Ending the Patriarchal Bargain and finding new ideals we can live by.
December 18, 2024 9:39 AM Subscribe
"What happens when the fundamental things no longer apply? What is a man to a girl who can buy herself flowers? [...] Here's the thing: the material basis of the patriarchal bargain is breaking down, and it has been for about two centuries. This was obvious in 1988, when Kandiyoti coined the term "patriarchal bargain," and that breakdown has not abated a whit in the intervening decades."
The author writes that a family could subsist on a single income if it is willing to accept fewer material goods, “but you want the stuff.” Is that true? Is it really? Maybe for a guy making six figures in a low COL area, and even then you have to expect a certain kind of future for the kids—the kids may or may not resent you forever for it.
Again, it doesn’t discuss climate change or the general sense that everything is so expensive and childrearing is miserable. The article says America is a peaceful country, which it certainly has been compared to others, but what about school shootings or civil unrest? If God isn’t commanding you to be fruitful and multiply, and if you never had a dream to be a parent, it just is not appealing.
posted by Countess Elena at 11:16 AM on December 18, 2024 [10 favorites]
Again, it doesn’t discuss climate change or the general sense that everything is so expensive and childrearing is miserable. The article says America is a peaceful country, which it certainly has been compared to others, but what about school shootings or civil unrest? If God isn’t commanding you to be fruitful and multiply, and if you never had a dream to be a parent, it just is not appealing.
posted by Countess Elena at 11:16 AM on December 18, 2024 [10 favorites]
This is a pretty interesting article, but as always when there's discussion of gender and power and the author doesn't acknowledge that queer people exist and have always existed and have relationships that run counter to the mainstream narrative, there is something missing here.
I would think that there would be some discussion of the lives that break the patriarchal bargain, and how that's worked out. I feel like people seeing happy, healthy out gay people has very much contributed to people not getting trapped in straight marriages they don't really want or enjoy. Queer people existing has also somewhat separated the economic aspects of living with a partner from the romantic aspects of having a partner, which is what this is about.
Looking at the lives of women who lived in a time when it was legal for banks not to give women their own bank accounts (aka the late 1970's early 1980's in parts of the US) and still made it work would probably be pretty enlightening on this point. I would also be interested to see a little more discussion of how children are now at least sort of a choice for straight people-- I know we have stats on the difference between places that have easy access to birth control and those that don't, which itself is a class/income issue in the US because of health care.
I could also see some discussion on the shitty parts of the relationship of gender and power for cishet men-- it's a very limiting way to live. Even if you're all in on a traditional marriage with someone you love, hope you didn't have dreams other than working a stable job until retirement! Hope you can get a job and provide for your entire life with no hiccups! And so on. Also, the idea that you can live on one partner's wage these days if you're OK just giving up "stuff" is a big citation-needed!
There are some good points here-- a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle, and now they aren't legally forced onto the bicycle by society at large, so bicycles needs to be less shitty if they don't want to be left in the garage. But if the article is going to bring up birthrates and then not discuss all of the very serious considerations about birth rates like cost of living, climate change, whether preventing and/or keeping a pregnancy is actually a choice where you live...and they're going to bring up gender roles but not discuss ways in which people have subverted gender roles over time...seems like the article needs more thought.
posted by blnkfrnk at 11:22 AM on December 18, 2024 [14 favorites]
I would think that there would be some discussion of the lives that break the patriarchal bargain, and how that's worked out. I feel like people seeing happy, healthy out gay people has very much contributed to people not getting trapped in straight marriages they don't really want or enjoy. Queer people existing has also somewhat separated the economic aspects of living with a partner from the romantic aspects of having a partner, which is what this is about.
Looking at the lives of women who lived in a time when it was legal for banks not to give women their own bank accounts (aka the late 1970's early 1980's in parts of the US) and still made it work would probably be pretty enlightening on this point. I would also be interested to see a little more discussion of how children are now at least sort of a choice for straight people-- I know we have stats on the difference between places that have easy access to birth control and those that don't, which itself is a class/income issue in the US because of health care.
I could also see some discussion on the shitty parts of the relationship of gender and power for cishet men-- it's a very limiting way to live. Even if you're all in on a traditional marriage with someone you love, hope you didn't have dreams other than working a stable job until retirement! Hope you can get a job and provide for your entire life with no hiccups! And so on. Also, the idea that you can live on one partner's wage these days if you're OK just giving up "stuff" is a big citation-needed!
There are some good points here-- a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle, and now they aren't legally forced onto the bicycle by society at large, so bicycles needs to be less shitty if they don't want to be left in the garage. But if the article is going to bring up birthrates and then not discuss all of the very serious considerations about birth rates like cost of living, climate change, whether preventing and/or keeping a pregnancy is actually a choice where you live...and they're going to bring up gender roles but not discuss ways in which people have subverted gender roles over time...seems like the article needs more thought.
posted by blnkfrnk at 11:22 AM on December 18, 2024 [14 favorites]
Certainly agree that changes are happening, but not entirely convinced my the author's arguments:
So let me be clear: there is something wrong with a social form that cannot reproduce itself. It suggests that, on balance, the people of that society don't think their way of life is worth continuing.
Huh? I don't have a strong desire for kids and neither does my partner so it's not happening. For us it's really as simple as the fact that there are lots of ways we'd rather spend our time (hobbies, friends, career, volunteering, entertainment, etc.). It has nothing about thinking our way of life is not worth continuing. I have a hard time believing we're that unusual for feeling that way.
Or, to put it more intuitively: the rise of two-income households isn't a result of economic hardship. It's a result of economic growth.
The number of jobs where you can reliably support a family on one salary alone has decreased though. For example, the mean salary in my current state (North Carolina) in 2020 was $58,705, which after tax would be $46,192, or 3849 a month. Which would be pretty hard to live on for two adults and a kid. You certainly wouldn't be able to save anything. And that's not even taking into account that NC has a lot of remote workers who are throwing off the local economy - take them out, and I bet that median wage would go down.
The condition that drives women's liberation is the condition of modernity itself
Pre-modern matriarchies would like to have a word.
Women think they are happier and wealthier alone—and they're right. The bargain is not good for women, and more and more we are declining to make it.
The oft-cited study the article linked to found that on average, single women are happier than married women. Which, given how the patriarchy still exists doesn't seem that surprising. We all know that being a bad relationship is worse than being single. Doesn't quite prove that being in a good relationship is worse than being single though.
Anyway, a few thing the author doesn't discuss that might explain why women in the US have slightly less kids than they want:
1. The (perhaps) changing role of men in deciding on kid #2. My data points on this are small, but I know of a few couples who had one kid, then the wife wanted a second kid, but the husband was against it (too much work!), and ultimately the wife accepted they'd just be a one-kid family. Perhaps relevant, these were all relationships that practiced child-rearing/housework equity.
2. I've definitely know some women who wanted kids, but weren't in a rush to have them - it was something that would happen once their career was settled. And then some have been surprised when their fertility in their late 30s isn't cooperating. This might be changing with more public discourse around IVF, but I feel like for my generation (elder millennials) the idea that you might regret waiting until your mid/late 30s came as a bit of a surprise. Anyway, I've known more than one woman who had to struggle a lot for that first kid, and then deciding against going through that process for the desired second kid.
posted by coffeecat at 11:34 AM on December 18, 2024 [6 favorites]
So let me be clear: there is something wrong with a social form that cannot reproduce itself. It suggests that, on balance, the people of that society don't think their way of life is worth continuing.
