7 ms·

We need to find a better reason why this happens. I don't believe it's liberal social values which are not lived by. First of I would believe it's an education

We need to find a better reason why this happens. I don't believe it's liberal social values which are not lived by. First of I would believe it's an educational problem and second it's a 'who cares' problem. There are plenty of areas/ghettos of low income and low education around. The blog also contains the following: "The people with the most money and education—the class most responsible for shaping culture and customs—ensure that their children are raised in stable homes. But actively undermine the norm for everyone else" How do they undermine the norm? They don't do this on purpose they are also just humans.

aga98mtl 4y ago
> How do they undermine the norm? Richer people have kids in their thirties, so the media is full of people in their twenties living it up. Poorer men have kids in their twenties and then they feel like losers for living the boring lifestyle of a responsible breadwinner. They want to copy the carefree lifestyle shown as "normal" by our culture.
- kevinventullo 4y ago
  That’s an interesting point, one I wish the article had made explicitly.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  Perhaps the best way to copy that lifestyle would be to, well, copy the choice to not have kids in their twenties (or teens). It’s hard to see how the choice by some to delay kids is somehow undermining others. Conversely, the choice to have kids earlier brings its own set of benefits (having more physical energy is one that I wished for somewhat often and I think there’s evidence of earlier pregnancies being lower risk).
- nkrisc 4y ago
  It’s sort of funny: they make the same mistake the “red pill” crowd makes. First they want to emulate a false reality that doesn’t exist, then some of them end up rejecting that same false reality that never existed (the red pill crowd) and end up tilting against windmills. Both groups have deluded themselves by choosing keep their eyes closed to the actual reality they exist in which is far more mundane.
dnndev 4y ago
There are many reasons. Values, mental health, family baggage, opportunities (there is no shortage of opportunities in America - regardless of race). Yes you may need to work twice as hard but none the less it’s an opportunity. Assuming young healthy men, the next big issue is values. Are they self centered? Prideful? Presumptuous? These are values parents teach to avoid and cultivate beneficial qualities - they cannot be delegated to others. A growing trend is the absent parent (entire other thread on its own - not faulting the parent). Schools or anyone else should not teach children this. Out of need it happens at times and what you see is a reflection of the broader community.
AvocadoPanic 4y ago
No fault divorce, girl bossing, anti-shame messaging, delayed marriage.
- d_e_solomon 4y ago
  - AvocadoPanic 4y ago
    Moving women into the workforce as certainly reduced fecundidity and marriage.
    - AlexandrB 4y ago
      Same with moving men into the workforce. If people had more free time they'd have more kids.
    - d_e_solomon 4y ago
      We're long past the time when we need to be concerned about maximizing children output as a societal goal. I'm much more interested in ensuring people have lives with meaning and growth than trying to pop out as many children as possible. If that means a woman has a career, great. If that means a woman wants to be a stay at home mom, also great.
      - golemotron 4y ago
        This won't age well. We're on the cusp of a demographic crisis. We need more people.
VWWHFSfQ 4y ago
> We need to find a better reason why this happens. I don't believe it's liberal social values which are not lived by. So we need to find a reason that you agree with. Not a better reason.
- politician 4y ago
  It’s a camouflaged variant of No True Scotsman.
- Helitioo 4y ago
  I can have different reasons why I don't believe in it. It's not that the article delivered any proof.
refurb 4y ago
They undermine it by: - claiming a single parent household is no worse for children than a two parent household - claiming men have no particular importance in the raising of children - financially supporting (in some cases subsidizing) single parent families
- kevinventullo 4y ago
  Do they? I can see the third bullet in practice, although I think it’s more of a fix than a cause for single-parent homes. On the other hand, my social circle is highly educated and well-off and I’m not sure I know a single person who would agree with the first bullet. The second point I’m less clear on myself: is there evidence that children of lesbian couples are somehow worse off?
  - number6 4y ago
    > The second point I’m less clear on myself: is there evidence that children of lesbian couples are somehow worse off? No the aren't: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121135904.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121135904.h... "The family type that is best for children is one that has responsible, committed, stable parenting. Two parents are, on average, better than one, but one really good parent is better than two not-so-good ones. The gender of parents only matters in ways that don't matter."
  - em-bee 4y ago
    i don't think that is what the second point is about. there is a difference between having two involved parents and having one of the parents present but not involved with the kids at all. regardless of the gender, the latter will affect the children in different ways.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    The third bullet here is basic economics. When you create demand for a product by subsidizing it, people will create supply. Practically, these subsidies mean that poorer women who could marry the father of their children will often choose not to because they are getting money from the government that exceeds what the man can bring in. It is a little bit like the effect of a very high minimum wage: it helps a certain group of people, but prices many others out of the market. Each step of the process is a perfectly rational economic decision, and it completely destabilizes the home. I have witnessed this firsthand with some of my relatives, who unfortunately behaved exactly as the microeconomics predicted. They had children out of wedlock, wanting to get married but also wanting to keep their benefits, and then ended up separating because the man's attempt to work like a dog to provide more than the government burned him out (he actually wanted to get married and do the right thing). Edit: I also want to add that I'm pretty sure the second point here is not true. Lesbian and gay two-parent households don't seem to have worse outcomes than heterosexual couples.
michaelt 4y ago
