6 ms·

Decline of marriage, high divorce rate, increasing single parent rate, inflation/wage stagnation, young men increasingly 'opting out' and sexless, doesn't sound

Decline of marriage, high divorce rate, increasing single parent rate, inflation/wage stagnation, young men increasingly 'opting out' and sexless, doesn't sound good for the future. The relationship market in the West seems horribly broken, not good at all if you want a thriving happy society.

anonporridge 5y ago
Unless a declining population is good for future prosperity. If you force a continuation of replacement rate births or even growth, but most of those humans are economically worthless, you'll drag down your whole society.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  > Unless a declining population is good for future prosperity. It's good for the perpetuation of your nation. There is no nation without people. There is no people without natalism. > most of those humans are economically worthless Is economic value the only measure of a human being's worth? What a terrifying world we live in these days...
- emodendroket 5y ago
  I'd question the notion that there's much circumstance where most births would be "economically useless."
- pcbro141 5y ago
  I'm not talking solely about births (didn't even mention the birth rate), I'm saying for mental health/general thriving of society too. Kids raised in married 2 parent households are less likely to end up homeless, achieve better academically and earn more, have less depression/suicide rates etc. Literally every outcome is better for stable 2 parent homes. The decline of the 2 parent nuclear family means more kids will suffer. I don't really understand why it has to be either or. You can have your population decline if you want, but why does that have to mean single parent homes? Can't you raise your 1 or 2 kids in the context of marriage to give them a higher chance of a better outcome, and still have your population decline?
  - nvarsj 5y ago
    Such statistics are misleading and it's a pet peeve when they are pulled out in discussions. You can't predict a child's outcome so simply. Both Obama and Clinton were raised by single parents. Such statistics are only on average. Yet so many conservatives use these kinds of statistics to shame and guilt single parents, and try to justify policies of discrimination against non traditional family structures.
- williamtrask 5y ago
  That’s an unnecessarily dark idea. There’s no requirement that widespread unhappiness is the driving force behind preventing overpopulation. Also the purpose of a human life is not economic output.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
s5300 5y ago
Relationship market seems like it's the best it's ever been, from a standpoint of equality, that is. COVID unfortunately brought domestic violence rates up, but I wouldn't lump that in with the generality of "relationship market", it's a more serious & specific issue. edit: Ahh, by the time I finish posting you've come and brought up the "nuclear family" Hard to imagine anything good will come from a discussion hinging on that. Anecdata: the males I've personally seem "opting out" have major personal issues and are honestly dangerous to any potential partners, mentally and physically. I don't feel much for them except for wishing the U.S. had better and more affordable healthcare so they could get some mental healthcare. But once again - anecdata - these also aren't the types to seek mental healthcare. Oh well.
- pcbro141 5y ago
  > Ahh, by the time I finish posting you've come and brought up the "nuclear family" > Hard to imagine anything good will come from a discussion hinging on that. Genuine question, why does it sound like you find me advocating for a 2 parent household almost offensive? Is it because you don't believe any of the data about kids raised in 2 parent households is valid? From my perspective, I genuinely don't understand your reaction here at all because I thought this was a generally accepted fact in psychology/sociology. I'm just asking out of curiosity for your perspective, I promise I'm not baiting you into a debate :)
  - s5300 5y ago
    I've made zero reference or statement to "2 parent household" Only the term nuclear family. In any case, "nuclear family" dates to around one century at most, in essentially a singular country. I'd much rather look to the notion of "it takes a village" and extended family concepts that have existed for millennia and overwhelmingly brought us to where we are now.
    - pcbro141 5y ago
      Fair enough, thanks for expanding and that makes sense. I agree ideally we would have more people beyond just the 2 parents around to lean on to help raise kids. Preferably the 2 parents (where possible, not advocating you stick with an abusive partner) plus extended family nearby at the very least. I like the multigenerational lifestyle too.
Lammy 5y ago
> not good at all if you want a thriving happy society You might be interested to read the report commissioned by Congress in 1970 from the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, chaired by John D. Rockefeller Ⅲ: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED050960.pdf#page=10 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED050960.pdf#page=10 Also known as "WTF Happened in 1971?" https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
- pishpash 5y ago
  Birth control?
  - 77pt77 5y ago
    Women entering the workforce en masse.
MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
Not to mention men get no benefit out of marriage anymore. I mean there was some book I remember reading on reddit from the 1920s or 40s where women were not supposed to reject their husbands advances. Now you could be tried for sexual assault as a couple ffs. On top of this, divorce universally screws over men. When you create incentive programs such as divorce, a population doesnt take long to adapt to the institutions horror stories. No marriage means no alimony on breakup. Also no marriage means women wont be as likely to leave if they do not work because of it especially if they have a small support network. Women have also become more independent. Much like Japan, many western women dont wanna be baby makers. The government kinda forgot though that...well...its kinda important for society. Single mothers increasing helps nobody and dudes are less likely to pay child support when not from marriage. Overall its been a massive cultural change that will affect future generations significantly. How do you get people to care for a future they arent allowed to create? If anything, apathy to the future generations has been growing since many people dont have children to care for.
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  > Not to mention men get no benefit out of marriage anymore. I mean there was some book I remember reading on reddit from the 1920s or 40s where women were not supposed to reject their husbands advances. Now you could be tried for sexual assault as a couple ffs. On top of this, divorce universally screws over men. God this is creepy. If someone doesn't want to have sex with you, and you force them to, that's rape.
  - MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
    It was the culture for a lot longer than the US ever existed you know. Obviously it's not right but it goes to show how marriage used to be a construct for men. I can't see how being a perpetual friend who rarely has sex warranting marriage. That was my point though (as weird as it is). The incentive structure has changed now that sex can often be a "only for children" or "I'm not feeling it this month sweetie" experience. Enough men see this on top of other negative aspects of marriage and have it ingrained in them that they won't even risk it. You're safer to establish a business then dissolve it upon "dissolution of the relationship-business" than you are to get married. Cause the government treats business members equally but treat divorces unequally.

