Excellent article. I just started reading Melissa Kearney's book, "Two Parent Privledge" which talks about the same issues. Happy Father's Day to all the dads out there.
The best two 24 x 7 jobs ever, are husband and father. Great article and people can always make arguments or give reasons the father and mother aren’t both needed but my life experience of watching first hand says it is the most important.
You are absolutely correct and that’s why if you take your responsibilities seriously as a father every day is Father’s Day not just a legally proclaimed day
The fact is, as has been proven over and over again, that married people give their kids the best chance at success. The trend in denigrating the male in Western society is the worst possible trend for overcoming all supposed social issues, though we like to finger-point at anything and everything that doesnt require a personal responsibility or choice. Don't believe me? Look at middle-class wealth growth for black families when marriage was prevalent. Everyone was climbing and then it all fell apart. Same with all races when family formation breaks down. Notice that the "academics" who push these ideas about elimination of traditional roles are almost always well-off and married.
I have followed Ian Rowe and agree with his positions on education and the family. Growing up in a stable, loving two-parent family should be the birthright of every child, not some privilege of a fortunate few. That it is not is a national tragedy and likely as responsible as any other factor for the dystopic society we now find ourselves in, perhaps most responsible.
To be fair to Richard Reeves I think he does recognise that married fatherhood is the ideal, but I think he also recognises that marriage rates are declining, and so is trying to strengthen fatherhood outside of marriage just as a practical move.
Yeah, you are kind of missing the point and are conflating two claims that aren't necessarily related. So the first claim is about choices individuals make and the second it about the effect of their choices on offspring. So the first statement is that because people who get a HS degree and get married then have children do a lot better than people who don't do those things, those things cause the "doing better". My argument is that the kind of people who get a HS and get married prior to having kids do those things because they are different already from people who don't and it is those differences that cause the effects. People who get a HS degree are higher in intelligence and perseverance than people who don't. People who get married get married precisely because marriage carries more benefits for them than costs (that is, they can mate select in ways that improve their lives because their mate value can attract decent mates). In general, the kind of people who invest in the future are doing so because the future is more likely to pay benefits for them. People select into marriage, HS completion, child delaying. They aren't randomized into it. Your second claim about the challenges faced by kids of single parent homes can be true even if we get the etiology of why there are more single parent homes wrong. I think they rise in single parent homes is all about material explanations, not cultural ones (those are an emergent property responding to material reality.) And it can suck that there are more single parent homes even if the ultimate causes are material rather than cultural. Think of it like this - if I note that college completion leads to higher incomes and from that assume that everyone should go to college misses how much of college is selection bias, not treatment effects. Would we still see the benefits if people were randomized to the college/non college condition rather than selecting into it (and being selected for it). Some people benefit and can manage college more than others just like some people benefit from and can manage marriage better than others. And those "management" traits are doing the real work here. Everyone assumes that everyone all at once can find a mate that helps rather than hurts their economic prospects. It is super easy for me to recommend marriage when I could easily marry a woman (and my wife a man) that improves rather than drains my resources. My guess is people stop participating in institutions once they stop adjudicating the tradeoffs they once did. Women get married less when marriage starts costing more than it benefits. People don't invest in the future relative to the present when they are less likely to benefit from future oriented investment (see Life History Theory). Everyone wants to blame bad cultural actors and "false consciousness" and brainwashing rather than just see material conditions have changed and tradeoffs aren't what they used to be. If I am, say, a woman from a poor community who busted my ass to get a 2 year allied health degree, how likely is marriage to improve my economic prospects rather than drain my resources to take care of a man given my mate market? How likely are investments in the future to pay off when economic success is more and more tied to cognitive ability rather than simple willingness to work? We have made lots of political and economic decisions that have changed tradeoff calculus at scale with no cultural brainwashing required.
"To combat these trends, teenagers on the path to young adulthood must be taught in middle and high school that 97% of Millennials who get at least a high school degree, work, and then marry before having any children, in that order—are not poor by the time they reach their prime young adult years (ages 28-34)." I suspect this is largely selection effects, not treatment effects. People who do those things are different in ways besides doing those things. I also bemoan the breakdown of families, but "evil hippies and leftists brainwashing people against their self intetest with poisonous ideas" isn't the cause. That mistakes cope for causation and is as reductive as progressive varieties of social constructionist explanations for behavior. Culture is a way of adjudicating tradeoffs and ideas came after material changes. I assume people still doing the success triad are people for who it adjudicates their competing tradeoffs and it just does tjat for fewer people.
Research suggests that children raised in stable, two-parent households with educated and employed parents tend to have better outcomes in terms of education, health, and overall well-being. Numerous studies have demonstrated a correlation between single-parent households and specific challenges faced by children, such as lower academic achievement, higher rates of behavioral issues, and increased likelihood of poverty. crime and poor outcomes.