Huh? I don't have a strong desire for kids and neither does my partner so it's not happening. For us it's really as simple as the fact that there are lots of ways we'd rather spend our time (hobbies, friends, career, volunteering, entertainment, etc.). It has nothing about thinking our way of life is not worth continuing. I have a hard time believing we're that unusual for feeling that way.
Or, to put it more intuitively: the rise of two-income households isn't a result of economic hardship. It's a result of economic growth.
The number of jobs where you can reliably support a family on one salary alone has decreased though. For example, the mean salary in my current state (North Carolina) in 2020 was $58,705, which after tax would be $46,192, or 3849 a month. Which would be pretty hard to live on for two adults and a kid. You certainly wouldn't be able to save anything. And that's not even taking into account that NC has a lot of remote workers who are throwing off the local economy - take them out, and I bet that median wage would go down.
The condition that drives women's liberation is the condition of modernity itself
Pre-modern matriarchies would like to have a word.
Women think they are happier and wealthier alone—and they're right. The bargain is not good for women, and more and more we are declining to make it.
The oft-cited study the article linked to found that on average, single women are happier than married women. Which, given how the patriarchy still exists doesn't seem that surprising. We all know that being a bad relationship is worse than being single. Doesn't quite prove that being in a good relationship is worse than being single though.
Anyway, a few thing the author doesn't discuss that might explain why women in the US have slightly less kids than they want:
1. The (perhaps) changing role of men in deciding on kid #2. My data points on this are small, but I know of a few couples who had one kid, then the wife wanted a second kid, but the husband was against it (too much work!), and ultimately the wife accepted they'd just be a one-kid family. Perhaps relevant, these were all relationships that practiced child-rearing/housework equity.
2. I've definitely know some women who wanted kids, but weren't in a rush to have them - it was something that would happen once their career was settled. And then some have been surprised when their fertility in their late 30s isn't cooperating. This might be changing with more public discourse around IVF, but I feel like for my generation (elder millennials) the idea that you might regret waiting until your mid/late 30s came as a bit of a surprise. Anyway, I've known more than one woman who had to struggle a lot for that first kid, and then deciding against going through that process for the desired second kid.
posted by coffeecat at 11:34 AM on December 18, 2024 [6 favorites]
> coffeecat: "It has nothing about thinking our way of life is not worth continuing."
I interpreted that section slightly differently. I thought "their way of life" was referring to the previously standard patriarchal conventions -- the "social form that cannot reproduce itself" -- rather than the reader's own way of life.
posted by mhum at 11:40 AM on December 18, 2024 [2 favorites]
I interpreted that section slightly differently. I thought "their way of life" was referring to the previously standard patriarchal conventions -- the "social form that cannot reproduce itself" -- rather than the reader's own way of life.
posted by mhum at 11:40 AM on December 18, 2024 [2 favorites]
I agree that the author is talking about social reproduction broadly, but she's still talking about the rise of individual decisions that reflect "a problem endemic to the developed world" and not, you know, evidence that if people have the choice to spend their time not raising kids, and some people will make that choice. There is certainly less social and economic pressure to have kids today than in the past - for women and men.
posted by coffeecat at 11:59 AM on December 18, 2024 [2 favorites]
posted by coffeecat at 11:59 AM on December 18, 2024 [2 favorites]
...they're going to bring up gender roles but not discuss ways in which people have subverted gender roles over time...
I noticed this, too and it did bother me. at the same time, I think - as for opening a conversation about how broken men are - this does a good job.
good post, Samantha Hancox-Li can write. best of the web.
maybe next up is 'subverted gender roles'?
I liked this bit, which moves a little further in that direction, as it's absolutely gender-role ambivalent.
I noticed this, too and it did bother me. at the same time, I think - as for opening a conversation about how broken men are - this does a good job.
good post, Samantha Hancox-Li can write. best of the web.
maybe next up is 'subverted gender roles'?
I liked this bit, which moves a little further in that direction, as it's absolutely gender-role ambivalent.
The trick of gender is the trick of the modern world: learning to live together as free and equal citizens. Which is to say: telling a story in which we can be free and equal together despite our differences.posted by j_curiouser at 12:02 PM on December 18, 2024 [9 favorites]
So another piece about the birth rate "problem" (framed within national boundaries, of course) which entirely glosses over immigration. Talks about Asia but then only discusses western culture as explanation. No mention of gender preference in India and China, no mention of the negative correlation between prosperity and reproduction, of the vast differences in fertility rate with African countries continuing to reproduce well above replacement. No mention of refugees or migration.
Humanity isn't going extinct. There is no problem at the planetary level. Young people are clamoring to be let in to the countries that have colonized, extracted, and rendered their homelands uninhabitable. All we have to do is let them in.
Refugees from war, instability, economic stripping, and climate devastation will only continue to increase through the rest of this century. The solution to your "problem" is right in front of you, but you fight it tooth and nail.
Scratch a natalist and a xenophobe bleeds.
posted by splitpeasoup at 12:04 PM on December 18, 2024 [20 favorites]
Humanity isn't going extinct. There is no problem at the planetary level. Young people are clamoring to be let in to the countries that have colonized, extracted, and rendered their homelands uninhabitable. All we have to do is let them in.
Refugees from war, instability, economic stripping, and climate devastation will only continue to increase through the rest of this century. The solution to your "problem" is right in front of you, but you fight it tooth and nail.
Scratch a natalist and a xenophobe bleeds.
posted by splitpeasoup at 12:04 PM on December 18, 2024 [20 favorites]
> coffeecat: "if people have the choice to spend their time not raising kids, and some people will make that choice"
I think I must be misunderstanding something since I'm not exactly sure how to see this is as being at odds with the gist of the article. I feel like this is one of the key parts of the breakdown of the patriarchal bargain that this article is talking about. Specifically, women's choices today to spend time not raising kids seems to me to be inextricably linked to the fact that women's material circumstances are no longer primarily dependent on finding a suitable husband. The "way of life" I interpreted the author as saying that people find no longer worth continuing was the one where women's choices were much more constrained due to the patriarchal bargain.
posted by mhum at 12:19 PM on December 18, 2024 [4 favorites]
I think I must be misunderstanding something since I'm not exactly sure how to see this is as being at odds with the gist of the article. I feel like this is one of the key parts of the breakdown of the patriarchal bargain that this article is talking about. Specifically, women's choices today to spend time not raising kids seems to me to be inextricably linked to the fact that women's material circumstances are no longer primarily dependent on finding a suitable husband. The "way of life" I interpreted the author as saying that people find no longer worth continuing was the one where women's choices were much more constrained due to the patriarchal bargain.
posted by mhum at 12:19 PM on December 18, 2024 [4 favorites]
But what happens when the girl picks up the sword and kills the orc herself? What happens when she goes ahead and rules the kingdom without a man at her side?
