My daughter participated in this at Stanford as well. She rarely sees her marriage pact match around, but they did grab lunch early on after being matched.
1 Like
I feel like I wasted my time reading that article. What is the point of it?
2 Likes
To be honest I had trouble with a lot of the obvious bias in the “ Back from the brink: The intellectual tide is turning on marriage and civil society” article.
Here’s an alternative article to consider:
1 Like
I know many young people who do not have a strong yearning for kids, and the extremely high cost of quality childcare has led them to determine that they can’t afford to have kids. They choose not to have them, and that can lead to choosing not to get married.
6 Likes
Well, that’s an LDS newspaper (which some people may not know), so that influences the articles they publish. Getting married and having children is inextricably intertwined with the theology, so it’s a huuuge deal in LDS culture. As @88jm19 noted, there’s a certain viewpoint that dominates that article, and I also found the Brookings one more insighful (thanks for the link).
3 Likes
Unfortunately should they decide that they actually want to have children later in life the original decision not to have children will hurt women more than men because of the biological clock. If men at fifty decides to have children they still can.
1 Like
But that article says the same thing, since the definition of middle class used by Brookings is from $37K to $144K income, i.e. the vast majority of the “middle class” whose marriage rates have declined are in the lower two groups in the chart I posted.
I don’t like the religious framing of the Deseret News article either, but the fact that Brookings are writing about this subject (and portraying it as a problem) does tend to support the idea that the declining marriage rate amongst those with “middle” (or “lower”) incomes is becoming an issue of more concern across the political spectrum.
It’s an individual’s decision. One could also ask, what if a woman has a child for fear they’ll regret it sometime in the future?…in other words has the child and regrets that decision. The mother is unhappy and perhaps the child.
There is adoption and for those who can afford it…freezing eggs and surrogacy.
This book may enlighten those who think all women want or should want motherhood.
1 Like
The framing is extremely important in my opinion. The declining marriage rate is a quantifiable observation. However the framework drawn from that observation in the 2 articles are very different.
Brookings draws attention to it because of the concern of exacerbating already existing inequalities.
Deseret focuses on “cultural elites coming to their senses about the importance of family, faith and community”.
Not the same thing.
Isn’t the other point that marriage amongst elites has declined slightly but has been and still remains robust? Cultural ‘elites’ are continuing to do what they’ve always done, there isn’t really any change?
2 Likes
But the takeaway from both is that wealthy elites need to pay attention because of the impact on society and not just look at their own situation as individuals (which is that they continue to get married at close to historic rates). Deseret is claiming that those elites are starting to do so (which they hope means religious sensibilities will be accorded more respect), Brookings is saying that they need to do so. Neither offers many prescriptions as to what they should do beyond “paying attention” to the problem.
2 Likes
And this comes down to the question of “luxury beliefs” where those cultural elites say one thing and do another. In this case (as per quite a number of comments in this thread) saying young people should do what makes them happy and it doesn’t matter if they don’t get married. But in reality most of our kids (who are after all largely college graduates with decent jobs) will get married anyway. While the message that “do what makes you happy, don’t worry about getting married” has much more negative implications for individuals with low income and lesser prospects.
2 Likes
Everyone in my DD circle of friends wants to get married and have kids. My DS is in mid thirties and his friends including himself already have been married for years and have one ore more children. Some can’t find a partner. But that’s not voluntary unmarried and childless that was discussed here.
1 Like
@Twoin18 I don’t see it that way.
In my opinion the decline in the marriage rate in less wealthy segments of society has less to do with the “luxury beliefs” and more to do with the vast number of issues that affect those who don’t possess wealth.
I actually think it’s a bit arrogant to think the middle class worker isn’t getting married because a wealthy elite is saying marriage and monogamy are “outdated”. Seriously?
Is believing/trusting an individual to make decisions about their life so radical? The alternative reality of an authoritarian state is both distasteful and unsustainable in my opinion.
Note*- I will say no more on the topic of Rob Henderson’s “luxury beliefs” due to its political nature.
Hypothetical: Would you rather say “do what makes you unhappy…trust that you will be happier in the long run, because stats/religion/“I” say so?…even though “you” don’t have the resources “I” do?
2 Likes
Or would it be better for those married elites to say that marriage is better economically and as an environment to bring up children, whatever level of resources you have? We do tend to say it’s a good idea to try and live within your means and save money for a rainy day, even if that’s difficult or impossible for those with lesser resources.
And yet in the past those who didn’t possess wealth still got married. Do you think the poor have a vaster number of issues affecting them than they did 50 or 100 years ago? Isn’t the main difference that societal attitudes have changed? Many of those changes have created new opportunities and made many people’s lives better, but its hard to argue that they haven’t also affected attitudes to marriage.
1 Like
*Note: I put in bold two points that I will address.
I’m not sure why there’s so much emphasis on what “married elites” say. I feel what young people have witnessed in their own lives both within and outside their communities has a much greater impact.
If a young person has seen the dissolution of a marriage, they will have opinions about it. Some may see it as “being sold a bill of goods”. A lot will question “the marriage contract”…and I’m not referring to a prenuptial agreement. I’m talking about the marriage vows and expectations.
Young people (correction, most people) are observing a good deal of hypocrisy right now. People who put forth a virtuous facade that conceals abuse. People who demonize certain segments of society based on “beliefs” not facts. Religious institutions that look the other way when it comes to their own sinful actions. Legal and educational institutions that seem particularly vulnerable to influence peddling.
The issues are numerous. I don’t think elites are the messengers you think they are.
And I feel like I must add that using the phrase “whatever level of resources you have” is a touch condescending imo. Why? Because it often comes from those who have “more”.
@Twoin18 I’ll respond to the second part of your post to me later today, when I have the time.
4 Likes
*Note: I’ve highlighted the question I’m answering.
@Twoin18 First, you asked me what I think. I think “the poor” have a lot of issues…always have, unfortunately always will. In some cases there are more issues than 50-100 yrs ago. In some cases perhaps not. It’s not a competition as to who has/had it worse. We could expend a lot of energy nitpicking different scenarios…a waste of time imo.
I believe seeking solutions to poverty issues…from helping those in unfortunate circumstances to helping people from falling into poverty…is a better endeavor. However I do acknowledge that is a very difficult task and requires resources. Most would agree that there isn’t a simple formula.
Lastly since you asked, comparisons between 50-100 yrs ago and today is a bit of folly imo. There have been huge changes in employment, technology, transportation and a whole host of other things. One of which, that shouldn’t be ignored, is people are living much longer. I believe in the United States the average life expectancy in 1925 was 58 years!
Wrong thread.
Won’t have to think about this anymore. Just found out we are going to be grand parents. Woohoo 
28 Likes
Great news! The BEST thread in the Cafe looks forward to you joining it!
3 Likes