The intellectual dark web

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yeah, but it just doesn't work for some people. Your argument basically boils down to asking certain people to sacrifice their individual happiness for the greater good, and that doesn't really jive with the hyper-individualistic, neoliberal society we've cultivated.

Maybe that's the point of the argument. That socially we've moved too far down the path of maximizing the whimsical fulfillment of the individual that continuing further down that path is destructive to broader society.

[Rubicant]

I think there are a few things at play that are leading women to see a scarcity of available men to marry, and therefore leaving many men lower in the hierarchy unable to find a woman to couple up with.

1) Women tend to marry an equal or someone higher to them in terms of education (and 'social status'). Because more women than ever are going to university, including the professional degrees, there is a lack of supply of men available at an equal or higher status.

2) The number of man-children seems to be increasing. Boys are falling behind in school in a world that increasingly values education to be successful, and it seems as though society allows or enables boys to never grow up or take responsibility for... anything really. "Boys will be boys" and all that.

In the past, when men were the primary breadwinners, women still brought immense value to a household by taking care of most things domestic. Boys today seem quite content to let others take care of them and not contribute in the same way. Prolonged adolescence is a real problem.

There isn't much incentive for a woman who can find her own way financially to take on a 'partner' that isn't able to contribute, and also might feel like another child she has to take care of. Who could blame them?

Society is failing in the development of men through the discrimination of low expectations. Men are failing by not taking responsibility of their own lives and development.

The most positive thing that I can find in Peterson's messaging is that he seems to be driving at getting men to take responsibility for their own lives (hopefully in a positive way). How this gets twisted into a negative by some pundits baffles me.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I'd say that although modern society in the West still idealizes and encourages monogamy, there's effectively far less monogamous that there was a couple generations ago. People increasingly get married later or not at all. The lower classes often have unstable and temporary sexual unions, and the educated marry late in life and until then have polygamous relations.

These decisions make sense on an individual level, but they have bad outcomes collectively. Fewer children raised in stable families, more young men who are untethered from healthy social networks and values, women faced with what they regard as a scarce supply of marriageable men.

I don't know what policies we could enforce to address the problem. We could probably start by simply recognizing the tradeoff between individual decisions and social breakdown. We could speak out and make it clear that there are real costs, economic and social, of turning our backs on enduring pair bonds. That marriage as an institution is the bedrock of a stable and prosperous society. I know that's the stance social conservatives take, and thus it's anathema to many liberals. But by ignoring the social ills of family breakdown, which affect the poor and low-status to a greater extent than the affluent and secure, liberals are betraying their principles of compassion and better outcomes for the poor.

Why isn't this social breakdown and its effects being felt in the most liberal countries like in Scandinavia? Compared to the United States, Scandinavian countries have lower marriage rates, a higher average age of first marriage, and a higher rate of children being born to unmarried parents. In fact, in Sweden nearly 55% of children are born out of wedlock compared to about 40% in the US. Yet those countries don't suffer from the wealth inequality and social immobility that people like to ascribe to the lower rates of traditional families in the US.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Rubicant

The most positive thing that I can find in Peterson's messaging is that he seems to be driving at getting men to take responsibility for their own lives (hopefully in a positive way). How this gets twisted into a negative by some pundits baffles me.

It’s not. I could equally say “How people think Peterson saying men should take responsibility for their own lives in a positive way is what anyone is taking issue with baffles me,” because it’s not.

If Peterson’s message was, simply, “Men should take responsibility for their own lives in a positive way,” nobody would take issue with him. He probably wouldn’t even be remotely as popular as he is today, if that was his only message.

It’s a good message. A very good message. I’d be surprised if you could find a single person who takes issue with it, honestly.

[Rubicant]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s not. I could equally say “How people think Peterson saying men should take responsibility for their own lives in a positive way is what anyone is taking issue with baffles me,” because it’s not.

If Peterson’s message was, simply, “Men should take responsibility for their own lives in a positive way,” nobody would take issue with him. He probably wouldn’t even be remotely as popular as he is today, if that was his only message.

It’s a good message. A very good message. I’d be surprised if you could find a single person who takes issue with it, honestly.

I’m not even suggesting that people on this board are doing that. I mean when he is interviewed by someone that disagrees with his overall message tries to use the fact a large part of his audience is men as a negative.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Lol.

Ah, when absence of belief is itself a doctrine. uh huh.