But maybe she would like someone to go on royal tours with her? Help organize the crown collection? Take turns waking up in the middle of the night with the crying baby prince/princess?
posted by jb at 12:29 PM on December 18, 2024 [8 favorites]
But maybe she would like someone to go on royal tours with her? Help organize the crown collection? Take turns waking up in the middle of the night with the crying baby prince/princess?
posted by jb at 12:29 PM on December 18, 2024 [8 favorites]
1. I hate the use of the word “girl” in this article.
2. I couldn’t care less about the alleged male loneliness “epidemic.”
3. No mention of the burgeoning 4B Movement, born of the misogyny of South Korea! Was the author afraid to talk about it?
posted by BostonTerrier at 12:43 PM on December 18, 2024 [4 favorites]
2. I couldn’t care less about the alleged male loneliness “epidemic.”
3. No mention of the burgeoning 4B Movement, born of the misogyny of South Korea! Was the author afraid to talk about it?
posted by BostonTerrier at 12:43 PM on December 18, 2024 [4 favorites]
the author doesn't acknowledge that queer people exist
fwiw the author is trans
posted by BungaDunga at 12:46 PM on December 18, 2024 [4 favorites]
fwiw the author is trans
posted by BungaDunga at 12:46 PM on December 18, 2024 [4 favorites]
Maybe part of the reason it's so hard and expensive to raise a family is because so many people have opted out.
I cannot believe the rising number of DINK households has not affected market prices for everything from housing to food as the proportion of households with cash to burn grew. Now the people with kids and the single people (and heaven forbid the single people with kids) just gotta try to keep up with the DINKs.
posted by keep_evolving at 12:46 PM on December 18, 2024 [2 favorites]
I cannot believe the rising number of DINK households has not affected market prices for everything from housing to food as the proportion of households with cash to burn grew. Now the people with kids and the single people (and heaven forbid the single people with kids) just gotta try to keep up with the DINKs.
posted by keep_evolving at 12:46 PM on December 18, 2024 [2 favorites]
No mention of climate change. I have to think that's part of the birthrate thing.
Does anyone know of any research on this?
posted by ch1x0r at 12:52 PM on December 18, 2024 [2 favorites]
Does anyone know of any research on this?
posted by ch1x0r at 12:52 PM on December 18, 2024 [2 favorites]
I really liked this piece. Monocausal accounts of historical phenomena inevitably have limitations, but they nevertheless can illuminate things in a way that more nuanced takes cannot. In this case, seeing birthrates, dating, masculinity, and authoritarianism through the lens of the breakdown of the patriarchal bargain is quite useful, insofar as it forces us to imagine how all these things might be addressed in ways that would fit in the modern world. That could include men learning how to be caregivers (and not just breadwinners); but it could also include, as Dr. Hancox-Li gestures toward at the end, decoupling reproduction from sexual relationships altogether. Obviously there are lots of things that this piece doesn't cover (climate change and cost-of-living problems have been mentioned here), but a good essay helps the reader generate ideas that can extend or finetune its thesis.
By the way, if you're on Bluesky, Dr. Hancox-Li has a feisty account that's worth following.
posted by Cash4Lead at 12:54 PM on December 18, 2024 [5 favorites]
By the way, if you're on Bluesky, Dr. Hancox-Li has a feisty account that's worth following.
posted by Cash4Lead at 12:54 PM on December 18, 2024 [5 favorites]
mhum, I interpret the author's core argument to be that because women don't materially need a man, this has broken "modern" society and now men have no role/nothing to provide, thus less marriage and reproduction.
And I guess I don't totally buy that. It's not that I think it's completely wrong, just that it's overly simple. Again, the author's emphasis is entirely on what women are choosing, but this assumes that birthrate is entirely linked to marriage rate, and not more couples deciding to be childless or stop after one kid, for a whole range of reasons that might include societal gender roles but are often for largely unrelated reasons.
posted by coffeecat at 1:10 PM on December 18, 2024 [4 favorites]
And I guess I don't totally buy that. It's not that I think it's completely wrong, just that it's overly simple. Again, the author's emphasis is entirely on what women are choosing, but this assumes that birthrate is entirely linked to marriage rate, and not more couples deciding to be childless or stop after one kid, for a whole range of reasons that might include societal gender roles but are often for largely unrelated reasons.
posted by coffeecat at 1:10 PM on December 18, 2024 [4 favorites]
No mention of the burgeoning 4B Movement...
yeah, I noticed that. it's a big topic.
posted by j_curiouser at 1:23 PM on December 18, 2024 [2 favorites]
yeah, I noticed that. it's a big topic.
posted by j_curiouser at 1:23 PM on December 18, 2024 [2 favorites]
Related? Are men okay? Our modern masculinity problem, explained.
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:32 PM on December 18, 2024 [14 favorites]
“There’s just no getting around it. I have three kids: two daughters, one son. One daughter at Penn, one daughter in PR in Chicago. And my son is in the basement vaping and playing video games.”So, let's see: a lot of men are scrubs that women don't want, men won't shape up without the prospect of pussy, without pussy, they either game or kill people? Is that where this is going?
How many times have we heard, “I know all of these great women who are high character, attractive, have their act together, but they can’t find a man”? Well, actually they can, they just can’t find a man they want to date. What you have is more and more reasons, including political bifurcation, where young people aren’t connecting, falling in love and mating, and forming households.
When men don’t have the prospect of a romantic relationship, they come off the rails. They’re less likely to be employed, they’re more likely to engage in misogynistic content, and some men, without the prospect of a romantic relationship, become shitty citizens.
What does that mean for society? Because the thing that the most violent, unstable societies have in common is a disproportionate number of young men who feel as if they have nothing to lose because they have no economic or romantic opportunities."
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:32 PM on December 18, 2024 [14 favorites]
No mention of climate change. I have to think that's part of the birthrate thing.
Does anyone know of any research on this?
There's plenty from the point of view of climate change affecting fertility and reproduction, e.g.:
posted by joannemerriam at 1:33 PM on December 18, 2024 [2 favorites]
Does anyone know of any research on this?
There's plenty from the point of view of climate change affecting fertility and reproduction, e.g.:
- The effects of climate change and environmental pollution on human reproduction: A scientific review commissioned by the European Board and College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (EBCOG)
- Climate change, air pollution and maternal and newborn health: An overview of reviews of health outcomes
- Key considerations for research into how climate change affects sexual and reproductive health and rights
posted by joannemerriam at 1:33 PM on December 18, 2024 [2 favorites]
> coffeecat: "And I guess I don't totally buy that. It's not that I think it's completely wrong, just that it's overly simple. Again, the author's emphasis is entirely on what women are choosing, but this assumes that birthrate is entirely linked to marriage rate, and not more couples deciding to be childless or stop after one kid, for a whole range of reasons that might include societal gender roles but are often for largely unrelated reasons."
Ah, I think I see where you're coming from now. Thanks for the clarification. I agree that this is likely a distinct phenomenon from the rejection/breaking of the patriarchal bargain that is this article's focus.
