Rebecca keeps acting like there’s this conspiracy to promote marriage among women who don’t yet have children and are dating abusive guys without jobs.
Or that it’s about telling married women with kids in abusive relationships that they should stay with their man. That is not with the discourse says. The discourse says: follow the success sequence. It simply suggests to wait to have a kid until you’re married & financially stable. I see no reason why this should apply differently to lower income versus higher income earning people, unless you think there is something wrong with people who make less money that makes them inherently low quality partners.
I’d really like to see Rebecca engage with the stats on race of infanticide, child abuse, and child homicide and how they correlate with single parent households, especially where a non-parent of a child is present, compared to two parent household. If she thinks children raised by boyfriends, aunties, and grandmothers are less likely to be abused than those raised by two parents, she’s an idiot.
Traister is correct that for "lower" socio-economic classes, the horse known as marriage has long left the barn (indeed for many in that strata, marriage is barely contemplated). So any government effort to encourage marriage is likely a quixotic waste of time and money. The marriage advocates are almost as naive as the pro-natalist people who are too obtuse to understand that you can't force people to have children.
Having said all that, Traister seemed to give short shrift to Sarah's assertions about the emotional and psychic benefits of two-parent homes. Traister's essentialist materialism seemed to prohibit her from entertaining any argument beyond "bigger government safety net, all else be damned". I get where she's coming from, but the US has dumped trillions of dollars into welfare and related programs since 1965 and I'm not sure we have much to show for it (if the statistics on multi-generational poverty are any indicator). There's a cultural pathology present in many poor inner-city and rural communities that cannot be addressed simply by writing checks.*
I don't profess to have the "answer" I'm really making observations.
*Note: Lest I be accused of plagiarism, hat tip to Glenn Loury.
ADDITIONALLY. It’s also sad the main gospel of third wave feminism is that the most important feature of successful womanhood is achieving “financially-independent worker” status. As if the most laudable goal should be to some kind of professional person.
This ignores REALITY. Most people have jobs, not super fulfilling careers, women typically choose jobs that are people based and lower paying. A PHD adjunct professor may not earn enough to be financially independent, thus still being dependent on a spouse or family.
I find feminism’s obsession with female “professionalism” depressing. Lots of people are lawyers. Lots of women are lawyers. Lots of women f$^*ing hate being lawyers and if they weren’t burdened by 6 figure law school debt they might have had the choice to stay home raising their children is they preferred. But they are not boxed in by their debt, society’s pressure to be a female professional, and now they are trapped and depressed. Not by their husbands and by their children, but by their debt and their guilt for hating their ‘chosen’ profession.
This chick really struggles to say anything positive about marriage, or even the benefits of two-parent households. Both of those things are fine, people can think what they’d like. It does come across, to me, as close-minded. It was hard to take her very seriously in parts of the conversation as a result.
Thanks Ernie. Something seems so off about the emphasis on women’s success being only in the process realm. I am a SAHM myself, I am a caregiver for my husband and daughter. My husband is very ambitious and has a very demanding and stressful career. I feel so fortunate I can focus my attention on my daughter while she’s young and supporting my husband who needs it more than any monetary contribution I might provide.
I’m surrounded by friends with multiple masters degrees, unhappily trapped in jobs that pay only marginally more than the median income. Their children are in aftercare so they hustle, alongside their spouses in the rat race. There is so much exhaustion and guilt. Any not necessarily much monetary reward or benefit.
My friends seem entrapped by the third wave feminist ideology in which most of us millennials were steeped. Their choices restricted by educational debt more than advanced by it. Besides, the university system is churning out so many graduates, these degrees, even from elite universities, are not competitive because tens of thousands of people have them. And with more and more graduates coming into the workforce each year, salaries are being driven down, there is much less job flexibility than we admit.
I liked this episode so much I decided to subscribe. Don't get me wrong, I trink Traister has bad ideas, but I was so impressed with the way Megan and Sarah kept it interesting and pushed back, but in a polite way.
It's a bit hypocritical for a married mom of two pretend that single parenthood is just as easy...as anyone who has solo parented for a weekend knows!
No episode has made me appreciate your show quite like this one. The contrast between the hosts and their guest with respect to treating a complex issue intelligently and legitimately open-mindedly was immense.
Rebecca says she is not anti marriage but it sure seems like she is. She says the key ingredient to raising children is economic stability. It’s true that money is important, but money can’t replace a father. Also, the government can’t replace the family. We should not want the government to be our daddy. Contrary to what she says about economic stability, currently the richer countries have lower rates of marriage and less children.
Rebecca says “I’m not saying that people with financial problems are more likely to have volatile marriages, I’m just saying that financial problems increase volatility in marriage.”