> How do they undermine the norm? They don't do this on purpose they are also just humans. I read a book [1] that argued the upper middle class follows very traditional values (two-parent families, marrying before having children, having at least one adult working 40 hours a week) but doesn't really advocate for those traditional values. People in the upper middle class will praise the bravery of single mothers and say there's nothing to be ashamed of - but when it comes time to have children of their own, rarely choose that for themselves. It's not entirely hypocritical, of course; just because I think gays have nothing to be ashamed of, doesn't mean I have to become gay myself! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coming_Apart_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coming_Apart_(book)
- mediumiqsad 4y ago
  Probably because single motherhood is generally not a choice made willingly. There isn't any hypocrisy here, they don't endorse single motherhood because it's fashionable they "endorse" it because the alternative is worse.
  - nyolfen 4y ago
    they endorse it in order to reduce stigma; but reduced stigma leads to greater prevalence
    - rajin444 4y ago
      Changing the meaning of words (i.e, reducing stigma) never works. It's a practice used by authoritarians to get what they want fast because it's cheap and relatively easy. I'm curious what the GP was told that makes them think the alternative to endorsing single motherhood is worse. The alternative to reducing stigma would be fixing the underlying issues that cause the stigma...in this case the lack of ability for a single parent to provide. We have plenty of resources to fix this, but they're disproportionately distributed in favor of those at the top. Funny enough, both the left and right at the top have solutions different than what I described. The left wants to destigmatize, and the right wants to shame (another cheap and relatively easy tactic used by authoritarians).
t0suj4 4y ago
From what I've heard the problem are divorce courts granting women nearly everything. That rigs the game against dads. Marriage is a huge liability. Men are gambling with nearly all their lives on their partner's unwillingness into a divorce. On the other hand I've heard rumors where therapists were suggesting divorce to married women. I don't know how widespread that is but maybe something worth looking into.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  >I don't know how widespread that is There's a proverb about apples that seems relevant.
- ss108 4y ago
  Plenty of much more sophisticated and educated men continue to get married despite that, but you're suggesting that these less educated and knowledgeable men are incentivized by modern family law?
- sokoloff 4y ago
  It seems obvious to me there are situations where a therapist should help their client/patient explore divorce as an option.
- lyaa 4y ago
  As far as I know, in the US, the custody and house/apartment is almost always given to the parent who /wants/ the children. Men often don't fight for custody. They should. Also, the division of assets is not out of proportion I think. If I got married and my partner left the workforce to take care of the home/children, I do think they should get their fair share of assets in case of divorce.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
    > Men often don't fight for custody. In the cases where both do, majority custody is almost always given to the wife.
    - 4y ago
rayiner 4y ago
> How do they undermine the norm? They don't do this on purpose they are also just humans. I don’t think they do this on purpose; I think they’re well meaning and don’t “want to judge.” The problem is that social judgement is what creates signals for what’s good and bad and what’s worthy and unworthy; what has value and what doesn’t. And people respond to signals. Imagine that you’re just an average dude growing up in the middle of nowhere. College isn’t in the cards for you—you’re not cut out to be a Facebook engineer. But the local canning plant needs people to work. Do you think social signals don’t affect what choices you make?
- AvocadoPanic 4y ago
  Military or a trade would be a better choice.
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/613003v2p.pdf?ver=2020-09-04-120013-383 https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/do... There's the 40 page document of all the medical reasons you won't qualify for military service, one of which I have. Everyone says just join the military, but I suppose 7 year old me should have thought of that before I chose to get bone disease.
    - AvocadoPanic 4y ago
      7 year olds often make poor choices. Military and trade jobs require an element of physicality, it's the nature of the work. It's not for everyone, but neither is University.
yummypaint 4y ago
Schools in the US are funded by property tax. It makes no sense to do that unless the goal is to keep everyone in their place and prevent kids born into poorer areas from competing on equal footing with the children of wealthy people.
- bobcostas55 4y ago
  Schools in poor areas have higher funding than schools in rich areas, the property tax funding is only one part of where schools get their money from. See this report for example: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs95/web/95300.asp https://nces.ed.gov/pubs95/web/95300.asp (it's a bit old but nothing substantive has changed).
  - yummypaint 4y ago
    The paper you linked to opens its summary of results with the following: "How do education expenditures vary with alternative district and community measures? Students in districts enrolling the lowest percentages of students in poverty and the lowest percentages of students in need of special education services received the highest expenditures."
    - dgfitz 4y ago
      I disagree. https://foxbaltimore.com/amp/news/project-baltimore/census-baltimore-city-schools-third-highest-for-administrative-costs https://foxbaltimore.com/amp/news/project-baltimore/census-b...
igetspam 4y ago
I don't know about "undermin[ing] the norm" but I see this kind of hypocrisy in my own family. They shout about all life being precious and abortion being murder and also how single mother's need to get harder and how they shouldn't have to pay more taxes to help lazy poor people. Both positions have one thing in common: they negatively impact non-whites and the poor more. They can't self reflect and see it, unfortunately. My family is not unique. It may not be intentional but they still clearly think that the only way they can succeed is by having others fail.
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  90% of economic gains are captured by the top 5%. If you're not in the top 5% - I'm not sure this an insane world view. If you just want to have an average job and not a career in the right field or run a business - life seems less like a positive sum game and more like a zero sum game. It's easy for us at the top to talk about "making a bigger pie" when we get 90% of the bigger pie.