I don't believe in Zeus. That's my doctrine. I'm very doctrinaire about it.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Rubicant

I think there are a few things at play that are leading women to see a scarcity of available men to marry, and therefore leaving many men lower in the hierarchy unable to find a woman to couple up with.

1) Women tend to marry an equal or someone higher to them in terms of education (and 'social status'). Because more women than ever are going to university, including the professional degrees, there is a lack of supply of men available at an equal or higher status.

Where's the evidence for this? Everything I've read suggests that women are more likely than ever to marry or co-habitate with men who are less educated or earn less money than they do.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Where's the evidence for this? Everything I've read suggests that women are more likely than ever to marry or co-habitate with men who are less educated or earn less money than they do.

Is this their preference, or is it a matter of "take whatcha can get"?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Ah, when absence of belief is itself a doctrine. uh huh.

I don't believe in Zeus. That's my doctrine. I'm very doctrinaire about it.

Marxism and Nazism are the doctrines. Atheism is an adjective being applied to those doctrines, it's not being referred to as a doctrine itself.

He's still wrong.

[Matata]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Where's the evidence for this? Everything I've read suggests that women are more likely than ever to marry or co-habitate with men who are less educated or earn less money than they do.

They're willing to, but they don't want to. Female attraction is a very primal thing that craves a life partner who provides safety and stability (on account of babies), a less educated and less financially well off man doesn't really scratch that itch. A women will endlessly test her man looking for reassurances that they are still strong enough to be a good provider, a man who is more educated and successful will have a much easier time enduring those tests and the relationship will be more stable.

A relationship where the women has a higher standing than the man is a relationship that's working uphill.

[GirlySports]

but when did education become the status bar?

The educated white collar job guy making 50K has higher status then the crane operator making 100K ?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Why isn't this social breakdown and its effects being felt in the most liberal countries like in Scandinavia? Compared to the United States, Scandinavian countries have lower marriage rates, a higher average age of first marriage, and a higher rate of children being born to unmarried parents. In fact, in Sweden nearly 55% of children are born out of wedlock compared to about 40% in the US. Yet those countries don't suffer from the wealth inequality and social immobility that people like to ascribe to the lower rates of traditional families in the US.

From what I understand, while Scandinavia has lower rates of formal marriage than the U.S. or Canada, they have high rates of enduring common-law marriage. Kids may not grow up in a home with a legally married mom and dad, but the parents stay together long enough for the kids to grow up. They don't have the revolving-door of short-term relationships that characterize single-parent households in North America. And they don't have the relatively high birth rates among poor mothers that we have in North America.

I was reading a study on low-income households in American recently, and it seems that the poor today think they need to be more financially secure to get married than they do to have children. A woman who works at the department of motor vehicles has a boyfriend who works on and off in a drywalling crew. They don't think they're in any position to get married, but it's okay to have kids. Which sounds crazy to me. But apparently these are widely help beliefs. And after a few years, as buddy shows himself not especially responsible, she ditches him and he moves on. Marriage is for the rich, kids are for everybody. I honestly don't know how you change that belief, which is pretty much the opposite of how the educated and affluent approach things.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Where's the evidence for this? Everything I've read suggests that women are more likely than ever to marry or co-habitate with men who are less educated or earn less money than they do.

It can both be happening, you know? Both what you and Rubicant suggest? Lets say that there are twice as many women marrying lower status men. If that stat goes from 2% to 4%, while the total number of men now deemed lower status goes from 20% to 30%, both fewer men are deemed eligible by the majority of women, AND more women than ever are marrying lower status men.


Just to be clear - These numbers are completely fabricated. I pulled all these numbers out my my ass, not because I have an agenda on the subject, but just because I wanted to show off my math skills. I love when two differing points can seem at conflict, yet both be right. Happens more often than you think.



It's actually one of the ways that news articles tend to manipulate people.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by New Era

You've posted some really specious links and videos, but Worldnet Daily? Seriously? What's next, links from 4Chan? Do they not teach media literacy in Canada?

Wait, you're saying this like they do teach it in America? That would certainly go against perception.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I was reading a study on low-income households in American recently, and it seems that the poor today think they need to be more financially secure to get married than they do to have children. A woman who works at the department of motor vehicles has a boyfriend who works on and off in a drywalling crew. They don't think they're in any position to get married, but it's okay to have kids. Which sounds crazy to me. But apparently these are widely help beliefs. And after a few years, as buddy shows himself not especially responsible, she ditches him and he moves on. Marriage is for the rich, kids are for everybody. I honestly don't know how you change that belief, which is pretty much the opposite of how the educated and affluent approach things.

