That's a fascinating take. I am reading article after article about INCEL, and the demographic decline, and women who wanted children and could never have them because they didn't manage to get married on time... and you see none of that as a problem? Or did you have some other 'that' in mind?
The standard is to be happy, healthy, and safe. That looks like being single. Women aren’t cattle, they aren’t alive for the sole purpose of bearing children.
Ummm... what standard? This post discusses a problem... a lack of young healthy marriage for men. Not a 'standard'.
And as far as being 'happy' I believe that the research has shown that both men and women are, in general, happier when married, and unhappy when divorced. And the INCHEL movement is definitely unhappy.
That’s not what other research is saying. Some surveys show that women are happier single, while men are not. The “standard” you talk about in the post you wrote.
Well, I used the word 'standard(s)' a lot in the post, while talking about women judging men in inappropriate ways... like are they six foot tall and make 100k a year. And I called those 'false standards'. So I don't see how it relates to 'happy, healthy, and safe'. One cannot really judge a man by 'he will make me happy, healthy, and safe' since one cannot know the future. One would have to have a set of standards that one would *hope* lead to those (assuming those are good goals, about which we obviously disagree)... we cannot make those the standard themselves. We are not God, to know the future.
If God gave me any common sense at all its that I can do what I can to ensure a happy, healthy, and safe life. That looks like being single, and that’s what many women come to realize in one way or another. Women choose who they want to be with now, not who they have to be with to survive. The standards are high, and there is peace in solitude.
They're not property. They have full legal equality and agency and that's a good thing but children raised by parents who aren't married have MUCH worse prospects and falling birth rates can cause the complete social and financial collapse of countries. Unless you have a solution for these (which are strongly tied to the choices of individual women) they are a problem. If you're assaulted or robbed by a young man whose absent father tipped the balance into antisocial behavior it becomes YOUR your problem. You're arguing that women should have complete freedom... but you haven't shown how the negative effects of falling rates of marriage and family formation aren't problems. Those are two entirely different questions.
Birth rates are falling because we can’t afford to be alive anymore, and people have found other reasons to be alive other than to reproduce. Exponential growth is not possible on a finite planet. It has to fall, and then maintain itself on at a sustainable level.
Just to be clear, birth rates are falling... among certain groups. And they tend to be the most well off groups. So it really can't be linked to affordability.
You're talking about the causes of the issue and speculating massively. The poorest countries on Earth have (by far) the highest birthrates. And that doesn't address the first and most consequential problem i listed: less people getting married = less children raised by two parents = more crime and misery and social pathology, especially among young men. To demonstrate that I was wrong you would have to claim that this trend has nothing to do with marriage (nothing.. not a little) or that it's not a problem. Have at it
That’s interesting because the socioeconomic classes I took, based on documented history, illustrated how poverty was actually linked to crime, not marriage.
He mentioned 'countries' not areas in a country. In the US poor areas have a very low marriage rate. On the world scale, poor countries have a high birth rate.
Poverty and crime are linked to many factors but the BEST predictor of criminal conviction is being raised by a mother only. There are VERY poor communities in the US (many immigrant communities) with stable family patterns... and low crime. Conversely there are plenty of people from homes with middle class incomes who end up incarcerated. An absent father is the best predictor of behavioral problems in school, poor grades, and criminal activity. If you avoid a criminal conviction, get SOME college education (2 years suffices) and don't become pregnant or impregnate anyone outside of marriage your chance of ending up poor in the US is below 1% and that applies for all races, all classes, all areas. That is because the United States has a robust economy and a lot of opportunity... but good jobs and smart phones can't raise kids. Every piece of data we have shows that 2 parents are MUCH better for childhood outcomes than one and the difference is not marginal. It's orders of magnitude. Marriage has declined among the poor and working class. It's as strong as it ever was among the wealthy in the US. What might that indicate? 2 parents = stability, character, success
See, I can see a huge social trend like declining marriage rates and simultaneously support every adult woman's absolute legal independence while admitting that the collective choices of women often have negative consequences. The collective choices of every group, everywhere, have negative consequences in certain respects. It would, in fact, be insane to claim that a society-wide trend affecting nearly everyone indirectly DIDN'T generate any problems.
I hope you continue to keep your head above the rising tides of financial uncertainty and don't suddenly blink out of existence. Nuance is very important in social science. Conversations about negative effects of certain things do not equate to opposition to those things. We should be MOST ready to discuss the negative consequences of policies and laws we support, in order to improve them. People too often take a purely binary approach and it leads to oppositional politics and terrible policies.
No. Women aren’t property anymore, and that isn’t a problem at all.