Tbh, for a phenomenon as complex and fraught as society-level birthrates, I would be extremely surprised if there were only one singular root cause (or even merely one dominant cause). And for an article of this length, I wouldn't really expect it to be an exhaustive survey of all of the possible factors involved. I mean, the article alludes to the transition from pre-industrial agrarianism to modern industrialized society in only one sentence and mentions that overall death rates declined with modern medicine and hygiene but not specifically the impacts on infant mortality.
posted by mhum at 1:42 PM on December 18, 2024 [3 favorites]
Ah, I think I see where you're coming from now. Thanks for the clarification. I agree that this is likely a distinct phenomenon from the rejection/breaking of the patriarchal bargain that is this article's focus.
Tbh, for a phenomenon as complex and fraught as society-level birthrates, I would be extremely surprised if there were only one singular root cause (or even merely one dominant cause). And for an article of this length, I wouldn't really expect it to be an exhaustive survey of all of the possible factors involved. I mean, the article alludes to the transition from pre-industrial agrarianism to modern industrialized society in only one sentence and mentions that overall death rates declined with modern medicine and hygiene but not specifically the impacts on infant mortality.
posted by mhum at 1:42 PM on December 18, 2024 [3 favorites]
coffeecat I think men being useless is only a part of it. If a woman can get a job and take care of herself why does she need to have kids at all? Having kids was what she brought to the table under the Patriarchal Bargain but once the man's part of the bargain becomes unnecessary the woman's part becomes unnecessary as well.
As far as any particular society is concerned they need women to continue giving birth but what's the incentive for individual women to do so? Taking time off work and reducing their earning power, wrecking their bodies, and the massive costs of raising children are all pretty good reasons not to have kids. My spouse and I love our kids and are happy that we have them but it isn't as if we can look into an alternate universe where we didn't have kids and see if we are happier there.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 1:43 PM on December 18, 2024 [5 favorites]
As far as any particular society is concerned they need women to continue giving birth but what's the incentive for individual women to do so? Taking time off work and reducing their earning power, wrecking their bodies, and the massive costs of raising children are all pretty good reasons not to have kids. My spouse and I love our kids and are happy that we have them but it isn't as if we can look into an alternate universe where we didn't have kids and see if we are happier there.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 1:43 PM on December 18, 2024 [5 favorites]
not more couples deciding to be childless or stop after one kid, for a whole range of reasons that might include societal gender roles but are often for largely unrelated reasons.
Well, that's a complicated issue itself. Assuming a voluntary, informed coupling (which I fully grant is not always the case!), a couple typically won't form in the first place (or last long) if they have significantly discordant views on an issue as important as how many children to have, if any.
(Yes, all of the above is complicated by gendered violence, spousal abuse, partners who are pressured or even forced to have children, etc. But I'm speaking to the general case, which will necessarily be the one that has the biggest effect on the statistics.)
not discuss all of the very serious considerations about birth rates like cost of living, climate change, whether preventing and/or keeping a pregnancy is actually a choice where you live
In a 2021 Pew Research Center survey, only about 5 percent of childless (American) adults who do not expect to have a child cited "climate change/the environment" as their reason for not having children. Cost of living ("financial reasons") is more common, at 17%, on par with wanting children but not having a partner (15%). But the majority (56%) say it's because they just don't want to have children. Similarly, among those adults who have children but don't expect to have more, the most common reason (63%) is that they simply don't want to have more.
So while I'm certain that climate change, cost of living, and access to reproductive healthcare are significant reasons for many, for most people it is simply a lack of desire to have children, which fits the author's thesis.
No mention of the burgeoning 4B Movement, born of the misogyny of South Korea! Was the author afraid to talk about it?
4B is a small movement and has been around for less than a decade, whereas South Korea's birth rate has been below replacement and declining for 40+ years. At the high end of estimates it had perhaps 50,000 adherents, or about 0.2% of South Korean women. Assuming they are all of (and understand that I hate this phrase) "child bearing age", then that's ~0.6% of South Korean women in that age range. 4B cannot have had a significant impact on South Korea's birth rate, historically, and probably isn't having much of one now, either. I think it was reasonable for the author to ignore it, even discounting the possibility that she, as a trans woman, did not want to give a trans-exclusionary movement any additional oxygen.
posted by jedicus at 1:48 PM on December 18, 2024 [8 favorites]
Well, that's a complicated issue itself. Assuming a voluntary, informed coupling (which I fully grant is not always the case!), a couple typically won't form in the first place (or last long) if they have significantly discordant views on an issue as important as how many children to have, if any.
(Yes, all of the above is complicated by gendered violence, spousal abuse, partners who are pressured or even forced to have children, etc. But I'm speaking to the general case, which will necessarily be the one that has the biggest effect on the statistics.)
not discuss all of the very serious considerations about birth rates like cost of living, climate change, whether preventing and/or keeping a pregnancy is actually a choice where you live
In a 2021 Pew Research Center survey, only about 5 percent of childless (American) adults who do not expect to have a child cited "climate change/the environment" as their reason for not having children. Cost of living ("financial reasons") is more common, at 17%, on par with wanting children but not having a partner (15%). But the majority (56%) say it's because they just don't want to have children. Similarly, among those adults who have children but don't expect to have more, the most common reason (63%) is that they simply don't want to have more.
So while I'm certain that climate change, cost of living, and access to reproductive healthcare are significant reasons for many, for most people it is simply a lack of desire to have children, which fits the author's thesis.
No mention of the burgeoning 4B Movement, born of the misogyny of South Korea! Was the author afraid to talk about it?
4B is a small movement and has been around for less than a decade, whereas South Korea's birth rate has been below replacement and declining for 40+ years. At the high end of estimates it had perhaps 50,000 adherents, or about 0.2% of South Korean women. Assuming they are all of (and understand that I hate this phrase) "child bearing age", then that's ~0.6% of South Korean women in that age range. 4B cannot have had a significant impact on South Korea's birth rate, historically, and probably isn't having much of one now, either. I think it was reasonable for the author to ignore it, even discounting the possibility that she, as a trans woman, did not want to give a trans-exclusionary movement any additional oxygen.
posted by jedicus at 1:48 PM on December 18, 2024 [8 favorites]
In my circles, while we can afford to buy ourselves flowers, we can't afford to buy ourselves real estate. So there's still an economic element. But it's not enough of a pressure for me or most of my friends to put up with shitty dudes.
In my opinion, this is one of the most fundamental reasons house prices have skyrocketed.
If women could afford a house for themselves and their children, they’d abandon men in droves — and once that was well underway, celebrity sperm banks would soon become all the rage.
Why would women settle for anything less?
In a kind of despair mixed with exasperation, Freud asked 'what do women want?', but I don’t think he wanted or other men really do want to hear the answer.
posted by jamjam at 1:58 PM on December 18, 2024 [5 favorites]
In my opinion, this is one of the most fundamental reasons house prices have skyrocketed.
If women could afford a house for themselves and their children, they’d abandon men in droves — and once that was well underway, celebrity sperm banks would soon become all the rage.
Why would women settle for anything less?
In a kind of despair mixed with exasperation, Freud asked 'what do women want?', but I don’t think he wanted or other men really do want to hear the answer.
posted by jamjam at 1:58 PM on December 18, 2024 [5 favorites]
In my opinion, this is one of the most fundamental reasons house prices have skyrocketed.
