5 ms·
The article completely avoided talking about the elephant in the room: Family law. If I sire children in the state of California, BATNA for figuring out how to
by ThrustVectoring 9y ago
The article completely avoided talking about the elephant in the room: Family law. If I sire children in the state of California, BATNA for figuring out how to make our lives work together is "I get the state to take half a million dollars from you in spousal and child support".
This is a huge ask for trust. It's something that I will flat out not consider unless I've known someone for at least four years. And guess what? If this is the timeline it takes to build the trust necessary for starting a family, then 22 year old women are two failed relationships away from being single in their thirties.
Much like how it is the retail consumer that pays sales tax, it's young women that pay for the increased levels of trust required for starting a family. Men can wait, and are under almost negative time pressure. Like, if I have a long enough time horizon, I'm probably better off working until I'm 50, saving up $3M or so, moving somewhere with sane family law, and then trying to make a family work with a significantly younger woman.
- koolba 9y agoAnd if you do that last part right, you end up with someone that will be more able (because she's younger) to take care of you when you're older as well.
- ThrustVectoring 9y agoIt's a good deal for everyone, save for the 22 year old guys who are now involuntarily single, and frustrated at their inability to successfully date their peers and start a family. No seriously. If this is the future of the family, there will be widespread rioting and civil unrest. Perhaps the only saving grace is that the 22 year old men can pass the time to their 50s by sleeping with the women who age out of the "marry a richer older guy" cohort.
- toomuchtodo 9y agoThere is no longer any benefit to commitment for that cohort; life is pretty good as is (compared to committing to a partner, a home, children, when economic uncertainty is around every corner). http://www.phillymag.com/articles/the-sorry-lives-and-confusing-times-of-today-s-young-men/ http://www.phillymag.com/articles/the-sorry-lives-and-confus... Young men got a bad hand and are playing it the best they can. Are they frustrated? I think it's more being resigned.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- gweinberg 9y agoThe math isn't quite right, because success may take 4 years, but failure usually comes much faster.
- igammarays 9y agoI think you're absolutely right about one thing: that the level of trust we've come to require for marriage has skyrocketed due to family law, but what's the alternative? Sire children and leave the the burden on women? Furthermore, it's simply crazy to think that you require 4 years to know if you can trust someone. Evidence actually seems to suggest the contrary: longer pre-marriage dating periods are associated with higher divorce rates. Anyway I think it's a mistake to assume that you "know someone" after 4 years or even after 40. People are not static beings, and there's no reason to expect that the longer time you spend with them, the less risky of a choice it will be. In fact that extended period of indecision may actually contribute to eroding trust. And so, as the article seems to argue, the problem is that men are not willing to "be the man", trust themselves and their partner, and embark on a family project with a firm resolve to stay loyal and make things work no matter what.
- snvzz 9y ago>be the man, trust yourself and your partner, make things work no matter that. You're telling us to man up and play russian roulette with 5/6 holes populated. Except that would actually be a nice proposal, when put against family law and divorce rates.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- sunstone 9y agoFamily law in the five eyes is a racket.
- ravenstine 9y agoThere's also birth control. In theory, condoms are ~98% effective, but in reality that figure is much lower due to improper usage. That also doesn't take into account the number of times couples say "just the tip". But birth control gave women the option to spend decades not having to worry about finding men who are husband/father material. I'm not saying that's a bad thing at all, in fact I would prefer that women have this option than go back to a pre-birth control age. But an unintentional effect is that women may be less desperate to settle down until a certain age when reality begins to hit. Frankly speaking, women and men also need each other far less than they used to on a practical level. Automation allows for men and women to exist separately from each other and live comfortably; as a man who doesn't have a girlfriend, I have been doing all the chores, shopping, cooking, and cleaning on my own without breaking much of a sweat. Again, this is a great thing and I wouldn't want to give up the kind of automation that both men and women benefit from, but yet again, it's far less of a reason to get married and have kids at a younger age. If you don't have to compromise fun for practical utility, that's way less pressure to "settle down".
- dgudkov 9y ago>women and men also need each other far less than they used to on a practical level In my naive, rosy understanding of the world practicality has never been the main driver of establishing a relationship, but rather a nice-to-have side effect. No automation can replace a meaningful romantic relationship, and we're still social animals that need more than Facebook friends. And no, settling down is not the only reason to find someone.
- mcphage 9y ago> I get the state to take half a million dollars from you in spousal and child support If you have children, then yes—you do need to pay for them.