She is basically saying that if you marry a guy that doesn’t have a degree or make a lot of money, he’s going to be a shitty husband and treat you poorly and you will be worse off than if you had his child and then were dependent on the government to take care of you and it.
So while we are in the most economically prosperous period in human history, Rebecca thinks throwing money at the single moms and girlfriendless men will solve our social problems. Yes to Megan for pointing out these same problems exist in Scandinavia. Maybe changing social mores anyone?
This reminds me of a WSJ op-ed I read about motherhood in Sweden several years ago. I believe the title was “The High Cost of Social Welfare” or “The High Cost of Gender Equality,” either way. It was about the ways the social mores force in Sweden force women into the workplace at higher rates and its corollated with higher rates of depression in children and feelings of isolation society wide.
A worthy topic and an interesting guest skillfully engaged. I'm glad you had her on and had this discussion. I was genuinely surprised by the lefty sloganeering - I think she said, 'for WHITE people' about ten times, and referred to marriage as a gendered institution that privileges male power. I didn't expect that degree of ideological capture. Sounded like a critic of leftism mocking it.
Lol did Rebecca just spend five minutes trying to explain to us that women used to have to get married because otherwise they didn’t have another way of supporting themselves?
Part of the hypergamy narrative assumes that it's just natural, but as to the question at the end of what could be changed, I do wonder how much of a difference it would make if there were a shift in cultural messaging away from the unbridled hatred of all things male and masculine. She keeps talking about women who "haven't found a partner"; whereas Sarah likes to humblebrag about how she was surrounded with men during her brief pre-marriage period. I do not believe there are any significant number of young women who can't find a partner, but I do believe that there are lots of women who incorrectly think that they're better than the men around them. Maybe that is unavoidable, but maybe it isn't.
Also, I've certainly observed-in medicine-the level of discomfort that ensues if one suggests that women experience aging or declining fertility, or that having children is even a life decision worth considering. It's not usually me bringing it up, but it's one of those topics best described by the Eric Weinstein coinage "anti-interesting". Must be one of those generational things because this idea of a biological clock has been unspeakable for as long as I've been around.
Rebecca keeps acting like there’s this conspiracy to promote marriage among women who don’t yet have children and are dating abusive guys without jobs.
Or that it’s about telling married women with kids in abusive relationships that they should stay with their man. That is not with the discourse says. The discourse says: follow the success sequence. It simply suggests to wait to have a kid until you’re married & financially stable. I see no reason why this should apply differently to lower income versus higher income earning people, unless you think there is something wrong with people who make less money that makes them inherently low quality partners.
I’d really like to see Rebecca engage with the stats on race of infanticide, child abuse, and child homicide and how they correlate with single parent households, especially where a non-parent of a child is present, compared to two parent household. If she thinks children raised by boyfriends, aunties, and grandmothers are less likely to be abused than those raised by two parents, she’s an idiot.
When Sarah said she was gonna ask a trolling question, I wish she would’ve asked her how many genders she thinks there are
Traister is correct that for "lower" socio-economic classes, the horse known as marriage has long left the barn (indeed for many in that strata, marriage is barely contemplated). So any government effort to encourage marriage is likely a quixotic waste of time and money. The marriage advocates are almost as naive as the pro-natalist people who are too obtuse to understand that you can't force people to have children.
Having said all that, Traister seemed to give short shrift to Sarah's assertions about the emotional and psychic benefits of two-parent homes. Traister's essentialist materialism seemed to prohibit her from entertaining any argument beyond "bigger government safety net, all else be damned". I get where she's coming from, but the US has dumped trillions of dollars into welfare and related programs since 1965 and I'm not sure we have much to show for it (if the statistics on multi-generational poverty are any indicator). There's a cultural pathology present in many poor inner-city and rural communities that cannot be addressed simply by writing checks.*
I don't profess to have the "answer" I'm really making observations.
*Note: Lest I be accused of plagiarism, hat tip to Glenn Loury.
ADDITIONALLY. It’s also sad the main gospel of third wave feminism is that the most important feature of successful womanhood is achieving “financially-independent worker” status. As if the most laudable goal should be to some kind of professional person.
This ignores REALITY. Most people have jobs, not super fulfilling careers, women typically choose jobs that are people based and lower paying. A PHD adjunct professor may not earn enough to be financially independent, thus still being dependent on a spouse or family.
I find feminism’s obsession with female “professionalism” depressing. Lots of people are lawyers. Lots of women are lawyers. Lots of women f$^*ing hate being lawyers and if they weren’t burdened by 6 figure law school debt they might have had the choice to stay home raising their children is they preferred. But they are not boxed in by their debt, society’s pressure to be a female professional, and now they are trapped and depressed. Not by their husbands and by their children, but by their debt and their guilt for hating their ‘chosen’ profession.