So let me understand your idea ...you think that Culture helps us decide what's important and what we're willing to give up to get something else. Our physical surroundings and the things we create influence our ideas and beliefs. you think people who are still following the traditional path to success (the success triad) are those who benefit from the way culture helps them make choices, but this only works for a small number of people...
I would argue cultures that prioritize traditional paths to success, like the "success triad," are not simply arbitrary systems for a 'small number' of individuals but rather the result of a long process of trial and error. These cultures have proven themselves to be stable and effective in nurturing well-adjusted individuals and maintaining societal cohesion. (Which is fragmenting rapidly now because of social engineerings artificiality) I view modern social engineering efforts as disruptive and detrimental to individuals personal happiness if anyone were to follow this triad, they would significantly improve their prospects, regardless of their background. the original statement misrepresents the success triad by claiming it only works for a few. it's actually a widely applicable path that benefits the majority. The "success triad" isn't exclusive to Western culture; personal responsibility and self-sufficiency are crucial for survival in many societies, especially those lacking robust social safety nets. In fact, without those traits, individuals in many cultures would face dire consequences.
Furthermore, the success triad remains relevant even in today's changing landscape. Having an education, a job, and planning for a family's financial future are still advantageous, regardless of the economic climate.
--of ideology over individuals and there needs. I believe social engineering leads to instability, forces individuals into roles they don't desire, and ultimately weakens the social fabric. As societies push for greater equality between men and women, traditional gender roles are surprisingly becoming more pronounced. This suggests women naturally prefer family and social roles, contradicting what social engineers claim.
The pressure to conform to unnatural roles could explain the rise in mental health issues and medication use Amongst society which consumes more alcohol and drugs than ever before along with a loss in social cohesion. The decline in neighborhood communities can be linked to women leaving their roles as homemakers and community builders, who organized potlucks, visited sick neighbors, and helped each other. The loss in the neighborhood has been one of the worst effects, leaving people to feel dislocated from an environment that should feel welcoming and familiar where neighbors talk to each other and people will make time for each other. While progress in gender equality is important, we shouldn't force women to be like men. We are different. I'm a programmer, but I chose this path myself, not because of social pressure
Excellent article. I just started reading Melissa Kearney's book, "Two Parent Privledge" which talks about the same issues. Happy Father's Day to all the dads out there.
The best two 24 x 7 jobs ever, are husband and father. Great article and people can always make arguments or give reasons the father and mother aren’t both needed but my life experience of watching first hand says it is the most important.
You are absolutely correct and that’s why if you take your responsibilities seriously as a father every day is Father’s Day not just a legally proclaimed day
Unwed childbearing remains the greatest driving force behind crime and poverty regardless of ethnicity.
Very insightful and articulate as always, Ian!
Spot on!
Happy father's day, Ian.
Well said, Ian. Excellent insight as always. Happy Father's Day!
The fact is, as has been proven over and over again, that married people give their kids the best chance at success. The trend in denigrating the male in Western society is the worst possible trend for overcoming all supposed social issues, though we like to finger-point at anything and everything that doesnt require a personal responsibility or choice. Don't believe me? Look at middle-class wealth growth for black families when marriage was prevalent. Everyone was climbing and then it all fell apart. Same with all races when family formation breaks down. Notice that the "academics" who push these ideas about elimination of traditional roles are almost always well-off and married.
Thank you, Ian. This is excellent.
A very important message for America.
—————
To echo Beyoncé, more men need to step up and “put a ring on it.”
And women slow up on pregnancy until they have “a ring on it.”
I have followed Ian Rowe and agree with his positions on education and the family. Growing up in a stable, loving two-parent family should be the birthright of every child, not some privilege of a fortunate few. That it is not is a national tragedy and likely as responsible as any other factor for the dystopic society we now find ourselves in, perhaps most responsible.
To be fair to Richard Reeves I think he does recognise that married fatherhood is the ideal, but I think he also recognises that marriage rates are declining, and so is trying to strengthen fatherhood outside of marriage just as a practical move.