anonporridge 5y ago

Unless a declining population is good for future prosperity. If you force a continuation of replacement rate births or even growth, but most of those humans are economically worthless, you'll drag down your whole society.

matheusmoreira 5y ago
> Unless a declining population is good for future prosperity. It's good for the perpetuation of your nation. There is no nation without people. There is no people without natalism. > most of those humans are economically worthless Is economic value the only measure of a human being's worth? What a terrifying world we live in these days...
emodendroket 5y ago
I'd question the notion that there's much circumstance where most births would be "economically useless."
pcbro141 5y ago
I'm not talking solely about births (didn't even mention the birth rate), I'm saying for mental health/general thriving of society too. Kids raised in married 2 parent households are less likely to end up homeless, achieve better academically and earn more, have less depression/suicide rates etc. Literally every outcome is better for stable 2 parent homes. The decline of the 2 parent nuclear family means more kids will suffer. I don't really understand why it has to be either or. You can have your population decline if you want, but why does that have to mean single parent homes? Can't you raise your 1 or 2 kids in the context of marriage to give them a higher chance of a better outcome, and still have your population decline?
- nvarsj 5y ago
  Such statistics are misleading and it's a pet peeve when they are pulled out in discussions. You can't predict a child's outcome so simply. Both Obama and Clinton were raised by single parents. Such statistics are only on average. Yet so many conservatives use these kinds of statistics to shame and guilt single parents, and try to justify policies of discrimination against non traditional family structures.
williamtrask 5y ago
That’s an unnecessarily dark idea. There’s no requirement that widespread unhappiness is the driving force behind preventing overpopulation. Also the purpose of a human life is not economic output.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

s5300 5y ago

Relationship market seems like it's the best it's ever been, from a standpoint of equality, that is. COVID unfortunately brought domestic violence rates up, but I wouldn't lump that in with the generality of "relationship market", it's a more serious & specific issue. edit: Ahh, by the time I finish posting you've come and brought up the "nuclear family" Hard to imagine anything good will come from a discussion hinging on that. Anecdata: the males I've personally seem "opting out" have major personal issues and are honestly dangerous to any potential partners, mentally and physically. I don't feel much for them except for wishing the U.S. had better and more affordable healthcare so they could get some mental healthcare. But once again - anecdata - these also aren't the types to seek mental healthcare. Oh well.