This chick really struggles to say anything positive about marriage, or even the benefits of two-parent households. Both of those things are fine, people can think what they’d like. It does come across, to me, as close-minded. It was hard to take her very seriously in parts of the conversation as a result.
Wow- a lot to think about here.
I will limit myself to the artificial womb thing.it sounds nightmarish.
It seems horrific that we would cut out a mother In that way: moms show love and care for their babies long before they are born.
I have always thought that sperm donation is unethical- it’s awful that before the child
Is even born we are cutting his father out of the equation. Fathers are so important!
Moms are too.
Thanks Ernie. Something seems so off about the emphasis on women’s success being only in the process realm. I am a SAHM myself, I am a caregiver for my husband and daughter. My husband is very ambitious and has a very demanding and stressful career. I feel so fortunate I can focus my attention on my daughter while she’s young and supporting my husband who needs it more than any monetary contribution I might provide.
I’m surrounded by friends with multiple masters degrees, unhappily trapped in jobs that pay only marginally more than the median income. Their children are in aftercare so they hustle, alongside their spouses in the rat race. There is so much exhaustion and guilt. Any not necessarily much monetary reward or benefit.
My friends seem entrapped by the third wave feminist ideology in which most of us millennials were steeped. Their choices restricted by educational debt more than advanced by it. Besides, the university system is churning out so many graduates, these degrees, even from elite universities, are not competitive because tens of thousands of people have them. And with more and more graduates coming into the workforce each year, salaries are being driven down, there is much less job flexibility than we admit.
ITS A TRAP 🪤
I liked this episode so much I decided to subscribe. Don't get me wrong, I trink Traister has bad ideas, but I was so impressed with the way Megan and Sarah kept it interesting and pushed back, but in a polite way.
It's a bit hypocritical for a married mom of two pretend that single parenthood is just as easy...as anyone who has solo parented for a weekend knows!
First
No episode has made me appreciate your show quite like this one. The contrast between the hosts and their guest with respect to treating a complex issue intelligently and legitimately open-mindedly was immense.
Rebecca says she is not anti marriage but it sure seems like she is. She says the key ingredient to raising children is economic stability. It’s true that money is important, but money can’t replace a father. Also, the government can’t replace the family. We should not want the government to be our daddy. Contrary to what she says about economic stability, currently the richer countries have lower rates of marriage and less children.
Rebecca says “I’m not saying that people with financial problems are more likely to have volatile marriages, I’m just saying that financial problems increase volatility in marriage.”
She is basically saying that if you marry a guy that doesn’t have a degree or make a lot of money, he’s going to be a shitty husband and treat you poorly and you will be worse off than if you had his child and then were dependent on the government to take care of you and it.
So while we are in the most economically prosperous period in human history, Rebecca thinks throwing money at the single moms and girlfriendless men will solve our social problems. Yes to Megan for pointing out these same problems exist in Scandinavia. Maybe changing social mores anyone?
This reminds me of a WSJ op-ed I read about motherhood in Sweden several years ago. I believe the title was “The High Cost of Social Welfare” or “The High Cost of Gender Equality,” either way. It was about the ways the social mores force in Sweden force women into the workplace at higher rates and its corollated with higher rates of depression in children and feelings of isolation society wide.
A worthy topic and an interesting guest skillfully engaged. I'm glad you had her on and had this discussion. I was genuinely surprised by the lefty sloganeering - I think she said, 'for WHITE people' about ten times, and referred to marriage as a gendered institution that privileges male power. I didn't expect that degree of ideological capture. Sounded like a critic of leftism mocking it.
Lol did Rebecca just spend five minutes trying to explain to us that women used to have to get married because otherwise they didn’t have another way of supporting themselves?
Part of the hypergamy narrative assumes that it's just natural, but as to the question at the end of what could be changed, I do wonder how much of a difference it would make if there were a shift in cultural messaging away from the unbridled hatred of all things male and masculine. She keeps talking about women who "haven't found a partner"; whereas Sarah likes to humblebrag about how she was surrounded with men during her brief pre-marriage period. I do not believe there are any significant number of young women who can't find a partner, but I do believe that there are lots of women who incorrectly think that they're better than the men around them. Maybe that is unavoidable, but maybe it isn't.
Also, I've certainly observed-in medicine-the level of discomfort that ensues if one suggests that women experience aging or declining fertility, or that having children is even a life decision worth considering. It's not usually me bringing it up, but it's one of those topics best described by the Eric Weinstein coinage "anti-interesting". Must be one of those generational things because this idea of a biological clock has been unspeakable for as long as I've been around.