Yeah, you are kind of missing the point and are conflating two claims that aren't necessarily related. So the first claim is about choices individuals make and the second it about the effect of their choices on offspring. So the first statement is that because people who get a HS degree and get married then have children do a lot better than people who don't do those things, those things cause the "doing better". My argument is that the kind of people who get a HS and get married prior to having kids do those things because they are different already from people who don't and it is those differences that cause the effects. People who get a HS degree are higher in intelligence and perseverance than people who don't. People who get married get married precisely because marriage carries more benefits for them than costs (that is, they can mate select in ways that improve their lives because their mate value can attract decent mates). In general, the kind of people who invest in the future are doing so because the future is more likely to pay benefits for them. People select into marriage, HS completion, child delaying. They aren't randomized into it. Your second claim about the challenges faced by kids of single parent homes can be true even if we get the etiology of why there are more single parent homes wrong. I think they rise in single parent homes is all about material explanations, not cultural ones (those are an emergent property responding to material reality.) And it can suck that there are more single parent homes even if the ultimate causes are material rather than cultural. Think of it like this - if I note that college completion leads to higher incomes and from that assume that everyone should go to college misses how much of college is selection bias, not treatment effects. Would we still see the benefits if people were randomized to the college/non college condition rather than selecting into it (and being selected for it). Some people benefit and can manage college more than others just like some people benefit from and can manage marriage better than others. And those "management" traits are doing the real work here. Everyone assumes that everyone all at once can find a mate that helps rather than hurts their economic prospects. It is super easy for me to recommend marriage when I could easily marry a woman (and my wife a man) that improves rather than drains my resources. My guess is people stop participating in institutions once they stop adjudicating the tradeoffs they once did. Women get married less when marriage starts costing more than it benefits. People don't invest in the future relative to the present when they are less likely to benefit from future oriented investment (see Life History Theory). Everyone wants to blame bad cultural actors and "false consciousness" and brainwashing rather than just see material conditions have changed and tradeoffs aren't what they used to be. If I am, say, a woman from a poor community who busted my ass to get a 2 year allied health degree, how likely is marriage to improve my economic prospects rather than drain my resources to take care of a man given my mate market? How likely are investments in the future to pay off when economic success is more and more tied to cognitive ability rather than simple willingness to work? We have made lots of political and economic decisions that have changed tradeoff calculus at scale with no cultural brainwashing required.
🖤🖤🖤
Such brilliant "common" sense. Thank you
"To combat these trends, teenagers on the path to young adulthood must be taught in middle and high school that 97% of Millennials who get at least a high school degree, work, and then marry before having any children, in that order—are not poor by the time they reach their prime young adult years (ages 28-34)." I suspect this is largely selection effects, not treatment effects. People who do those things are different in ways besides doing those things. I also bemoan the breakdown of families, but "evil hippies and leftists brainwashing people against their self intetest with poisonous ideas" isn't the cause. That mistakes cope for causation and is as reductive as progressive varieties of social constructionist explanations for behavior. Culture is a way of adjudicating tradeoffs and ideas came after material changes. I assume people still doing the success triad are people for who it adjudicates their competing tradeoffs and it just does tjat for fewer people.
Research suggests that children raised in stable, two-parent households with educated and employed parents tend to have better outcomes in terms of education, health, and overall well-being. Numerous studies have demonstrated a correlation between single-parent households and specific challenges faced by children, such as lower academic achievement, higher rates of behavioral issues, and increased likelihood of poverty. crime and poor outcomes.
So let me understand your idea ...you think that Culture helps us decide what's important and what we're willing to give up to get something else. Our physical surroundings and the things we create influence our ideas and beliefs. you think people who are still following the traditional path to success (the success triad) are those who benefit from the way culture helps them make choices, but this only works for a small number of people...
I would argue cultures that prioritize traditional paths to success, like the "success triad," are not simply arbitrary systems for a 'small number' of individuals but rather the result of a long process of trial and error. These cultures have proven themselves to be stable and effective in nurturing well-adjusted individuals and maintaining societal cohesion. (Which is fragmenting rapidly now because of social engineerings artificiality) I view modern social engineering efforts as disruptive and detrimental to individuals personal happiness if anyone were to follow this triad, they would significantly improve their prospects, regardless of their background. the original statement misrepresents the success triad by claiming it only works for a few. it's actually a widely applicable path that benefits the majority. The "success triad" isn't exclusive to Western culture; personal responsibility and self-sufficiency are crucial for survival in many societies, especially those lacking robust social safety nets. In fact, without those traits, individuals in many cultures would face dire consequences.
Furthermore, the success triad remains relevant even in today's changing landscape. Having an education, a job, and planning for a family's financial future are still advantageous, regardless of the economic climate.
--of ideology over individuals and there needs. I believe social engineering leads to instability, forces individuals into roles they don't desire, and ultimately weakens the social fabric. As societies push for greater equality between men and women, traditional gender roles are surprisingly becoming more pronounced. This suggests women naturally prefer family and social roles, contradicting what social engineers claim.
The pressure to conform to unnatural roles could explain the rise in mental health issues and medication use Amongst society which consumes more alcohol and drugs than ever before along with a loss in social cohesion. The decline in neighborhood communities can be linked to women leaving their roles as homemakers and community builders, who organized potlucks, visited sick neighbors, and helped each other. The loss in the neighborhood has been one of the worst effects, leaving people to feel dislocated from an environment that should feel welcoming and familiar where neighbors talk to each other and people will make time for each other. While progress in gender equality is important, we shouldn't force women to be like men. We are different. I'm a programmer, but I chose this path myself, not because of social pressure