Why Is the Pundit Class Suddenly So Marriage-Obsessed?

[Anonymous]

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."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Thinking in sort of economic terms, conservative pundits want to externalize the costs of domestic benefits for men and children onto women.

[Anonymous]

The discussion about what kind of family structure is best for kids isn't as relevant as it would have been a generation or two ago, because far fewer people are going to have kids. They are concerned about the environment and also financial stability, but also seeing women suffer by trying to do it all.

I am married with kids and while my life is great, I think a lot of that is luck and I wouldn't unequivocally recommend either to an unmarried woman.

[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.

Yes but the main factions living that out (cohesive two parent households) are the Jewish and Catholic communities, across all SES.

In non religious affiliated and WASP communities are the lack of marriage or the rampant divorces or abandonments. And yes, more prevalent with low SES, black or white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The discussion about what kind of family structure is best for kids isn't as relevant as it would have been a generation or two ago, because far fewer people are going to have kids. They are concerned about the environment and also financial stability, but also seeing women suffer by trying to do it all.

I am married with kids and while my life is great, I think a lot of that is luck and I wouldn't unequivocally recommend either to an unmarried woman.

Agree. Need eyes wide open to have kids nowadays AND ideally high income.
At minimum raising kids will break your marriage and self of self if you have a work addict or misogynist husband. Hiring nanny or after school care or cleaning help can only replace a partner so much. You’ll be working 15 hour days between office work and family/kid obligations (meals, homework, ECs, driving, appts, social stuff).

I hope I can be there geographically if any of my daughters choose to marry and have kids. My parents have been lifesavers for flying in on crazy weeks or work travel or defunct husband times.

Who knows WTF he thinks, if he thinks at all.

[Anonymous]

PS only have daughters

PPS my parents also fly in to help my brothers family when he has crazy travel. And they have double the kids as us.

My parents are pushing 80 now so I’m keeping an eye on them; they seem very happy and had a stellar marriage, great comms, and are enjoying their retirement and travel and visits.

[Anonymous]

People with normal libido have no other choice but to get married. Living in sin is not an option

[Anonymous]

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

"Feminist" doesn't mean what you think it means. Hint - it's about respecting choice, not forced/pressured compliance based on gender.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Weve already had this discussion on this board about this and I recognize your post and statements. We should be focusing on children and outcomes not marriage counseling. This pro marriage stuff is coming out because we are at a cliff when it comes to childrearing and America hates children- in every political action possible, there is no covering up that all policies are anti-children. https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/parenting/why-america-hates-its-children/ar-AA1mzVYn?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=ACTS&cvid=4e808f8bd62244eb85c5704298306a4d&ei=11


"America's rampant child neglect doesn't stop with its lack of day care. Infants are more likely to die in childbirth in America than in any other rich nation, and US newborns are more likely to grow up in poverty. Millions of children attend public schools that are literally falling apart. Children who are neglected — a loose term inextricably tied to poverty — are thrown into a foster-care system known for its propensity to harm children. The shortage of foster families is so critical that many kids wind up being temporarily housed in settings like casinos, office buildings, and juvenile detention facilities. The US is the only member of the United Nations that hasn't ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which includes the right to be free from violence and labor exploitation. In Oregon, where I live, children as young as 9 are allowed to do agricultural work, and many states are trying to loosen their already flimsy child-labor protections so teenagers can be forced to work longer hours. The leading cause of death for American children and teens is gun violence."

Marriage is an easy selling point as a solution but its false and reinforces isolationist approaches to national issues. As if the child care crisis is only for single parents (its not) or that foster kids only come from single parents (not true) or that only single parents allow their young children to work (not true).

The first interview even alludes to this
"marriage has evolved from pretty purely an economic institution to a social institution, a cultural institution, a theoretical joining of soulmates with all that implies. .....Marriage used to be the only game in town. You could not get access to legal rights without marriage. Most women could not support themselves outside of marriage. Most men could not work a full-time job and get their meals made and their house cleaned, and any children they had raised outside of marriage were not protected"

In the absence of providing any real economic changes the pundit class is resorting to marriage - an easy scapegoat.

[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.

Yes but the main factions living that out (cohesive two parent households) are the Jewish and Catholic communities, across all SES.

In non religious affiliated and WASP communities are the lack of marriage or the rampant divorces or abandonments. And yes, more prevalent with low SES, black or white.

Catholic divorce rate is only low compared to Protestants and Evangelicals.

And since religion and marriage are tightly connected, there is a large pressure for divorced people to be classified in less organized religions. Among Protestants, generic non-sect Christians have far higher divorce rates than major Protestant sects or Catholicism.

Evangelicals and Born Agains -- people whose religion isn't mainly their ethnic family history -- have very high divorce rates, for obvious reasons.

https://www.lovetoknow.com/life/relationships/divorce-statistics-by-religion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the editorial in the Washington post ... 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?