I don't think the market raised house prices in order to keep women in relationships. My belief is that house prices have skyrocketed because governments give preferential tax treatment to houses as opposed to other forms of capital investment. Post 2008 financial crisis the cost of borrowing dropped significantly which allowed people to buy more house for the same monthly payment. Governments were slow or unable to adopt tax policy to this because homeowners are as a rule a reliable block of voters and any measure to remove the preferential tax treatment of their homes would both result in that government losing power and the successor government likely walking back that change as its first order of business.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 2:10 PM on December 18, 2024 [4 favorites]
I don't think the market raised house prices in order to keep women in relationships. My belief is that house prices have skyrocketed because governments give preferential tax treatment to houses as opposed to other forms of capital investment. Post 2008 financial crisis the cost of borrowing dropped significantly which allowed people to buy more house for the same monthly payment. Governments were slow or unable to adopt tax policy to this because homeowners are as a rule a reliable block of voters and any measure to remove the preferential tax treatment of their homes would both result in that government losing power and the successor government likely walking back that change as its first order of business.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 2:10 PM on December 18, 2024 [4 favorites]
Humanity isn't going extinct. There is no problem at the planetary level
It’s indeed a considerable extrapolation from “population peak” to “extinction” but talking like immigration makes declining birth rates irrelevant is a little facile. Mexico, that incredibly convenient source of immigrants to the US, now has a TFR of… 1.8? If not lower in the most recent stats. The Americas as a whole are below replacement. It’s really just a handful of regions globally that aren’t.
As I said in the other thread that touched on this, unlimited growth is obviously unsustainable, it’s just a fact that population decline or stagnation has to happen at some point, so there’s no use treating that fact as the problem to fight. The problem is that society isn’t built to function with a declining population. But that is a very real problem.
posted by atoxyl at 2:17 PM on December 18, 2024 [6 favorites]
It’s indeed a considerable extrapolation from “population peak” to “extinction” but talking like immigration makes declining birth rates irrelevant is a little facile. Mexico, that incredibly convenient source of immigrants to the US, now has a TFR of… 1.8? If not lower in the most recent stats. The Americas as a whole are below replacement. It’s really just a handful of regions globally that aren’t.
As I said in the other thread that touched on this, unlimited growth is obviously unsustainable, it’s just a fact that population decline or stagnation has to happen at some point, so there’s no use treating that fact as the problem to fight. The problem is that society isn’t built to function with a declining population. But that is a very real problem.
posted by atoxyl at 2:17 PM on December 18, 2024 [6 favorites]
This piece doesn’t cover every angle but I thought it was quite good and thoughtful.
posted by atoxyl at 2:20 PM on December 18, 2024 [5 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 2:20 PM on December 18, 2024 [5 favorites]
No developed countries have birthrates above replacement. None. That's in countries with wildly different cultures, governments, support networks, and gender norms. Why do we have any reason to believe there's a solution to be found here?
Less people is a good thing, btw. Environmental benefits aside, it shifts power to labor over capital. The labor shortage after the Black Death is considered to have help bring an end to feudalism.
All that we need for the next 50-100 years is a sensible immigration policy; labor shortages will compel that. Governments backtrack pretty quick once their farmers' crops started rotting in the fields.
posted by leotrotsky at 2:26 PM on December 18, 2024 [11 favorites]
Less people is a good thing, btw. Environmental benefits aside, it shifts power to labor over capital. The labor shortage after the Black Death is considered to have help bring an end to feudalism.
All that we need for the next 50-100 years is a sensible immigration policy; labor shortages will compel that. Governments backtrack pretty quick once their farmers' crops started rotting in the fields.
posted by leotrotsky at 2:26 PM on December 18, 2024 [11 favorites]
No developed countries have birthrates above replacement
All that we need for the next 50-100 years is a sensible immigration policy
To try to articulate my point a little more clearly - as the rest of the world “develops,” the premise that the “developed” world will be able to solve labor shortages through immigration will become less true.
(which doesn’t mean I have a “solution” to population decline, either, I agree that it’s an inevitability on a level that makes that a dubious notion)
posted by atoxyl at 2:38 PM on December 18, 2024
All that we need for the next 50-100 years is a sensible immigration policy
To try to articulate my point a little more clearly - as the rest of the world “develops,” the premise that the “developed” world will be able to solve labor shortages through immigration will become less true.
(which doesn’t mean I have a “solution” to population decline, either, I agree that it’s an inevitability on a level that makes that a dubious notion)
posted by atoxyl at 2:38 PM on December 18, 2024
a sensible immigration policy; labor shortages will compel that.
now who is to say a non-citizen 'guest worker' underclass is not sensible policy
posted by away for regrooving at 3:04 PM on December 18, 2024 [2 favorites]
now who is to say a non-citizen 'guest worker' underclass is not sensible policy
posted by away for regrooving at 3:04 PM on December 18, 2024 [2 favorites]
"In America women want to have 2.7 children, and have 1.7. In South Korea women want to have 1.4-1.8 children, and have .8. "
So, in either case, a bit more than half as many children as we say we want? (This is doing terrible things with averages, but I'm running with it.) But children only come in integer numbers and even 2.7 is not very large. Can we get here entirely with very often discovering that one child needs more work than was expected? In a way that doesn't seem like it will be "just as easy with two"?
posted by clew at 4:01 PM on December 18, 2024 [1 favorite]
So, in either case, a bit more than half as many children as we say we want? (This is doing terrible things with averages, but I'm running with it.) But children only come in integer numbers and even 2.7 is not very large. Can we get here entirely with very often discovering that one child needs more work than was expected? In a way that doesn't seem like it will be "just as easy with two"?
posted by clew at 4:01 PM on December 18, 2024 [1 favorite]
now who is to say a non-citizen 'guest worker' underclass is not sensible policy
Yeah, even in the article the author was like, importing people like so much clay is not a way to deal with having enough people, and I was just thinking that from a capitalist perspective it makes a lot of sense. Get people when they are already able-bodied adults so that you don't have to invest in raising them and then have them do the low paying jobs. These immigrants as well as locals that don't make enough money will be too poor to afford kids which means less taxes need to go to schools. Keep on importing people to run things and prop up the economy while those with wealth can enjoy life living off of it.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 4:04 PM on December 18, 2024
Yeah, even in the article the author was like, importing people like so much clay is not a way to deal with having enough people, and I was just thinking that from a capitalist perspective it makes a lot of sense. Get people when they are already able-bodied adults so that you don't have to invest in raising them and then have them do the low paying jobs. These immigrants as well as locals that don't make enough money will be too poor to afford kids which means less taxes need to go to schools. Keep on importing people to run things and prop up the economy while those with wealth can enjoy life living off of it.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 4:04 PM on December 18, 2024
A woman needs a man who is strong enough to provide material and physical security, but she also needs one who is decent enough to keep providing that after she's signed on the dotted line and doesn't have any recourse.