aga98mtl 4y ago

> How do they undermine the norm? Richer people have kids in their thirties, so the media is full of people in their twenties living it up. Poorer men have kids in their twenties and then they feel like losers for living the boring lifestyle of a responsible breadwinner. They want to copy the carefree lifestyle shown as "normal" by our culture.

kevinventullo 4y ago
That’s an interesting point, one I wish the article had made explicitly.
sokoloff 4y ago
Perhaps the best way to copy that lifestyle would be to, well, copy the choice to not have kids in their twenties (or teens). It’s hard to see how the choice by some to delay kids is somehow undermining others. Conversely, the choice to have kids earlier brings its own set of benefits (having more physical energy is one that I wished for somewhat often and I think there’s evidence of earlier pregnancies being lower risk).
nkrisc 4y ago
It’s sort of funny: they make the same mistake the “red pill” crowd makes. First they want to emulate a false reality that doesn’t exist, then some of them end up rejecting that same false reality that never existed (the red pill crowd) and end up tilting against windmills. Both groups have deluded themselves by choosing keep their eyes closed to the actual reality they exist in which is far more mundane.

dnndev 4y ago

There are many reasons. Values, mental health, family baggage, opportunities (there is no shortage of opportunities in America - regardless of race). Yes you may need to work twice as hard but none the less it’s an opportunity. Assuming young healthy men, the next big issue is values. Are they self centered? Prideful? Presumptuous? These are values parents teach to avoid and cultivate beneficial qualities - they cannot be delegated to others. A growing trend is the absent parent (entire other thread on its own - not faulting the parent). Schools or anyone else should not teach children this. Out of need it happens at times and what you see is a reflection of the broader community.

