5 ms·

Let's not jump to evolutionary psychology to explain the phenomenon. It's also possible that the woman is just making a rational decision for the well-being of

Let's not jump to evolutionary psychology to explain the phenomenon. It's also possible that the woman is just making a rational decision for the well-being of her children. A single mother who marries a man with low earnings and no real prospect of ever earning more will mean she's scraping by the rest of her life. If she believes she has a realistic chance of marrying someone who earns more, it's logical to continue to play the field.

naasking 10y ago
I don't know what single mothers have to do with any of the discussion here. At best, they're a small subset of the total number of women that would exhibit the described behaviour. Finally, it's pretty sexist to imply that it's justified for the woman to make a rational decision for her children, rather than both parents deserving equal weight in deciding the well-being of their children.
- Pharylon 10y ago
  The article was about women getting married less, even when they had children. So it has everything to do with the discussion. Also, sure, both parents can make decisions for the well-being of the child, but if you're implying that the woman should marry the man if she doesn't want to because he wants to marry her, then you're the one being sexist. The parent to my original reply is invoking evolution to explain why a woman would or wouldn't want someone as a partner. Those arguments always end up being sexist, attributing women's desires not to rational decision making but to whatever desires the man imagines evolution has instilled into the woman.
  - watwut 10y ago
    You know how it goes. Women are emotional and do primary emotions based decisions, until it seems like some subset of women made cold rational decision. At that point, it is all about evolution and genes. Or they are evil. Can't possibly be anything else. /s
    - mirimir 10y ago
      Hey, it's common knowledge that maleness is just a testosterone hack ;)
  - mirimir 10y ago
    Both male and female behavior are driven by natural selection. I mean, how could they not be?
  - phkahler 10y ago
    >> attributing women's desires not to rational decision making but to whatever desires the man imagines evolution has instilled into the woman. You were correct to point out that it is rational self-interest on the part of the woman. My point is that because it makes sense, evolution will have selected for that behavior. It is also present in mammals of lower intelligence than humans, so it seems likely that it's a deeper biological phenomenon that just a "rational decision". Either way, the stuff discussed in the article make perfect sense.
  - naasking 10y ago
    > The article was about women getting married less, even when they had children. Right, so it had nothing to do with being a single mother, and single mothers aren't relevant to this discussion at all. > Also, sure, both parents can make decisions for the well-being of the child, but if you're implying that the woman should marry the man if she doesn't want to because he wants to marry her, then you're the one being sexist. Actually, I'm replying to your implicit assumption that the mother is going to be the caregiver, and so her decisions must be rational because she's just looking after her children's well-being. For instance, see your comment: > A single mother who marries a man with low earnings and no real prospect of ever earning more will mean she's scraping by the rest of her life. Telling that you don't mention that the man isn't scraping by the rest of his life too.
mirimir 10y ago
Well, of course she's "is just making a rational decision for the well-being of her children". I mean, women put their bodies on the line to have children. So it totally makes sense to find a supportive partner. But that's how stuff gets selected for, no?
FT_intern 10y ago
> It's also possible that the woman is just making a rational decision for the well-being of her children. If a single mother cannot provide for her child, she should have made the more rational decision and not have had a child in the first place.
- meric 10y ago
  How about a human who never makes irrational decisions is not really human? Rational != superior. Children happens. The article is saying today's environment where work is available to women as well as reduced stigma of bring single mothers make it more feasible to be one. Therefore it can make sense for some women who have children out of wedlock and continue to look for suitable mate. And we can still say they're doing their part to make sure our society have a next generation.
  - phkahler 10y ago
    >> Therefore it can make sense for some women who have children out of wedlock and continue to look for suitable mate. That is odd. Isn't the proper mate the one that fathered the child? I mean what man is going to care more about the child? What you're really hinting at is AF/BB.
    - meric 10y ago
      Well if you're going to use the lens of AF/BB... Perhaps the woman thought she could lock down the BB with a pregnancy and thought even if she couldn't she could still go it alone....the father could be "AF" or "BB". So I don't think it's to do with AF/BB.
  - FT_intern 10y ago
    > Therefore it can make sense for some women who have children out of wedlock and continue to look for suitable mate. That's the problem really. Making life better for single mothers is unnecessarily increasing the number of children with single parents. It is just treating the symptom. The cause is that mothers who are not ready to raise children bring a pregnancy to term. We can attack this in a two ways: 1. Planned parenthood campaigns that make potential mothers believe that they will not be able to handle adulthood 2. Stigmatizing single motherhood What about the children? The socialized care is already there for them so these incentives shouldn't affect them much.

naasking 10y ago

I don't know what single mothers have to do with any of the discussion here. At best, they're a small subset of the total number of women that would exhibit the described behaviour. Finally, it's pretty sexist to imply that it's justified for the woman to make a rational decision for her children, rather than both parents deserving equal weight in deciding the well-being of their children.