That last part deserves a bit more emphasis - “The Switch Up” by “the man” past pregnant folks’ point of no recourse. Homicide at the hands of a male partner remains a leading cause of death for pregnant folks. Young women/femmes are increasingly more aware of the signs and common life stages of intimate partner violence. They’re warned of it at prenatal visits and in the postpartum rooms. They’re increasingly aware of the prevalence of men marrying them for their labor, not for the genuine “love” of who the women/femmes truly are as people. They’re increasingly listening to their divorced and widowed and abandoned family matriarchs’ cautionary tales warning them not to get married; have an education and your own funds. Tips like “Don’t let a man live with you - there’s statistical danger there.” Have your own child by sperm donor so you don’t end up losing half of your child’s life to 50/50 custody, zero child support, and forced coparenting with a jerk who was an affair partner in your former marriage - or worse. A lot of the foregoing used to be sort of written off as the sour grapes of ‘bitter old hags!’ who chose worse men back in the day or whatever. Now it seems women are more keenly listening to their foremothers. They’re watching the videos of marital sadism happening in real time. And it can’t be unseen. Being a ph-balanced, childfree cat parent is lowkey a total flex.
A man needs a woman who is beautiful enough to bear beautiful children, but he also needs one who is faithful enough so he can be sure those are his kids he's raising.
A doubt which “a man” can fairly quickly resolve with a discreet at-home DNA test. Or even by noticing an “incorrect” fetal blood type after a pregnant person gets the 1st prenatal blood draw at just a few weeks’ gestation.
posted by edithkeeler at 4:37 PM on December 18, 2024 [5 favorites]
That last part deserves a bit more emphasis - “The Switch Up” by “the man” past pregnant folks’ point of no recourse. Homicide at the hands of a male partner remains a leading cause of death for pregnant folks. Young women/femmes are increasingly more aware of the signs and common life stages of intimate partner violence. They’re warned of it at prenatal visits and in the postpartum rooms. They’re increasingly aware of the prevalence of men marrying them for their labor, not for the genuine “love” of who the women/femmes truly are as people. They’re increasingly listening to their divorced and widowed and abandoned family matriarchs’ cautionary tales warning them not to get married; have an education and your own funds. Tips like “Don’t let a man live with you - there’s statistical danger there.” Have your own child by sperm donor so you don’t end up losing half of your child’s life to 50/50 custody, zero child support, and forced coparenting with a jerk who was an affair partner in your former marriage - or worse. A lot of the foregoing used to be sort of written off as the sour grapes of ‘bitter old hags!’ who chose worse men back in the day or whatever. Now it seems women are more keenly listening to their foremothers. They’re watching the videos of marital sadism happening in real time. And it can’t be unseen. Being a ph-balanced, childfree cat parent is lowkey a total flex.
A man needs a woman who is beautiful enough to bear beautiful children, but he also needs one who is faithful enough so he can be sure those are his kids he's raising.
A doubt which “a man” can fairly quickly resolve with a discreet at-home DNA test. Or even by noticing an “incorrect” fetal blood type after a pregnant person gets the 1st prenatal blood draw at just a few weeks’ gestation.
posted by edithkeeler at 4:37 PM on December 18, 2024 [5 favorites]
This is yet another front on which we are eating the seed corn.
"Since the end of Fordism and the beginning of the information revolution, the system has been working with growing effectiveness towards the destruction of the foundations of its survival"
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 4:41 PM on December 18, 2024 [1 favorite]
"Since the end of Fordism and the beginning of the information revolution, the system has been working with growing effectiveness towards the destruction of the foundations of its survival"
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 4:41 PM on December 18, 2024 [1 favorite]
Or like U2 said, 'A woman needs a man, like a fish needs a bicycle...'
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 4:42 PM on December 18, 2024 [1 favorite]
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 4:42 PM on December 18, 2024 [1 favorite]
Ok, this is a little long, but bear with me.
“There’s just no getting around it. I have three kids: two daughters, one son. One daughter at Penn, one daughter in PR in Chicago. And my son is in the basement vaping and playing video games.”
How many times have we heard, “I know all of these great women who are high character, attractive, have their act together, but they can’t find a man”? Well, actually they can, they just can’t find a man they want to date. What you have is more and more reasons, including political bifurcation, where young people aren’t connecting, falling in love and mating, and forming households.
Yup. Not that my experience is the end all, be all, but I know multiple women who have opted for the very difficult path of IVF single parenthood because they couldn't find the right partner and were running out of time.
It's not something neatly explainable. Culture and economics are gigantic messes of factors that are very difficult to summarize, especially at the overlap.
Broadly, consider, my age cohort (late GenX) was one of the smallest in modern history, the thin waist of the age table, if you will. This, the size of age cohorts, is itself a factor. We were the latchkey kids, etc. We were notoriously anti establishment and generally opted not to settle down until much later in adulthood than our parents, so not a lot of kids happening there. But then what happened? A recession, then another very big recession. By now you're also taking about the next age cohort down the line, a much bigger group: Millennials. The entirety of this group, late X through the whole generation of Millennials, are worse off than our parents were economically at every age we've been adults. For most of us, home ownership has always been a farce of an idea, the punchline to a joke. That is the end of one wave and the entirety of the next in terms of generations (generations that would presumably have kids and create the next generation down the line) that has mostly eaten shit economically our whole lives.
This is a picture of a shrinking pie. And I want to reemphasize that this is just my lived experience, but seriously, every place I've ever worked, a kind of assholishness was fairly required to move up the ladder. I know a few good people who have done well for themselves, but I think they got very, very lucky. Many people I know who thought they were getting good jobs (professors, lawyers, journalists) have been generally crushed in one form or another.
I started off by highlighting the lack of good men, and I think that these things are related. If you're a young man with a sense of wanting to be "good and strong" as the essay would have it, how exactly are you supposed to do that? There is a huge malaise facing our youth, but it's a malaise of cultural and economic opportunity. And that's before you get to climate change.
And yet, and also, all of that said, "prosperous Northern Europe" (scare quotes), with family friendly semi socialist policies, also suffers from low birth rates. I do think there is something to modernity being in conflict with a positive birth rate, but what it is isn't all the patriarchal bargain -- it's also that having kids is a lot of work, and type 2 fun at best. A lot of it sucks!
So really what I'm seeing here is that this is an overdetermined situation. There's all of these overlapping factors, all working in the same direction. The essay does a good job of bringing one to the fore that doesn't get a lot of play and is worth considering. But it's just a part of a much bigger story.
posted by Smedly, Butlerian jihadi at 6:07 PM on December 18, 2024 [6 favorites]
“There’s just no getting around it. I have three kids: two daughters, one son. One daughter at Penn, one daughter in PR in Chicago. And my son is in the basement vaping and playing video games.”
How many times have we heard, “I know all of these great women who are high character, attractive, have their act together, but they can’t find a man”? Well, actually they can, they just can’t find a man they want to date. What you have is more and more reasons, including political bifurcation, where young people aren’t connecting, falling in love and mating, and forming households.
Yup. Not that my experience is the end all, be all, but I know multiple women who have opted for the very difficult path of IVF single parenthood because they couldn't find the right partner and were running out of time.
It's not something neatly explainable. Culture and economics are gigantic messes of factors that are very difficult to summarize, especially at the overlap.
Broadly, consider, my age cohort (late GenX) was one of the smallest in modern history, the thin waist of the age table, if you will. This, the size of age cohorts, is itself a factor. We were the latchkey kids, etc. We were notoriously anti establishment and generally opted not to settle down until much later in adulthood than our parents, so not a lot of kids happening there. But then what happened? A recession, then another very big recession. By now you're also taking about the next age cohort down the line, a much bigger group: Millennials. The entirety of this group, late X through the whole generation of Millennials, are worse off than our parents were economically at every age we've been adults. For most of us, home ownership has always been a farce of an idea, the punchline to a joke. That is the end of one wave and the entirety of the next in terms of generations (generations that would presumably have kids and create the next generation down the line) that has mostly eaten shit economically our whole lives.
