Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Two-parent households should be a policy goal

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 291 posts

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#111

Post by 300bps »

lokar wrote: post #30
a-user-you-like wrote: post #19

Nothing better than a father and mother in a stable, loving relationship for a child. Yes, let’s encourage this.

How exactly is that better the two mothers? Do you have evidence?

Principle of Belief Conservation. For any proposition, P:

1. Taking a certain cognitive stance toward P (for example, believing it, rejecting it or withholding judgement) would require rejecting or doubting a vast number of your current beliefs,

2. You have no independent positive reason to reject or doubt all those other beliefs, and

3. You have no compelling reason to take up that cognitive stance toward P.

Then it is more rational for you Not to take that cognitive stance toward P.

---

This is basic logic. If you're proposing a system of raising children that goes against the vast majority of cultures spanning thousands of years then it's on the proposer of the new system to come up with the evidence that it's just as good.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#112

Post by lokar »

jvanderbot wrote: post #44
lokar wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps as women have gained more financial independence they no longer need to adopt a submissive attitude towards men to survive?

Equating a marriage with "submission" is the first thing that needs to die if we're going to create more two-parent households. It is simply no longer the case.

Go read and listen to the ideology from many conservative evangelical groups in the US. They are pretty direct on this point. Wives must submit to husbands. It’s not a secret.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#113

Post by helen___keller »

baq wrote: post #92

People don't want to have children because: 1) they can't afford it, or 2) they don't have a reasonable apartment/home (same thing as 1. really) 3) they don't want to give up their lifestyle 4) they're genuinely afraid the future is dystopian and dark (which is rather interesting since I can't imagine a future more dystopian than one without children) So if you want to fix the society to want to have children again y…

I just want to add that some people simply don’t want to have children.

This is important to note because “should I have children” is kind of a novel question, especially for women, in the context of human history.

If you go back a century or three, women (especially from a middle class or upper class family) were expected to wed. And wives were expected to bear and care for children.

Choice was not particularly involved, and most career paths were unavailable for self-sufficiency in the first place.

A question like “would I be happier advancing my career as a scientist or choosing to raise children” is a foreign question a century ago. Now it is a question that the modern woman must grapple with.

This is similar to what you are saying, but it’s the social side of the coin rather than the economic one: an upper middle class family may easily be able to afford raising children, yet the wife still does not want to sacrifice her career which embodies her ambitions, her passions, and her sense of worth.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#114

Post by cmcaleer »

matthewfelgate wrote: post #67
avmich wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money promote happiness, so having more money could be a subgoal. This is a rough description, of course.

[flagged]

The baffling part here is you reading things that aren't there. Let's read the two comments you replied to:

- Nothing better than a father and mother in a stable, loving relationship for a child. Yes, let’s encourage this.

- Money promote happiness, so having more money could be a subgoal. This is a rough description, of course.

Where is the suggestion to force couples who don't work together to stay together for the kid?

Money stress causes a huge number of couples to split. If these couples could be financially supported and have a happy, healthy relationship they may not have otherwise had if they had to deal with financial stress of childcare expenses, what's bad about that?

Nobody - not the writer in this article, not the comments you're replying to - is suggesting paying unhappy couples to stay together.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#115

Post by blargey »

Flipping the script from "both parents working to stay afloat" to "a stay at home parent in every home" takes strong financial incentives.

But the stronger the incentives to start and keep such parental arrangements, the stronger the forces keeping dysfunctional and harmful relationships together, at the expense of everyone involved. People fought for divorce for a reason, that needs to be addressed somehow.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#116

Post by digging »

baq wrote: post #92

People don't want to have children because: 1) they can't afford it, or 2) they don't have a reasonable apartment/home (same thing as 1. really) 3) they don't want to give up their lifestyle 4) they're genuinely afraid the future is dystopian and dark (which is rather interesting since I can't imagine a future more dystopian than one without children) So if you want to fix the society to want to have children again y…

> 4) they're genuinely afraid the future is dystopian and dark (which is rather interesting since I can't imagine a future more dystopian than one without children)

I can. A future where children are all poisoned and enslaved to grind a little bit more value out of a dying-anyway civilization is, to me, nastier than one that voluntarily calls it quits before things get that bad.

But also: Very few childless people think nobody should have children. More than we need to pool our resources into supporting those who are going to be born anyway.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#117

Post by bluefirebrand »

lokar wrote: post #106
bluefirebrand wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like raising a kid requires exposing them to many different experiences growing up, and generally speaking fathers will provide different experiences mothers. Do I have evidence? No. Do you have any evidence that any other form of parenting is just as good?

I’m not the one saying that the government should intervene in how people form families.

If you disagree with that, and disagree with the initial assumptions, don't you think it would be easiest to post evidence of your own rather than demanding evidence from those you disagree with?

Or do you refuse to post your evidence until other people post theirs, like some kind of standoff?

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#118

Post by troyvit »

matthewfelgate wrote: post #23

The 1970s called; they'd like their arguments back! Arguing that children with married parents fare better, thus promoting two-parent families, is akin to suggesting that since blue cars have fewer accidents, everyone should drive a blue car. Pressuring dissatisfied couples to stay together or marry benefits no one. The article fails to provide actionable recommendations on promoting marriage.

Literally the 1970s [1]. I'll add that there are family organizations beyond the typical nuclear set-up as well. Wouldn't a single parent with supportive parents, siblings, and/or peers be just as good as a married couple that didn't have any of those supports?

I don't have an Atlantic account, so I can't comment on the whole article [2], but when I read anything like:

> Two-parent households should be a policy goal.

I start to get a little don't-tread-on-me-ish. I don't think having The Man deciding family structures is what the government is for.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_family#/media/File:Fam...

[2] If you're so eager to sell a policy idea why shoot yourself in the foot by putting it behind a login?

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#120

Post by digging »

vorpalhex wrote: post #102
digging wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels extremely unusual to me to specifically call out a mother/father relationship if they weren't intending to exclude queer relationships. A note for all readers: don't say "nothing better than a [straight relationship]" if that's not what you mean.

Most relationships, especially with kids, are heterosexual.

In what way is that a response to this discussion?
Post reply on HN