No $hit Sherlock

Cue the straw man arguments.
Three…
Two…

"One of the biggest issues is that women seem to be giving up on men, particularly those without college degrees. "

Many have unrealistic expectations of how much people actually make. They think that less than $100K or $150K is a failure. Interesting that they will have sex with a guy that doesn’t meet their husband criteria and then have a child with them but not marry them.

1 Like

Maybe I’m an old fashioned but I think it’s best to get married first and then when you can afford it have children.

One problem is we reward people bring kids into the world they can’t afford with food stamps, welfare, section 8 housing, Medicaid, free daycare, etc. Then the cycle of poverty continues.

1 Like

She was on the Freakonomics podcast recently talking about it.

No one really disputes that two parents are preferable. The question is more about what to do about it.

A good place to start would be to stop rewarding people who make bad decisions that expect the taxpayers to raise their kids.

With some of the states laws on abortion, they’re going to be plopping out in trailer parks everywhere. Plop plop plop. = Bill Hicks.

1 Like

Read her book.

…one

1 Like

One day we may very well determine the root cause of pregnancy…

Do we really need to read a book about two-parent homes providing better outcomes for children?? We can just look anywhere today and see it…

If you have read it…can you provide some cliff notes that would be unexpected ?

Apparently the WaPo book reviewer did a hit job on this book.
WaPo has a paywall and I can’t find it reposted anywhere.

If anyone can, please link.

I think this is the review you are referring to. You can read it with the ctrl P option. I used an incognito window, not sure if it’s necessary.

Not completely a hit job, but critical. Makes a couple of OK points, but unnecessarily pedantic.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/books/2023/10/14/two-parent-privilege-melissa-kearney-review/

I am less than three paragraphs in and found this nugget.
"self-described “MIT-trained economist,”

By “self-described” do you mean “Graduated with a PhD”?

1 Like

Took til page three to start with the straw man arguments (that earlier in the review the author already admitted that Kearney never made).

" As the political commentator Matt Bruenig has
argued, parents are not generally in a position to choose between amiable, healthy marriages and raising their
children alone; instead, they have the option of pursuing tense (if not outright abusive) partnerships or proceeding as
best they can by themselves. If Kearney really wants to determine whether the current situation is preferable to a
realistic alternative, she ought to compare the outcomes of children in single-parent households with the outcomes of
children in unstable or violent two-parent households"

Unnecessarily long yes, not many points made other than show their bias.

And I have three words for this idiocy!!

“why should we “work to restore and
foster” the nuclear family, which privatizes affection and attention, instead of working to foster a new norm of
communal child-rearing?”

FOR FUCKS SAKE

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.