pcbro141 5y ago
> Ahh, by the time I finish posting you've come and brought up the "nuclear family" > Hard to imagine anything good will come from a discussion hinging on that. Genuine question, why does it sound like you find me advocating for a 2 parent household almost offensive? Is it because you don't believe any of the data about kids raised in 2 parent households is valid? From my perspective, I genuinely don't understand your reaction here at all because I thought this was a generally accepted fact in psychology/sociology. I'm just asking out of curiosity for your perspective, I promise I'm not baiting you into a debate :)
- s5300 5y ago
  I've made zero reference or statement to "2 parent household" Only the term nuclear family. In any case, "nuclear family" dates to around one century at most, in essentially a singular country. I'd much rather look to the notion of "it takes a village" and extended family concepts that have existed for millennia and overwhelmingly brought us to where we are now.
  - pcbro141 5y ago
    Fair enough, thanks for expanding and that makes sense. I agree ideally we would have more people beyond just the 2 parents around to lean on to help raise kids. Preferably the 2 parents (where possible, not advocating you stick with an abusive partner) plus extended family nearby at the very least. I like the multigenerational lifestyle too.

Lammy 5y ago

> not good at all if you want a thriving happy society You might be interested to read the report commissioned by Congress in 1970 from the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, chaired by John D. Rockefeller Ⅲ: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED050960.pdf#page=10 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED050960.pdf#page=10 Also known as "WTF Happened in 1971?" https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

pishpash 5y ago
Birth control?
- 77pt77 5y ago
  Women entering the workforce en masse.

MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago

Not to mention men get no benefit out of marriage anymore. I mean there was some book I remember reading on reddit from the 1920s or 40s where women were not supposed to reject their husbands advances. Now you could be tried for sexual assault as a couple ffs. On top of this, divorce universally screws over men. When you create incentive programs such as divorce, a population doesnt take long to adapt to the institutions horror stories. No marriage means no alimony on breakup. Also no marriage means women wont be as likely to leave if they do not work because of it especially if they have a small support network. Women have also become more independent. Much like Japan, many western women dont wanna be baby makers. The government kinda forgot though that...well...its kinda important for society. Single mothers increasing helps nobody and dudes are less likely to pay child support when not from marriage. Overall its been a massive cultural change that will affect future generations significantly. How do you get people to care for a future they arent allowed to create? If anything, apathy to the future generations has been growing since many people dont have children to care for.

spywaregorilla 5y ago
> Not to mention men get no benefit out of marriage anymore. I mean there was some book I remember reading on reddit from the 1920s or 40s where women were not supposed to reject their husbands advances. Now you could be tried for sexual assault as a couple ffs. On top of this, divorce universally screws over men. God this is creepy. If someone doesn't want to have sex with you, and you force them to, that's rape.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
  It was the culture for a lot longer than the US ever existed you know. Obviously it's not right but it goes to show how marriage used to be a construct for men. I can't see how being a perpetual friend who rarely has sex warranting marriage. That was my point though (as weird as it is). The incentive structure has changed now that sex can often be a "only for children" or "I'm not feeling it this month sweetie" experience. Enough men see this on top of other negative aspects of marriage and have it ingrained in them that they won't even risk it. You're safer to establish a business then dissolve it upon "dissolution of the relationship-business" than you are to get married. Cause the government treats business members equally but treat divorces unequally.