This is a picture of a shrinking pie. And I want to reemphasize that this is just my lived experience, but seriously, every place I've ever worked, a kind of assholishness was fairly required to move up the ladder. I know a few good people who have done well for themselves, but I think they got very, very lucky. Many people I know who thought they were getting good jobs (professors, lawyers, journalists) have been generally crushed in one form or another.
I started off by highlighting the lack of good men, and I think that these things are related. If you're a young man with a sense of wanting to be "good and strong" as the essay would have it, how exactly are you supposed to do that? There is a huge malaise facing our youth, but it's a malaise of cultural and economic opportunity. And that's before you get to climate change.
And yet, and also, all of that said, "prosperous Northern Europe" (scare quotes), with family friendly semi socialist policies, also suffers from low birth rates. I do think there is something to modernity being in conflict with a positive birth rate, but what it is isn't all the patriarchal bargain -- it's also that having kids is a lot of work, and type 2 fun at best. A lot of it sucks!
So really what I'm seeing here is that this is an overdetermined situation. There's all of these overlapping factors, all working in the same direction. The essay does a good job of bringing one to the fore that doesn't get a lot of play and is worth considering. But it's just a part of a much bigger story.
posted by Smedly, Butlerian jihadi at 6:07 PM on December 18, 2024 [6 favorites]
Just for the record, I like and love many men. They are not useless unless they choose to be. I would not be happy with another woman, or a really great vibrator and some "celebrity sperm."
I want a partner, and love and sex and companionship and for me that needs to be a guy, who is willing to work for the same things. I know they exist, the person I'm currently with is a better fit than my first spouse, but my ex wasn't useless either, just wrong for me.
And the other thing is, guys who can't sustain relationships seem mostly miserable. It's not good for them either. I'm not going to do it for them, but it's possible for any guy to be a worthwhile human being. If he's willing to try. A lot of men seem stuck in a belief that a woman will make them better instead of owning their own lives and choices. But that's something they can change.
Anyway, when we start seeing everything transactionally we miss how much more there is to people. Humans want to love and be loved including men, and the end of patriarchy wouldn't change that.
posted by emjaybee at 6:56 PM on December 18, 2024 [10 favorites]
I want a partner, and love and sex and companionship and for me that needs to be a guy, who is willing to work for the same things. I know they exist, the person I'm currently with is a better fit than my first spouse, but my ex wasn't useless either, just wrong for me.
And the other thing is, guys who can't sustain relationships seem mostly miserable. It's not good for them either. I'm not going to do it for them, but it's possible for any guy to be a worthwhile human being. If he's willing to try. A lot of men seem stuck in a belief that a woman will make them better instead of owning their own lives and choices. But that's something they can change.
Anyway, when we start seeing everything transactionally we miss how much more there is to people. Humans want to love and be loved including men, and the end of patriarchy wouldn't change that.
posted by emjaybee at 6:56 PM on December 18, 2024 [10 favorites]
then what happened? A recession, then another very big recession. By now you're also taking about the next age cohort down the line, a much bigger group: Millennials. The entirety of this group, late X through the whole generation of Millennials, are worse off than our parents were economically at every age we've been adults.
Historically, marriage rates (and thus birth rates) in nuclear family societies have gone way down in economic bad times. In the late 17th century, some 20-25% of English women never married and the average age of those who did was higher than before; most historians link both to the stagnant economy. After the industrial revolution got going about 1750, average age at first marriage started to drop, only a few years, but it was enough to slightly increase the birthrate and kick off the modern population explosion of the 19th-20th centuries.
Access to jobs means people feel like they can get married and have kids.
posted by jb at 7:08 PM on December 18, 2024 [1 favorite]
Historically, marriage rates (and thus birth rates) in nuclear family societies have gone way down in economic bad times. In the late 17th century, some 20-25% of English women never married and the average age of those who did was higher than before; most historians link both to the stagnant economy. After the industrial revolution got going about 1750, average age at first marriage started to drop, only a few years, but it was enough to slightly increase the birthrate and kick off the modern population explosion of the 19th-20th centuries.
Access to jobs means people feel like they can get married and have kids.
posted by jb at 7:08 PM on December 18, 2024 [1 favorite]
If you look at good ol' Maslow's motivation model, if traditional marriage and kids means that a woman's needs beyond that third level wind up being severely curtailed, and perhaps even the first two needs threatened, why would any woman want to be married?
I think everybody wants love and/or sex and/or companionship or one, or some combination of the three, but we're admitting that sex/gender doesn't matter and getting closer to allowing that to be the norm. IMHO, women are much closer to realizing that would be a good thing; most men are terrified it could be true.
posted by BlueHorse at 8:08 PM on December 18, 2024 [3 favorites]
I think everybody wants love and/or sex and/or companionship or one, or some combination of the three, but we're admitting that sex/gender doesn't matter and getting closer to allowing that to be the norm. IMHO, women are much closer to realizing that would be a good thing; most men are terrified it could be true.
posted by BlueHorse at 8:08 PM on December 18, 2024 [3 favorites]
Doesnt mention endocrine disrupting pollution as a cause and proportional correlate of physical fertility decline and possible a motivation interfence.
Assumes pop decline is bad.
Assume gender ideals of the current patriarchies were the lived realities of the whole of past populations ...
but i do think the social reproduction failure is people voting with their gonads to reject this modern lifestyle is accurate.
Also, the modernity deal is broken for everyone. But especially women: what is the benefit to the average women to dealing with the average man. Is it surprising that the average woman won't settle for the average man.
Because the benefits of the modern lifestyle were used to mollify restive masses when an alternative communism) was considered plausible. Weekends, a house, hobbies, voting rights, etc... your rulers and owners didnt give these because you earned them or because they trickled down to you, but because they thought you'd guilotine them if the didnt.
The one worker nuclear family is recent artifacr, not ever a mode of societal intergenerational continuity. it was never not broken
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 8:14 PM on December 18, 2024 [4 favorites]
Assumes pop decline is bad.
Assume gender ideals of the current patriarchies were the lived realities of the whole of past populations ...
but i do think the social reproduction failure is people voting with their gonads to reject this modern lifestyle is accurate.
Also, the modernity deal is broken for everyone. But especially women: what is the benefit to the average women to dealing with the average man. Is it surprising that the average woman won't settle for the average man.
Because the benefits of the modern lifestyle were used to mollify restive masses when an alternative communism) was considered plausible. Weekends, a house, hobbies, voting rights, etc... your rulers and owners didnt give these because you earned them or because they trickled down to you, but because they thought you'd guilotine them if the didnt.