That's a fascinating take. I am reading article after article about INCEL, and the demographic decline, and women who wanted children and could never have them because they didn't manage to get married on time... and you see none of that as a problem? Or did you have some other 'that' in mind?
The standard is to be happy, healthy, and safe. That looks like being single. Women aren’t cattle, they aren’t alive for the sole purpose of bearing children.
Ummm... what standard? This post discusses a problem... a lack of young healthy marriage for men. Not a 'standard'.
And as far as being 'happy' I believe that the research has shown that both men and women are, in general, happier when married, and unhappy when divorced. And the INCHEL movement is definitely unhappy.
https://vonwriting.substack.com/p/inchel
That’s not what other research is saying. Some surveys show that women are happier single, while men are not. The “standard” you talk about in the post you wrote.
Well, I used the word 'standard(s)' a lot in the post, while talking about women judging men in inappropriate ways... like are they six foot tall and make 100k a year. And I called those 'false standards'. So I don't see how it relates to 'happy, healthy, and safe'. One cannot really judge a man by 'he will make me happy, healthy, and safe' since one cannot know the future. One would have to have a set of standards that one would *hope* lead to those (assuming those are good goals, about which we obviously disagree)... we cannot make those the standard themselves. We are not God, to know the future.
If God gave me any common sense at all its that I can do what I can to ensure a happy, healthy, and safe life. That looks like being single, and that’s what many women come to realize in one way or another. Women choose who they want to be with now, not who they have to be with to survive. The standards are high, and there is peace in solitude.
They're not property. They have full legal equality and agency and that's a good thing but children raised by parents who aren't married have MUCH worse prospects and falling birth rates can cause the complete social and financial collapse of countries. Unless you have a solution for these (which are strongly tied to the choices of individual women) they are a problem. If you're assaulted or robbed by a young man whose absent father tipped the balance into antisocial behavior it becomes YOUR your problem. You're arguing that women should have complete freedom... but you haven't shown how the negative effects of falling rates of marriage and family formation aren't problems. Those are two entirely different questions.
Birth rates are falling because we can’t afford to be alive anymore, and people have found other reasons to be alive other than to reproduce. Exponential growth is not possible on a finite planet. It has to fall, and then maintain itself on at a sustainable level.
Just to be clear, birth rates are falling... among certain groups. And they tend to be the most well off groups. So it really can't be linked to affordability.
You're talking about the causes of the issue and speculating massively. The poorest countries on Earth have (by far) the highest birthrates. And that doesn't address the first and most consequential problem i listed: less people getting married = less children raised by two parents = more crime and misery and social pathology, especially among young men. To demonstrate that I was wrong you would have to claim that this trend has nothing to do with marriage (nothing.. not a little) or that it's not a problem. Have at it
That’s interesting because the socioeconomic classes I took, based on documented history, illustrated how poverty was actually linked to crime, not marriage.
He mentioned 'countries' not areas in a country. In the US poor areas have a very low marriage rate. On the world scale, poor countries have a high birth rate.
Poverty and crime are linked to many factors but the BEST predictor of criminal conviction is being raised by a mother only. There are VERY poor communities in the US (many immigrant communities) with stable family patterns... and low crime. Conversely there are plenty of people from homes with middle class incomes who end up incarcerated. An absent father is the best predictor of behavioral problems in school, poor grades, and criminal activity. If you avoid a criminal conviction, get SOME college education (2 years suffices) and don't become pregnant or impregnate anyone outside of marriage your chance of ending up poor in the US is below 1% and that applies for all races, all classes, all areas. That is because the United States has a robust economy and a lot of opportunity... but good jobs and smart phones can't raise kids. Every piece of data we have shows that 2 parents are MUCH better for childhood outcomes than one and the difference is not marginal. It's orders of magnitude. Marriage has declined among the poor and working class. It's as strong as it ever was among the wealthy in the US. What might that indicate? 2 parents = stability, character, success
See, I can see a huge social trend like declining marriage rates and simultaneously support every adult woman's absolute legal independence while admitting that the collective choices of women often have negative consequences. The collective choices of every group, everywhere, have negative consequences in certain respects. It would, in fact, be insane to claim that a society-wide trend affecting nearly everyone indirectly DIDN'T generate any problems.
Declining marriage, declining birth rates, INCEL, INCHEL....
I hope you continue to keep your head above the rising tides of financial uncertainty and don't suddenly blink out of existence. Nuance is very important in social science. Conversations about negative effects of certain things do not equate to opposition to those things. We should be MOST ready to discuss the negative consequences of policies and laws we support, in order to improve them. People too often take a purely binary approach and it leads to oppositional politics and terrible policies.