent household.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Kids these days and their rock & roll music, amirite?

Get out of here with that generational bullshit.

[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.

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

You don't sound sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I’m sorry, but without some sort of quantifiable metrics, I’m going to side with the preponderance of evidence and majority of studies that show two parent households produce better outcomes for children.

You don't sound sorry.

[Anonymous]

Why do people write about things they don't have experience with themselves?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“White western focus”.

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

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

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

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.

[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.

It's selection bias. Because dysfunctional couples can separate from one another and functional relationships are more likely to remain intact, with two parent households, you're disproportionately seeing the results of kids with functional parents. If we forced dysfunctional couples to stay together, we might see the kids doing worse than they would in a one parent household.

+1