Why Is the Pundit Class Suddenly So Marriage-Obsessed?

[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.

Economist here and I have to agree that that link between correlation and causation is very clear here.

economists such as yourself NEVER have solutions. All you guys do is talk, discuss and analyze problems.


Marriage is not the panacea you guys make it out to be.

[Anonymous]

Pundits promote marriage because most poverty is self-inflicted by dropouts, criminals, drug addicts, and "aspiring rappers". Children are innocent victims. The word "bastard" became an epithet because children of two-parent families are better for society.

Meanwhile, DCUM's view men as undatable losers if they make less than $150K, but support handouts to single moms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pundits promote marriage because most poverty is self-inflicted by dropouts, criminals, drug addicts, and "aspiring rappers". Children are innocent victims. The word "bastard" became an epithet because children of two-parent families are better for society.

Meanwhile, DCUM's view men as undatable losers if they make less than $150K, but support handouts to single moms.

"Bastard" was more of a property issue. Early users of the word weren't noted for their tender feelings toward children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Thanks for adding nothing of value to the discussion. There are clear commonalities among Gen Z and millennials. Such as they are more tech savvy, but have a higher rate of mental illness, or are quick to wear mental health on their sleeve, they are eschewing marriage at higher rates, they’re more difficult work with in the workplace, or finnicky in that sense (check the studies from employers) and they switch jobs much more quickly. But maybe you’re just an easily offended Gen Zer yourself and would rather shut down a convo than engage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m not sorry. I’m right.

[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.

Yeah, no.

Legitimate studies show that two parent (or more!) households are better than single mother households.
Be it gay or straight couples raising kids.

And yeah I get “it takes a village “ is also beneficial. So places like India or Italy, or Mexico where there are tight knit larger families close together that’s good for kids.

But no, I’m sorry to say, the majority of crime in DC, or around the country, is caused by kids who did not come from two parent households. Read the statistics. And not the stats coming from “upstairs Hollywood Social work degree college” that you’re reading.

[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.

Yeah, no.

Legitimate studies show that two parent (or more!) households are better than single mother households.
Be it gay or straight couples raising kids.

And yeah I get “it takes a village “ is also beneficial. So places like India or Italy, or Mexico where there are tight knit larger families close together that’s good for kids.

But no, I’m sorry to say, the majority of crime in DC, or around the country, is caused by kids who did not come from two parent households. Read the statistics. And not the stats coming from “upstairs Hollywood Social work degree college” that you’re reading.

This is not from some “white western focused” Christian backed group:

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/single-parent-families-cause-juvenile-crime-juvenile-crime-opposing

You so want to distort reality with an inaccurate narrative and it just won’t fly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pundits promote marriage because most poverty is self-inflicted by dropouts, criminals, drug addicts, and "aspiring rappers". Children are innocent victims. The word "bastard" became an epithet because children of two-parent families are better for society.

Meanwhile, DCUM's view men as undatable losers if they make less than $150K, but support handouts to single moms.

I thought that you were being sarcastic until I read your last sentence.
Why is someone an innocent victim only until they turn 18?
And aren’t dropouts actually still children? Are those children still victims, or are they self-inflicting poverty on themselves and future generations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Thanks for adding nothing of value to the discussion. There are clear commonalities among Gen Z and millennials. Such as they are more tech savvy, but have a higher rate of mental illness, or are quick to wear mental health on their sleeve, they are eschewing marriage at higher rates, they’re more difficult work with in the workplace, or finnicky in that sense (check the studies from employers) and they switch jobs much more quickly. But maybe you’re just an easily offended Gen Zer yourself and would rather shut down a convo than engage.

I'm GenX and have seen successive generations bemoaning the state of younger people and how they're softer, lazier, and less morally upright than the generations that came before. It's as if humanity has been declined since Adam & Eve got kicked out of Eden. And yet, somehow, the historical condition of humans was worse than it is now for just about everyone at any other time or place you'd care to mention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m not sorry. I’m right.

You said you were sorry. Liar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But no, I’m sorry to say, the majority of crime in DC, or around the country, is caused by kids who did not come from two parent households.

I'm repeating myself (but so are you) - you don't sound sorry to say it.

[Anonymous]

One of the pundints who is so marriage-obsessed, Brad Wilcox, also consults Proctor and Gamble, Nestle, and other companies on marriage and fertility trends.

Which reminds me that I think it's so creepy that these giant corporations are pushing for women to get married and have babies so that the corporations can get more money.

[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.

Economist here and I have to agree that that link between correlation and causation is very clear here.

Psychiatrist here, and I agree.
It’s kind of baffling to me that someone can acknowledge that the way children grow up has a profound effect on their adult lives and then, at the same time, say that adults have total and complete agency over their lives.

Those things can not possibly both be true. It’s illogical.

[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.

There are serious correlation/causation questions that need to be answered before this tells us very much that we can use.

NP - No, there aren’t. No one reasonable disagrees that children fare better when there are more resources (attention (since neither mommy or daddy is dating other unrelated parties), money (since only paying for 1 household) etc.) going towards their care.

Economist here and I have to agree that that link between correlation and causation is very clear here.

Psychiatrist here, and I agree.
It’s kind of baffling to me that someone can acknowledge that the way children grow up has a profound effect on their adult lives and then, at the same time, say that adults have total and complete agency over their lives.

Those things can not possibly both be true. It’s illogical.

You can't seriously be suggesting that a child in a dysfunctional two parent household is better off than a child raised by a functional single parent.

[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.

There are serious correlation/causation questions that need to be answered before this tells us very much that we can use.

NP - No, there aren’t. No one reasonable disagrees that children fare better when there are more resources (attention (since neither mommy or daddy is dating other unrelated parties), money (since only paying for 1 household) etc.) going towards their care.

Economist here and I have to agree that that link between correlation and causation is very clear here.

Psychiatrist here, and I agree.
It’s kind of baffling to me that someone can acknowledge that the way children grow up has a profound effect on their adult lives and then, at the same time, say that adults have total and complete agency over their lives.

Those things can not possibly both be true. It’s illogical.

You can't seriously be suggesting that a child in a dysfunctional two parent household is better off than a child raised by a functional single parent.

THey arent. they just refuse to discuss failed marriages because marriage is apparently a super powered force.
"The overwhelming evidence from the psychologists that study these issues shows that bad marriages — unstable marriages — are often much worse for kids than stable single-person families. Now, Kearney will tell you that it’s because single-parent families can never make quite enough money, but my God, we spent hundreds of millions of dollars promoting marriage and to null effect. Maybe we should spend it giving families the money they need to raise their children in secure ways."
- from the article

The institution of marriage does not matter. Its the people who get married who make successful marriages successful. And you cant get successful non-traumatized stable people just from keeping previous generations married. You need children to grow up in stable environments to be stable adults and you arent going to get that from just encouraging the institution of marriage.

Arguing about whether marriage is positive isnt the issue. We need to stop obsessing about the marriage institution and start putting real emphasis on economic policies that help children.