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.

Anonymous wrote:Why?

Because there is no sense of community or cohesion in America. Marriage, religion, same sports, spirituality use to provide that and numbers of that have been dwindling. There are only bubbles and enclaves now.

Ugh, so glad I don't have to try and be this person trying to fit in with people in everything you listed (another type of bubble and enclave). Married a long time but I know it's not for everyone.

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…

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.

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.

You mean "anti-abortion"?

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.

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.

Ding ding ding!

+1
Fits right in with the anti-abortion movement.

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.

Why?

Because there is no sense of community or cohesion in America. Marriage, religion, same sports, spirituality use to provide that and numbers of that have been dwindling. There are only bubbles and enclaves now.

Agree! Such a hypocrite!

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

He is so gross.

This just in. American society has changed significantly over the last 60 years and will be not be going back to the imagined 1950s. Ward and June Cleaver were not real people.

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?

Ding, ding, ding. Winner here. It is easier and less expensive to pressure women into marriage than to actually pay for childcare from 0-5, make jobs more flexible, get men to do their fair share of parenting and housework, equalize pay, give social security credits for caregiving, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Hahaha I love this answer.

And it's so true!!

Cut to the chase! Fewer marriages and a declining birth rate will result in a population decline like Japan and Italy where economic growth is dead. With an aging population fewer young people entering the workforce is a real problem.