I know one thing that is on many men's minds when it comes to marriage, is alimony, and child support. If someone doesn't feel secure enough in their earnings, the last thing they want to risk is both their spouse leaving them, and suing them for half of what little they already saved. I know that the laws surrounding common law have adjusted to a lack of formal marriages, but it hasn't affected the impression that it is less costly to avoid marriage.

In addition, the whole marriage industry out there, from cakes to dresses to what have you, has driven people to feel that an inexpensive wedding is just showing off how poorly you are doing. And in America, there aren't poor people, there are merely temporarily embarrassed millionaires. They'll be able to afford it next year.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

but when did education become the status bar?

The educated white collar job guy making 50K has higher status then the crane operator making 100K ?

Probably at the same time parents demanded that kids go to university, thinking it was the way out of a life of manual labor, regardless of the job market or how well certain manual labor jobs can pay.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

From what I understand, while Scandinavia has lower rates of formal marriage than the U.S. or Canada, they have high rates of enduring common-law marriage. Kids may not grow up in a home with a legally married mom and dad, but the parents stay together long enough for the kids to grow up. They don't have the revolving-door of short-term relationships that characterize single-parent households in North America. And they don't have the relatively high birth rates among poor mothers that we have in North America.

That's not really true, as Scandinavian countries have a pretty big disparity in rates of single parent households. In Denmark, 30% of family units with children are single parent households and it's 25% in Sweden. By comparison, in the US about 27% of families with children are single parent households.

And then you have a place like Finland where fewer than 10% of families with children are single parent households, yet the economic and social mobility isn't meaningfully different from Denmark or Sweden. Or you have Canada with over 20% of families being single parent yet we have far more mobility than the US. I think the evidence that marriage rates are the driving force behind income and social inequality is pretty weak. They're probably a factor, but economic policies, unionization rates, and social welfare are far more heavily correlated with those things than marriage rates are.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I was reading a study on low-income households in American recently, and it seems that the poor today think they need to be more financially secure to get married than they do to have children. A woman who works at the department of motor vehicles has a boyfriend who works on and off in a drywalling crew. They don't think they're in any position to get married, but it's okay to have kids. Which sounds crazy to me. But apparently these are widely help beliefs. And after a few years, as buddy shows himself not especially responsible, she ditches him and he moves on. Marriage is for the rich, kids are for everybody. I honestly don't know how you change that belief, which is pretty much the opposite of how the educated and affluent approach things.

Might have something to do with the average cost of a wedding spiraling out of control in the last 30 years.

Thank god we skipped it.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I was reading a study on low-income households in American recently, and it seems that the poor today think they need to be more financially secure to get married than they do to have children. A woman who works at the department of motor vehicles has a boyfriend who works on and off in a drywalling crew. They don't think they're in any position to get married, but it's okay to have kids. Which sounds crazy to me. But apparently these are widely help beliefs. And after a few years, as buddy shows himself not especially responsible, she ditches him and he moves on. Marriage is for the rich, kids are for everybody. I honestly don't know how you change that belief, which is pretty much the opposite of how the educated and affluent approach things.

Interesting. I don’t know if your last sentence really holds true, though.

Marriage is mostly a frivolous expense. It doesn’t hold much value, whereas children are much different.

I’m financially stable enough to pay a mortgage, but I don’t think I’m in a good place financially to buy a car I don’t need. Would it alter or improve some parts of my life? Sure. But does it have nearly the same positive impact that housing does? No. So, despite housing being much much more expensive, I’m in a financial place to afford that, but not a car.

Marriage and children play off similar logic to me. Children are wildly more expensive than marriage, but marriage doesn’t really add anything important.

[Rubicant]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Where's the evidence for this? Everything I've read suggests that women are more likely than ever to marry or co-habitate with men who are less educated or earn less money than they do.

Honestly it was an anecdotal comment on my part, and I’m willing to admit i could have it backwards.

I looked up a few articles and found conflicting reports. One suggested women were more likely to marry someone with less education than in the past. I don’t know if that data was corrected for the fact that more women are highly educated than in the past.

This article seems to echo what I am saying though.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/2...-by-class.html