6 ms·

In the US, this is the first generation where economical equals are marrying each other Basically the idea of a man with stability marrying a woman who is seek

In the US, this is the first generation where economical equals are marrying each other Basically the idea of a man with stability marrying a woman who is seeking stability is now false, replaced by two upper middle class college educated people that are prospering in their careers Therefore, the new progressive and self aware observation is how this increases inequality much greater than the previous iteration of inequality (where women weren’t in university or the professional workforce). Ironic, but worth paying attention to. I find it interesting to think about. Marrying into wealth/stability is now a less reliable option despite our cultural predilections and assumptions not really catching up.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
wegs2 6y ago
There is a whole slew of problems. 1) There is still an expectation women will marry up, and men will marry down, in terms of income potential. If the woman is a little bit ahead, it's okay, but e.g. a doctor marrying a nurse is perceived as acceptable in one direction, but taboo in the other. This means there is a growing shortage of mates for men at the bottom of the socioeconomic heap, and increasingly, women at the top (unless college-age and pretty). 2) Overlapping and poorly-defined roles make for a lot more conflict in marriages. 3) Divorce laws vary by states, but in the most liberal states, tend to be punitive towards men; the de facto standard is women get the kids, and men pay (massive, debilitating) child support. At the same time, the legal industry works hard to increase divorce rates. With half of marriages ending in divorce, this leads to all sorts of misaligned incentives and imbalances which are taboo to talk about, but interplay in complex ways. Marrying down is now a huge liability. 4) And, as you pointed out, social classes are much more likely to calcify. We kind of got to where we are randomly, without thought or planning. We had a bad system (women were oppressed), and we pushed hard against it. It snapped. We landed somewhere pretty random and still pretty dysfunctional; just dysfunctional in other ways.
- vmception 6y ago
  Yeah, misaligned incentives galore It will take collaboration between genders to reconcile Right now it is convenient for misandrists to just laugh at the concept of men complaining, and never even noticing that misandry is a character flaw - let alone a word this all exacerbates the reality
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- jokethrowaway 6y ago
  As a man, I simply refused to to marry. It's just a legal contract which is potentially life destroying for me. Still, I have a pretty traditional family without the titles: only one of us is working and it makes sense for both of us. This is likely going to change when kids are bigger and we have more time, but at the same time, we're close to not be in full time employment for someone else. We will likely work in our own business because we enjoy doing it, more than for the money we make. I think what's important, in today's society, is to not be career driven. Corporations chew you, you end up wasting your life and your family is unstable because there's no one home for the kids. Equal working opportunity for both genders are great, but feminism preached being career driven too much. Society adapted to having two working parents per family, wages stagnated while prices increased thanks to double the workers available and thanks to double purchasing power. Divorces and single parenting, unstable families are what created this problematic generation. Now we pay the price.
  - welfareanyone 6y ago
    Nobody's even going to mention the effect of welfare here, either, which subsidizes single motherhood and each additional child out of wedlock? Or the effect that this has had especially on the families of minorities?
    - jokethrowaway 6y ago
      Thomas Sowell does. Unfortunately, it doesn't fit with the narrative of more welfare, more taxes which allows both parties to increase government spending and gain even more power.
strikelaserclaw 6y ago
Your point is far more interesting than the content of the article itself. If nature and nurture underlies intelligence, it would be easy to reason that we will have a lot more intelligence inequality in the future than in other points in history.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

wegs2 6y ago

There is a whole slew of problems. 1) There is still an expectation women will marry up, and men will marry down, in terms of income potential. If the woman is a little bit ahead, it's okay, but e.g. a doctor marrying a nurse is perceived as acceptable in one direction, but taboo in the other. This means there is a growing shortage of mates for men at the bottom of the socioeconomic heap, and increasingly, women at the top (unless college-age and pretty). 2) Overlapping and poorly-defined roles make for a lot more conflict in marriages. 3) Divorce laws vary by states, but in the most liberal states, tend to be punitive towards men; the de facto standard is women get the kids, and men pay (massive, debilitating) child support. At the same time, the legal industry works hard to increase divorce rates. With half of marriages ending in divorce, this leads to all sorts of misaligned incentives and imbalances which are taboo to talk about, but interplay in complex ways. Marrying down is now a huge liability. 4) And, as you pointed out, social classes are much more likely to calcify. We kind of got to where we are randomly, without thought or planning. We had a bad system (women were oppressed), and we pushed hard against it. It snapped. We landed somewhere pretty random and still pretty dysfunctional; just dysfunctional in other ways.

vmception 6y ago
Yeah, misaligned incentives galore It will take collaboration between genders to reconcile Right now it is convenient for misandrists to just laugh at the concept of men complaining, and never even noticing that misandry is a character flaw - let alone a word this all exacerbates the reality
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
jokethrowaway 6y ago
As a man, I simply refused to to marry. It's just a legal contract which is potentially life destroying for me. Still, I have a pretty traditional family without the titles: only one of us is working and it makes sense for both of us. This is likely going to change when kids are bigger and we have more time, but at the same time, we're close to not be in full time employment for someone else. We will likely work in our own business because we enjoy doing it, more than for the money we make. I think what's important, in today's society, is to not be career driven. Corporations chew you, you end up wasting your life and your family is unstable because there's no one home for the kids. Equal working opportunity for both genders are great, but feminism preached being career driven too much. Society adapted to having two working parents per family, wages stagnated while prices increased thanks to double the workers available and thanks to double purchasing power. Divorces and single parenting, unstable families are what created this problematic generation. Now we pay the price.
- welfareanyone 6y ago
  Nobody's even going to mention the effect of welfare here, either, which subsidizes single motherhood and each additional child out of wedlock? Or the effect that this has had especially on the families of minorities?
  - jokethrowaway 6y ago
    Thomas Sowell does. Unfortunately, it doesn't fit with the narrative of more welfare, more taxes which allows both parties to increase government spending and gain even more power.

strikelaserclaw 6y ago

Your point is far more interesting than the content of the article itself. If nature and nurture underlies intelligence, it would be easy to reason that we will have a lot more intelligence inequality in the future than in other points in history.