The one worker nuclear family is recent artifacr, not ever a mode of societal intergenerational continuity. it was never not broken
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 8:14 PM on December 18, 2024 [4 favorites]
The article says America is a peaceful country, which it certainly has been compared to others
It also certainly hasn't been at all, compared to others. It just depends which others you pick.
posted by Dysk at 9:42 PM on December 18, 2024 [1 favorite]
It also certainly hasn't been at all, compared to others. It just depends which others you pick.
posted by Dysk at 9:42 PM on December 18, 2024 [1 favorite]
the author doesn't acknowledge that queer people exist
Or the growing "tradwife" movement.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:55 PM on December 18, 2024
Or the growing "tradwife" movement.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:55 PM on December 18, 2024
So let me be clear: there is something wrong with a social form that cannot reproduce itself. It suggests that, on balance, the people of that society don't think their way of life is worth continuing.
Huh? I don't have a strong desire for kids and neither does my partner so it's not happening.
For real. It's bizarre to think part of my decision was "nah my way of life shouldn't continue." Like wut.
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:12 AM on December 19, 2024 [1 favorite]
Huh? I don't have a strong desire for kids and neither does my partner so it's not happening.
For real. It's bizarre to think part of my decision was "nah my way of life shouldn't continue." Like wut.
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:12 AM on December 19, 2024 [1 favorite]
why would any woman want to be married?
Grooming, since girlhood, plus the wedding industrial complex. Being a bride is supposed to be hugely validating; her wedding day an end all be all. Marriage is so statistically beneficial for cishet men, it’s perplexing why “the men” aren’t clamoring for it more.
I also think women en masse still fail to grasp the true nature of cishet marriage as a labor contract for women. Recall the emotional labor threads here of just a few years ago. Or even the “women getting broken by the pandemic” MeFi threads of not that long ago. Not to mention our recent Gisèle Pelicot case thread. But I digress. Lots of recurring themes in there that show in no uncertain terms how marriage (or even living with a male partner) really is for married women.
posted by edithkeeler at 7:26 AM on December 19, 2024 [2 favorites]
Grooming, since girlhood, plus the wedding industrial complex. Being a bride is supposed to be hugely validating; her wedding day an end all be all. Marriage is so statistically beneficial for cishet men, it’s perplexing why “the men” aren’t clamoring for it more.
I also think women en masse still fail to grasp the true nature of cishet marriage as a labor contract for women. Recall the emotional labor threads here of just a few years ago. Or even the “women getting broken by the pandemic” MeFi threads of not that long ago. Not to mention our recent Gisèle Pelicot case thread. But I digress. Lots of recurring themes in there that show in no uncertain terms how marriage (or even living with a male partner) really is for married women.
posted by edithkeeler at 7:26 AM on December 19, 2024 [2 favorites]
Governments were slow or unable to adopt tax policy to this because homeowners are as a rule a reliable block of voters and any measure to remove the preferential tax treatment of their homes would both result in that government losing power and the successor government likely walking back that change as its first order of business.
What? Trump curtailed the 'state and local tax' deduction (SALT) which mostly helped people in high housing prices states deduct part of their home taxes. Now you have to have a really expensive home for it to apply. Most people in the US get no tax deduction on their homes. Homes prices in expensive markets did not fall due to SALT limits, mostly because property taxes are far too low, even in high tax states, to drive policy.
Governments do give preferential treatment on the sale of houses, in terms of deferred capital gains, but if people thought that was valuable, I think you'd see plenty of sales. The problem is no-one is selling (the median time people are living in their home is rising dramatically), and no-one is making new homes, therefore the price is rising.
Yeah, even in the article the author was like, importing people like so much clay is not a way to deal with having enough people, and I was just thinking that from a capitalist perspective it makes a lot of sense. Get people when they are already able-bodied adults so that you don't have to invest in raising them and then have them do the low paying jobs. These immigrants as well as locals that don't make enough money will be too poor to afford kids which means less taxes need to go to schools. Keep on importing people to run things and prop up the economy while those with wealth can enjoy life living off of it.
No wonder Republicans get to control immigration policy if this thread is what people think of immigrants. Like your assumption is that immigrants are too dumb to realize they are being taken advantage of and not just head home to higher pay and the ability to make their own fertility choices? No wonder Republicans believe they can just deport a millions of people at a ~4% unemployment rate and things will be fine. There also seems to be an assumption here the people who live in apartments don't pay property tax for schools. I assume you think all immigrants live in tents or on the street?
Yikes.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:24 AM on December 19, 2024
What? Trump curtailed the 'state and local tax' deduction (SALT) which mostly helped people in high housing prices states deduct part of their home taxes. Now you have to have a really expensive home for it to apply. Most people in the US get no tax deduction on their homes. Homes prices in expensive markets did not fall due to SALT limits, mostly because property taxes are far too low, even in high tax states, to drive policy.
Governments do give preferential treatment on the sale of houses, in terms of deferred capital gains, but if people thought that was valuable, I think you'd see plenty of sales. The problem is no-one is selling (the median time people are living in their home is rising dramatically), and no-one is making new homes, therefore the price is rising.
Yeah, even in the article the author was like, importing people like so much clay is not a way to deal with having enough people, and I was just thinking that from a capitalist perspective it makes a lot of sense. Get people when they are already able-bodied adults so that you don't have to invest in raising them and then have them do the low paying jobs. These immigrants as well as locals that don't make enough money will be too poor to afford kids which means less taxes need to go to schools. Keep on importing people to run things and prop up the economy while those with wealth can enjoy life living off of it.
No wonder Republicans get to control immigration policy if this thread is what people think of immigrants. Like your assumption is that immigrants are too dumb to realize they are being taken advantage of and not just head home to higher pay and the ability to make their own fertility choices? No wonder Republicans believe they can just deport a millions of people at a ~4% unemployment rate and things will be fine. There also seems to be an assumption here the people who live in apartments don't pay property tax for schools. I assume you think all immigrants live in tents or on the street?
Yikes.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:24 AM on December 19, 2024
We bought a house 2 years ago, and after a lifetime of being a renter, I was so excited to take advantage of that sweet, sweet mortgage interest tax deduction I'd always heard I was missing out on. It turns out if you don't make that much money, don't have a bunch of other complicated deductions, and your mortgage isn't that big, the standard deduction is a better deal than itemizing.
posted by hydropsyche at 8:52 AM on December 19, 2024 [7 favorites]
posted by hydropsyche at 8:52 AM on December 19, 2024 [7 favorites]
« Older There's no place like home for the (Trek) holidays | Unwritten words Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
But anyway yes, I broadly (ha) agree with this essay's central points, but I think it misses something: how shitty a lot of guys are right now. She writes about the manosphere, without really pointing out that manosphere dudes are absolutely terrible to date. Most of my decent guy friends don't seem to have much trouble finding people who want to date them, in the long term.
My single friends report that dating sites are chockablock with low-effort dudes who just say "hey" and then send a dick pic. Why would anybody bother with that? Do they even want a relationship? It doesn't seem like it.
In my circles, while we can afford to buy ourselves flowers, we can't afford to buy ourselves real estate. So there's still an economic element. But it's not enough of a pressure for me or most of my friends to put up with shitty dudes. So where she ends with "Can he find a way to be something worth wanting for his own sake—a man who is wanted even despite not being needed?" it's like, yes, of course a guy can accomplish that, he just has to be, y'know, better than being alone. Given how much fun sex and companionship can be, that should not be that big of an ask.
posted by joannemerriam at 10:54 AM on December 18, 2024 [36 favorites]