AvocadoPanic 4y ago

No fault divorce, girl bossing, anti-shame messaging, delayed marriage.

d_e_solomon 4y ago
- AvocadoPanic 4y ago
  Moving women into the workforce as certainly reduced fecundidity and marriage.
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    Same with moving men into the workforce. If people had more free time they'd have more kids.
  - d_e_solomon 4y ago
    We're long past the time when we need to be concerned about maximizing children output as a societal goal. I'm much more interested in ensuring people have lives with meaning and growth than trying to pop out as many children as possible. If that means a woman has a career, great. If that means a woman wants to be a stay at home mom, also great.
    - golemotron 4y ago
      This won't age well. We're on the cusp of a demographic crisis. We need more people.

VWWHFSfQ 4y ago

> We need to find a better reason why this happens. I don't believe it's liberal social values which are not lived by. So we need to find a reason that you agree with. Not a better reason.

politician 4y ago
It’s a camouflaged variant of No True Scotsman.
Helitioo 4y ago
I can have different reasons why I don't believe in it. It's not that the article delivered any proof.

refurb 4y ago

They undermine it by: - claiming a single parent household is no worse for children than a two parent household - claiming men have no particular importance in the raising of children - financially supporting (in some cases subsidizing) single parent families

kevinventullo 4y ago
Do they? I can see the third bullet in practice, although I think it’s more of a fix than a cause for single-parent homes. On the other hand, my social circle is highly educated and well-off and I’m not sure I know a single person who would agree with the first bullet. The second point I’m less clear on myself: is there evidence that children of lesbian couples are somehow worse off?
- number6 4y ago
  > The second point I’m less clear on myself: is there evidence that children of lesbian couples are somehow worse off? No the aren't: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121135904.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121135904.h... "The family type that is best for children is one that has responsible, committed, stable parenting. Two parents are, on average, better than one, but one really good parent is better than two not-so-good ones. The gender of parents only matters in ways that don't matter."
- em-bee 4y ago
  i don't think that is what the second point is about. there is a difference between having two involved parents and having one of the parents present but not involved with the kids at all. regardless of the gender, the latter will affect the children in different ways.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  The third bullet here is basic economics. When you create demand for a product by subsidizing it, people will create supply. Practically, these subsidies mean that poorer women who could marry the father of their children will often choose not to because they are getting money from the government that exceeds what the man can bring in. It is a little bit like the effect of a very high minimum wage: it helps a certain group of people, but prices many others out of the market. Each step of the process is a perfectly rational economic decision, and it completely destabilizes the home. I have witnessed this firsthand with some of my relatives, who unfortunately behaved exactly as the microeconomics predicted. They had children out of wedlock, wanting to get married but also wanting to keep their benefits, and then ended up separating because the man's attempt to work like a dog to provide more than the government burned him out (he actually wanted to get married and do the right thing). Edit: I also want to add that I'm pretty sure the second point here is not true. Lesbian and gay two-parent households don't seem to have worse outcomes than heterosexual couples.

michaelt 4y ago

> How do they undermine the norm? They don't do this on purpose they are also just humans. I read a book [1] that argued the upper middle class follows very traditional values (two-parent families, marrying before having children, having at least one adult working 40 hours a week) but doesn't really advocate for those traditional values. People in the upper middle class will praise the bravery of single mothers and say there's nothing to be ashamed of - but when it comes time to have children of their own, rarely choose that for themselves. It's not entirely hypocritical, of course; just because I think gays have nothing to be ashamed of, doesn't mean I have to become gay myself! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coming_Apart_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coming_Apart_(book)

mediumiqsad 4y ago
Probably because single motherhood is generally not a choice made willingly. There isn't any hypocrisy here, they don't endorse single motherhood because it's fashionable they "endorse" it because the alternative is worse.
- nyolfen 4y ago
  they endorse it in order to reduce stigma; but reduced stigma leads to greater prevalence
  - rajin444 4y ago
    Changing the meaning of words (i.e, reducing stigma) never works. It's a practice used by authoritarians to get what they want fast because it's cheap and relatively easy. I'm curious what the GP was told that makes them think the alternative to endorsing single motherhood is worse. The alternative to reducing stigma would be fixing the underlying issues that cause the stigma...in this case the lack of ability for a single parent to provide. We have plenty of resources to fix this, but they're disproportionately distributed in favor of those at the top. Funny enough, both the left and right at the top have solutions different than what I described. The left wants to destigmatize, and the right wants to shame (another cheap and relatively easy tactic used by authoritarians).