The Washington Post is supposed to be a newspaper, not a liberal magazine.

I don't know which editorial you meant. This one? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/22/marriage-polarization-dating-trump/

David Brooks' first marriage lasted 27 years. His first wife converted to Judaism, then he divorced and converted to Christianity the same year. LOL.

[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.

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.

Weve already had this discussion on this board about this and I recognize your post and statements. We should be focusing on children and outcomes not marriage counseling. This pro marriage stuff is coming out because we are at a cliff when it comes to childrearing and America hates children- in every political action possible, there is no covering up that all policies are anti-children. https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/parenting/why-america-hates-its-children/ar-AA1mzVYn?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=ACTS&cvid=4e808f8bd62244eb85c5704298306a4d&ei=11


"America's rampant child neglect doesn't stop with its lack of day care. Infants are more likely to die in childbirth in America than in any other rich nation, and US newborns are more likely to grow up in poverty. Millions of children attend public schools that are literally falling apart. Children who are neglected — a loose term inextricably tied to poverty — are thrown into a foster-care system known for its propensity to harm children. The shortage of foster families is so critical that many kids wind up being temporarily housed in settings like casinos, office buildings, and juvenile detention facilities. The US is the only member of the United Nations that hasn't ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which includes the right to be free from violence and labor exploitation. In Oregon, where I live, children as young as 9 are allowed to do agricultural work, and many states are trying to loosen their already flimsy child-labor protections so teenagers can be forced to work longer hours. The leading cause of death for American children and teens is gun violence."

Marriage is an easy selling point as a solution but its false and reinforces isolationist approaches to national issues. As if the child care crisis is only for single parents (its not) or that foster kids only come from single parents (not true) or that only single parents allow their young children to work (not true).

The first interview even alludes to this
"marriage has evolved from pretty purely an economic institution to a social institution, a cultural institution, a theoretical joining of soulmates with all that implies. .....Marriage used to be the only game in town. You could not get access to legal rights without marriage. Most women could not support themselves outside of marriage. Most men could not work a full-time job and get their meals made and their house cleaned, and any children they had raised outside of marriage were not protected"

In the absence of providing any real economic changes the pundit class is resorting to marriage - an easy scapegoat.

Well I'm glad to hear that all the children outside the US working in cobalt mines and cocoa farms and textile sweatshops around the world are protected by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The same reasons so many white supposedly “Christian “ men are pro-abortion. It’s striking how few pro-marriage people focus on the actual quality of the marriages, or even family-friendly economic and social policies that might make marriage a better option for more people.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The key point is a good one-- conservatives simply aren't willing to implement, and pay for, any of the interventions they support. So the whole discussion is in bad faith.

[phone]

[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.

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.

Weve already had this discussion on this board about this and I recognize your post and statements. We should be focusing on children and outcomes not marriage counseling. This pro marriage stuff is coming out because we are at a cliff when it comes to childrearing and America hates children- in every political action possible, there is no covering up that all policies are anti-children. https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/parenting/why-america-hates-its-children/ar-AA1mzVYn?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=ACTS&cvid=4e808f8bd62244eb85c5704298306a4d&ei=11


"America's rampant child neglect doesn't stop with its lack of day care. Infants are more likely to die in childbirth in America than in any other rich nation, and US newborns are more likely to grow up in poverty. Millions of children attend public schools that are literally falling apart. Children who are neglected — a loose term inextricably tied to poverty — are thrown into a foster-care system known for its propensity to harm children. The shortage of foster families is so critical that many kids wind up being temporarily housed in settings like casinos, office buildings, and juvenile detention facilities. The US is the only member of the United Nations that hasn't ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which includes the right to be free from violence and labor exploitation. In Oregon, where I live, children as young as 9 are allowed to do agricultural work, and many states are trying to loosen their already flimsy child-labor protections so teenagers can be forced to work longer hours. The leading cause of death for American children and teens is gun violence."

Marriage is an easy selling point as a solution but its false and reinforces isolationist approaches to national issues. As if the child care crisis is only for single parents (its not) or that foster kids only come from single parents (not true) or that only single parents allow their young children to work (not true).

The first interview even alludes to this
"marriage has evolved from pretty purely an economic institution to a social institution, a cultural institution, a theoretical joining of soulmates with all that implies. .....Marriage used to be the only game in town. You could not get access to legal rights without marriage. Most women could not support themselves outside of marriage. Most men could not work a full-time job and get their meals made and their house cleaned, and any children they had raised outside of marriage were not protected"

In the absence of providing any real economic changes the pundit class is resorting to marriage - an easy scapegoat.

Well I'm glad to hear that all the children outside the US working in cobalt mines and cocoa farms and textile sweatshops around the world are protected by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

oh f875 off. if thats who we are comparing oursevles to then weve lost the plot.