Two-parent households should be a policy goal • Hacker News Board

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#161

Post by ahf8Aithaex7Nai » Mon, Sep 18, 2023, 4:08 PM UTC

Workaccount2 wrote: post #96

the_other wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not a universal good. It’s often good (I grew up this way, as did most of my friends and we’re mostly fine), but the nuclear family is also sometimes a breeding ground for the worst abuses. Insisting on it, giving it special privilege gives privilege to those abuses. Kids absolutely benefit from stable, nurturing surroundings. But that could take so many other forms: multi-generational families, co-parenting, “i…

The distraction is dredging up edge-cases to weigh down progress. Should every vehicle made be wheelchair accessible because some people have wheelchairs? Same logic here.

How do you know these are just fringe cases?

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#162

Post by lokar » Mon, Sep 18, 2023, 4:10 PM UTC

cmcaleer wrote: post #74

matthewfelgate wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Encourage how? Force unhappy couples together? You think that is good for the children?!

Sure, I guess that's one of the most uncharitable ways you could read it. A more charitable and common sense way to read it would be to reduce stressors on couples with children, a huge one being childcare arrangement and expenses. Especially so if granny and granda aren't around or capable of helping. Tax credits, stuff like that goes a long way.

Providing free/cheap high quality child care is something we should be doing regardless of the number and gender of the parents.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#163

Post by aidenn0 » Mon, Sep 18, 2023, 4:10 PM UTC

_greim_ wrote: post #151

aidenn0 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A multi generational household occurs naturally when grandma and grandpa had a stable two parent households and now mom and dad do too. Huh? My sister and I both live more than a thousand miles away from our stable, married parents that we are on good terms with. We went where our work took us and then met and married people in that area. My sister lives several hundred miles away from her in-laws, and my in-laws (…

I think the point is more that multi-generational households would occur naturally, but as you alluded modern society gets in the way. I have a similar situation as you. It's interesting to imagine what policies would have incentivized us to settle down nearer our parents. Like, what would have made that a palatable option?

My sister is in academia, so she went where she could get a tenure-track position. Four months after I graduated college, I had exactly one job offer, it was on the opposite coast.

After I accepted my job far away, I did hear back from a company closer (but by no means close) to my parents, it was a one year contract for less than half what I was making in a permanent position. I would have taken a pay-cut to be closer to my parents (particularly since my SO at the time refused to relocate to California), but a non-permanent position for $30k/year just didn't seem like a wise life-choice.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#164

Post by gilmore606 » Mon, Sep 18, 2023, 4:10 PM UTC

xnx wrote: post #50

pjc50 wrote: post #8

Can't read the article even with archive.ph, but do they have an analysis of why relationships break down?

Changing to Google DNS (8.8.8.8) fixes the problem. (Removed: "Cloudflare DNS blocks archive.ph.") Edit: Cloudflare clarifies below.

This is untrue, I switched to Google DNS and my wife still left me.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#165

Post by rcktmrtn » Mon, Sep 18, 2023, 4:10 PM UTC

nemo44x wrote: post #45

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.

You need to go back a bit further than that. By the 1970s single motherhood was already being incentivized through policy. Once initially for rare hard luck cases, policy went from supporting single mothers to essentially encouraging it. Stigma around it became celebration of it even being considered liberation by many leftist groups. And this is why we have seen such a spread in this type of behavior being taken up…

This is called out as concretely happening in the "The Pruitt-Igoe Myth" documentary.

> Welfare policies made things worse by denying benefits to families with adult males in residence. Fathers and husbands had to leave — or hide in the closet when social workers came to check. (quoted from a review [1])

[1] https://www.npr.org/2012/01/19/145343942/in-st-louis-an-urba...

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#166

Post by mortureb » Mon, Sep 18, 2023, 4:12 PM UTC

lokar wrote: post #39

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the idea is that as some men have become less reliable as financial providers for their family, the value proposition of marriage between a man and a woman has fallen. > Multiple studies document a causal link between the economic struggles of men and the growth in single-mother families. > To give disadvantaged children better futures, policy makers should promote widespread employment and economic security among…

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

But women not being submissive has led to devastating effects on the children. Maybe that’s something we need to work on reimplementing.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#167

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Sep 18, 2023, 4:12 PM UTC

bluefirebrand wrote: post #117

lokar wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#168

Post by mortureb » Mon, Sep 18, 2023, 4:13 PM UTC

ahf8Aithaex7Nai wrote: post #160

mortureb wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even uncontacted tribes coalesce around two forms of family. Extended or polygamous. There is a natural state.

The state of nature exists only as an idea. Primitive peoples are just as alienated from their supposed state of nature as we are.

That’s a hard argument to make if completely alienated populations, irrespective of geographical location, coalesce around the same idea.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#169

Post by lokar » Mon, Sep 18, 2023, 4:14 PM UTC

mortureb wrote: post #166

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?

But women not being submissive has led to devastating effects on the children. Maybe that’s something we need to work on reimplementing.

Affordable high quality child care

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#170

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Sep 18, 2023, 4:17 PM UTC

bluefirebrand wrote: post #88

lokar wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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?

The side seeking additional discrimination as a policy goal has the burden of evidence supporting the discrimination, not the side supporting the absence of discrimination.

That's not just a good rule of thumb, its a Constitutional rule in the US (though the standard to meet varies depending on the kind of discrimination from a very low standard—the rational basis test—to a very high standard—strict scrutiny.)