Pharylon 10y ago
The article was about women getting married less, even when they had children. So it has everything to do with the discussion. Also, sure, both parents can make decisions for the well-being of the child, but if you're implying that the woman should marry the man if she doesn't want to because he wants to marry her, then you're the one being sexist. The parent to my original reply is invoking evolution to explain why a woman would or wouldn't want someone as a partner. Those arguments always end up being sexist, attributing women's desires not to rational decision making but to whatever desires the man imagines evolution has instilled into the woman.
- watwut 10y ago
  You know how it goes. Women are emotional and do primary emotions based decisions, until it seems like some subset of women made cold rational decision. At that point, it is all about evolution and genes. Or they are evil. Can't possibly be anything else. /s
  - mirimir 10y ago
    Hey, it's common knowledge that maleness is just a testosterone hack ;)
- mirimir 10y ago
  Both male and female behavior are driven by natural selection. I mean, how could they not be?
- phkahler 10y ago
  >> attributing women's desires not to rational decision making but to whatever desires the man imagines evolution has instilled into the woman. You were correct to point out that it is rational self-interest on the part of the woman. My point is that because it makes sense, evolution will have selected for that behavior. It is also present in mammals of lower intelligence than humans, so it seems likely that it's a deeper biological phenomenon that just a "rational decision". Either way, the stuff discussed in the article make perfect sense.
- naasking 10y ago
  > The article was about women getting married less, even when they had children. Right, so it had nothing to do with being a single mother, and single mothers aren't relevant to this discussion at all. > Also, sure, both parents can make decisions for the well-being of the child, but if you're implying that the woman should marry the man if she doesn't want to because he wants to marry her, then you're the one being sexist. Actually, I'm replying to your implicit assumption that the mother is going to be the caregiver, and so her decisions must be rational because she's just looking after her children's well-being. For instance, see your comment: > A single mother who marries a man with low earnings and no real prospect of ever earning more will mean she's scraping by the rest of her life. Telling that you don't mention that the man isn't scraping by the rest of his life too.

mirimir 10y ago

Well, of course she's "is just making a rational decision for the well-being of her children". I mean, women put their bodies on the line to have children. So it totally makes sense to find a supportive partner. But that's how stuff gets selected for, no?

FT_intern 10y ago

> It's also possible that the woman is just making a rational decision for the well-being of her children. If a single mother cannot provide for her child, she should have made the more rational decision and not have had a child in the first place.

meric 10y ago
How about a human who never makes irrational decisions is not really human? Rational != superior. Children happens. The article is saying today's environment where work is available to women as well as reduced stigma of bring single mothers make it more feasible to be one. Therefore it can make sense for some women who have children out of wedlock and continue to look for suitable mate. And we can still say they're doing their part to make sure our society have a next generation.
- phkahler 10y ago
  >> Therefore it can make sense for some women who have children out of wedlock and continue to look for suitable mate. That is odd. Isn't the proper mate the one that fathered the child? I mean what man is going to care more about the child? What you're really hinting at is AF/BB.
  - meric 10y ago
    Well if you're going to use the lens of AF/BB... Perhaps the woman thought she could lock down the BB with a pregnancy and thought even if she couldn't she could still go it alone....the father could be "AF" or "BB". So I don't think it's to do with AF/BB.
- FT_intern 10y ago
  > Therefore it can make sense for some women who have children out of wedlock and continue to look for suitable mate. That's the problem really. Making life better for single mothers is unnecessarily increasing the number of children with single parents. It is just treating the symptom. The cause is that mothers who are not ready to raise children bring a pregnancy to term. We can attack this in a two ways: 1. Planned parenthood campaigns that make potential mothers believe that they will not be able to handle adulthood 2. Stigmatizing single motherhood What about the children? The socialized care is already there for them so these incentives shouldn't affect them much.