t0suj4 4y ago

From what I've heard the problem are divorce courts granting women nearly everything. That rigs the game against dads. Marriage is a huge liability. Men are gambling with nearly all their lives on their partner's unwillingness into a divorce. On the other hand I've heard rumors where therapists were suggesting divorce to married women. I don't know how widespread that is but maybe something worth looking into.

throwaway0a5e 4y ago
>I don't know how widespread that is There's a proverb about apples that seems relevant.
ss108 4y ago
Plenty of much more sophisticated and educated men continue to get married despite that, but you're suggesting that these less educated and knowledgeable men are incentivized by modern family law?
sokoloff 4y ago
It seems obvious to me there are situations where a therapist should help their client/patient explore divorce as an option.
lyaa 4y ago
As far as I know, in the US, the custody and house/apartment is almost always given to the parent who /wants/ the children. Men often don't fight for custody. They should. Also, the division of assets is not out of proportion I think. If I got married and my partner left the workforce to take care of the home/children, I do think they should get their fair share of assets in case of divorce.
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  > Men often don't fight for custody. In the cases where both do, majority custody is almost always given to the wife.
  - 4y ago

rayiner 4y ago

> How do they undermine the norm? They don't do this on purpose they are also just humans. I don’t think they do this on purpose; I think they’re well meaning and don’t “want to judge.” The problem is that social judgement is what creates signals for what’s good and bad and what’s worthy and unworthy; what has value and what doesn’t. And people respond to signals. Imagine that you’re just an average dude growing up in the middle of nowhere. College isn’t in the cards for you—you’re not cut out to be a Facebook engineer. But the local canning plant needs people to work. Do you think social signals don’t affect what choices you make?

AvocadoPanic 4y ago
Military or a trade would be a better choice.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/613003v2p.pdf?ver=2020-09-04-120013-383 https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/do... There's the 40 page document of all the medical reasons you won't qualify for military service, one of which I have. Everyone says just join the military, but I suppose 7 year old me should have thought of that before I chose to get bone disease.
  - AvocadoPanic 4y ago
    7 year olds often make poor choices. Military and trade jobs require an element of physicality, it's the nature of the work. It's not for everyone, but neither is University.

yummypaint 4y ago

Schools in the US are funded by property tax. It makes no sense to do that unless the goal is to keep everyone in their place and prevent kids born into poorer areas from competing on equal footing with the children of wealthy people.

bobcostas55 4y ago
Schools in poor areas have higher funding than schools in rich areas, the property tax funding is only one part of where schools get their money from. See this report for example: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs95/web/95300.asp https://nces.ed.gov/pubs95/web/95300.asp (it's a bit old but nothing substantive has changed).
- yummypaint 4y ago
  The paper you linked to opens its summary of results with the following: "How do education expenditures vary with alternative district and community measures? Students in districts enrolling the lowest percentages of students in poverty and the lowest percentages of students in need of special education services received the highest expenditures."
  - dgfitz 4y ago
    I disagree. https://foxbaltimore.com/amp/news/project-baltimore/census-baltimore-city-schools-third-highest-for-administrative-costs https://foxbaltimore.com/amp/news/project-baltimore/census-b...

igetspam 4y ago

I don't know about "undermin[ing] the norm" but I see this kind of hypocrisy in my own family. They shout about all life being precious and abortion being murder and also how single mother's need to get harder and how they shouldn't have to pay more taxes to help lazy poor people. Both positions have one thing in common: they negatively impact non-whites and the poor more. They can't self reflect and see it, unfortunately. My family is not unique. It may not be intentional but they still clearly think that the only way they can succeed is by having others fail.

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
90% of economic gains are captured by the top 5%. If you're not in the top 5% - I'm not sure this an insane world view. If you just want to have an average job and not a career in the right field or run a business - life seems less like a positive sum game and more like a zero sum game. It's easy for us at the top to talk about "making a bigger pie" when we get 90% of the bigger pie.