Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of young single grandmothers and aunties raise their grandchildren with single mothers. That’s common in some circles.

This shifts the responsibilities of men (the father) even more squarely onto the shoulders of even more women than just the mother. This is not sustainable for a healthy culture.

It also creates a self-fulfilling cycle of male irresponsibility—Disengaged, low-investment, irresponsible men leave women alone with kids who raise disengaged, irresponsible boys, who grow up into disengaged, irresponsible men that women leave, etc etc. Look at cultural circles where this is de facto the case: their outcomes are abysmal.

We saw evidence of this in the precipitous drop in crime rates in the 90s. Post-Roe v. Wade, women who weren't in a position to raise children well were more likely to get abortions. That led to fewer damaged, irresponsible boys and, therefore, lower crime rates. We should reinstate Roe.

I disagree—all the millenial women complaining presently got married to loser manchildren who were not aborted after Roe. It’s the product of a decimation of moral virtue and cultural values, which is what the pundits are ostensibly trying to restore.

Anonymous wrote:I am happily married but in my opinion marriage among the younger millennials and generation Z will not work for many reasons. The first being the inability to compromise. And the second the unrealistic expectations you have from your partner. And finally, divorce has been trivialized so much that people egg you to divorce as soon as things are not working out. There an ingrained belief today that the grass is “permanently” green on the other side. Also women have achieved so much on their own and to convince them that they need a husband is not a trivial task. The truth is 20 years from now, at least in the United States, I can honestly see marriage rate dropping by half compared to today.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are two points getting conflated here that are addressed somewhat in the Politico article. One point is that the people who are dysfunctional or not at all inclined to support a family (e.g., drug addicts, the chronically unemployed by choice) are not the ones who the experts think should be marrying. They shouldn't be having kids, but that's a different issue. We are talking about encouraging people who are otherwise functional people to get married.

The second point is that we should take steps as a society to make it easier to stay married and raise children. There is a LOT of disagreement about what those policies are or even what the policy considerations should be. But no one is suggesting that there are not likely policy solutions to the question of why people don't want to get or stay married.

But if you look at all those studies closely, there are no controls for being functional. That’s the whole point - they compare married couples vs single parents and ignoring the huge selection bias. There is a big difference between a woman who decided to become a single mother by choice and used a sperm donor vs a woman who ended up parenting single because the father is not good for anything.

Anonymous wrote:There are two points getting conflated here that are addressed somewhat in the Politico article. One point is that the people who are dysfunctional or not at all inclined to support a family (e.g., drug addicts, the chronically unemployed by choice) are not the ones who the experts think should be marrying. They shouldn't be having kids, but that's a different issue. We are talking about encouraging people who are otherwise functional people to get married.

The second point is that we should take steps as a society to make it easier to stay married and raise children. There is a LOT of disagreement about what those policies are or even what the policy considerations should be. But no one is suggesting that there are not likely policy solutions to the question of why people don't want to get or stay married.

Anonymous wrote:Marriages have declined by 60% since the 1970s in the United States

Anonymous wrote:

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

Remember when he did an IG Live and had to shut it down because everyone kept writing "If you hate millennials so much, why did you marry one" in the chat?

Anonymous wrote:I am happily married but in my opinion marriage among the younger millennials and generation Z will not work for many reasons. The first being the inability to compromise. And the second the unrealistic expectations you have from your partner. And finally, divorce has been trivialized so much that people egg you to divorce as soon as things are not working out. There an ingrained belief today that the grass is “permanently” green on the other side. Also women have achieved so much on their own and to convince them that they need a husband is not a trivial task. The truth is 20 years from now, at least in the United States, I can honestly see marriage rate dropping by half compared to today.

Anonymous wrote:There are two points getting conflated here that are addressed somewhat in the Politico article. One point is that the people who are dysfunctional or not at all inclined to support a family (e.g., drug addicts, the chronically unemployed by choice) are not the ones who the experts think should be marrying. They shouldn't be having kids, but that's a different issue. We are talking about encouraging people who are otherwise functional people to get married.

The second point is that we should take steps as a society to make it easier to stay married and raise children. There is a LOT of disagreement about what those policies are or even what the policy considerations should be. But no one is suggesting that there are not likely policy solutions to the question of why people don't want to get or stay married.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of young single grandmothers and aunties raise their grandchildren with single mothers. That’s common in some circles.

This shifts the responsibilities of men (the father) even more squarely onto the shoulders of even more women than just the mother. This is not sustainable for a healthy culture.

It also creates a self-fulfilling cycle of male irresponsibility—Disengaged, low-investment, irresponsible men leave women alone with kids who raise disengaged, irresponsible boys, who grow up into disengaged, irresponsible men that women leave, etc etc. Look at cultural circles where this is de facto the case: their outcomes are abysmal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of young single grandmothers and aunties raise their grandchildren with single mothers. That’s common in some circles.

And in general, on average, outcomes for these children are worse than in the average two-parent household.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of young single grandmothers and aunties raise their grandchildren with single mothers. That’s common in some circles.

This shifts the responsibilities of men (the father) even more squarely onto the shoulders of even more women than just the mother. This is not sustainable for a healthy culture.

It also creates a self-fulfilling cycle of male irresponsibility—Disengaged, low-investment, irresponsible men leave women alone with kids who raise disengaged, irresponsible boys, who grow up into disengaged, irresponsible men that women leave, etc etc. Look at cultural circles where this is de facto the case: their outcomes are abysmal.

We saw evidence of this in the precipitous drop in crime rates in the 90s. Post-Roe v. Wade, women who weren't in a position to raise children well were more likely to get abortions. That led to fewer damaged, irresponsible boys and, therefore, lower crime rates. We should reinstate Roe.

I disagree—all the millenial women complaining presently got married to loser manchildren who were not aborted after Roe. It’s the product of a decimation of moral virtue and cultural values, which is what the pundits are ostensibly trying to restore.

The past was, more or less, a moral hell hole. Just look at how we treated gay people until very recently.

It's not so black and white. Yes as to the treatment of gay people. But in the past, it was, for example, much easier to support a family on one relatively low income. It was easier to pay for housing, medical care (even though it was inferior in many ways), and education. People tended to be more connected to their communities because it was where they were raised, so they had families, friends, churches, and other charitable organizations willing and able to help. Society has become, in many ways, much more cruel generally even as we moreso recognize that it is wrong to mistreat people based on sexual orientation, gender, race, etc.