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

211–220 of 291 posts

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#211

Post by ryanwaggoner »

mortureb wrote: post #121
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…

Whatever, I’m sick of some outliers discounting something that works as a whole. I don’t take your conjecture to be true. Even hunter gatherers societies that exist today, including uncontacted tribes have two modes of family. Nuclear/extended or polygamous. Those forms are inherent and what humans naturally coalesce around.

Even if that's true (a big if), all we can infer is that that's what hunter / gatherer societies seem to naturally coalesce around. It's not what modern society is coalescing around. Some folks take that as a sign that modern society is fundamentally flawed, but I'd rather be born as a random person in modern society than a random person in a pre-historical hunter gatherer society. Perhaps that's just my bias towards modernity though.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#212

Post by hollerith »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #211
mortureb wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever, I’m sick of some outliers discounting something that works as a whole. I don’t take your conjecture to be true. Even hunter gatherers societies that exist today, including uncontacted tribes have two modes of family. Nuclear/extended or polygamous. Those forms are inherent and what humans naturally coalesce around.

Even if that's true (a big if), all we can infer is that that's what hunter / gatherer societies seem to naturally coalesce around. It's not what modern society is coalescing around. Some folks take that as a sign that modern society is fundamentally flawed, but I'd rather be born as a random person in modern society than a random person in a pre-historical hunter gatherer society. Perhaps that's just my bias towards…

The argument under consideration is that if our social lives are too different from those of our ancestors in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness, that will lead to widespread mental-health problems like addiction and suicide. (The study of existing hunter-gatherers is relevant because we cannot go back in time and study our ancestors in detail.)

Your "I'd rather be born as a random person in modern society than a random person in a pre-historical hunter gatherer society" has no relevance that argument.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#213

Post by aidenn0 »

em-bee wrote: post #202
aidenn0 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was able to infer that from your original comment, but the point is that neither my sister nor I can reach my parents in a single day of driving[1], and my wife can't reach her in-laws in a single day of driving. My in-laws are very close now, but at this point we are caring for them more than they are caring for our kids. 1: I'm considering a full day of driving as 12 hours here. Different people tend to disagree…

i see your 1000+ miles and i give you 4000+ miles. the question is, why is that? you said it yourself, you had one good job offer. what do we need to change that you would get better job offers at home? in china the culture is that a young couple moves in with the husbands parents who often prepare/build their house with that in mind. (in simple terms, the master bedroom is for the couple, the grandparents move to a…

> the question is, why is that? you said it yourself, you had one good job offer. what do we need to change that you would get better job offers at home?

Short of forcing a company to hire me, I'm not sure what can be done. There were no lack of jobs close to home (I basically went into the same profession as my dad, after all), just a lack of people who wanted to hire me specifically.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#214

Post by hackeraccount »

matthewfelgate wrote: post #41
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.

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

Unhappy? People are unhappy all the time. I'm sure the vast majority of people who've been married - with or without kids - has at one time or another (maybe even for extended periods of time) been unhappy enough to wonder about someone else or no one at all.

Kids are fun and all but they are on some level a sacrifice. You give up part of your soul for them. At the end of the day you should expect them to walk out the door not needing you at all and count yourself lucky if they say thank you.

There's no one (or there shouldn't be anyone) who can force people to stay together. That said, they should stay together. I mean, I think they should stay together if they don't have kids because they made a commitment and who wants to look in the mirror in the morning seeing someone who doesn't honor that but if you have children that should be double.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#215

Post by bluefirebrand »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #209
bluefirebrand wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure how you got from "let's encourage fathers and mothers to stay together to raise children with better outcomes" to "seeking discrimination as a policy goal" That's quite a stretch honestly.

You're commenting on a thread about a claim that what's "best" is for children to have a father and a mother, not "let's encourage fathers and mothers to stay together", which is quite different.

Your reading of this is much different than mine and I don't care to quibble over random internet opinions today. Especially not opinions that aren't even mine.

Have a good one.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#216

Post by KMag »

aidenn0 wrote: post #148
anon291 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose I should revise my comment to mean that I don't think living together is a necessity. Just in close proximity. Moreover I know many who do live close to parents and seem estranged due to broken families/mom and dad can't stand to be in the same room, etc

I was able to infer that from your original comment, but the point is that neither my sister nor I can reach my parents in a single day of driving[1], and my wife can't reach her in-laws in a single day of driving. My in-laws are very close now, but at this point we are caring for them more than they are caring for our kids. 1: I'm considering a full day of driving as 12 hours here. Different people tend to disagree…

> neither my sister nor I can reach my parents in a single day of driving[1], and my wife can't reach her in-laws in a single day of driving.

Are you just saying you and your wife have similar driving speed and endurance, or are your wife's in-laws different people from your parents?

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#217

Post by taylodl »

fasthands9 wrote: post #68

I can't read the whole article but remember learning in the past that children of widows have outcomes more similar to two-parent households than divorced parent households. This would seem to suggest the divorce is more of a signal of family/status than something which is driving bad outcomes. At the same time, I do think people have gone a bit too far in their want to not give anyone shame. Yes - some shame is not…

"societal shame would prevent people from being reckless with having kids"

Meanwhile, several US states are working against this goal by preventing women from having unwanted pregnancies. It's as though policy has consequences!

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#218

Post by the_other »

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.

If it’s the broad average case, it doesn’t need government support. Most system design, including the law, is about managing edge cases.

The “progress” is in identifying the useful factors in nurturing people and providing societal tools to support those factors. Encouraging one model above all others got us into the pickle we’re in today.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#219

Post by ryanwaggoner »

hollerith wrote: post #212
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if that's true (a big if), all we can infer is that that's what hunter / gatherer societies seem to naturally coalesce around. It's not what modern society is coalescing around. Some folks take that as a sign that modern society is fundamentally flawed, but I'd rather be born as a random person in modern society than a random person in a pre-historical hunter gatherer society. Perhaps that's just my bias towards…

The argument under consideration is that if our social lives are too different from those of our ancestors in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness, that will lead to widespread mental-health problems like addiction and suicide. (The study of existing hunter-gatherers is relevant because we cannot go back in time and study our ancestors in detail.) Your "I'd rather be born as a random person in modern society t…

Hunter-gatherer societies do not represent some ideal state that we should strive for, but rather a particular societal adaptation to the environment at the time. We live in a different environment (one that I have zero interest in destroying in favor of trying to recreate some imagined ideal from prehistory), so the naturalistic fallacy is what has no place here.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#220

Post by djkivi »

a_f wrote: post #204
fasthands9 wrote: post #68

I can't read the whole article but remember learning in the past that children of widows have outcomes more similar to two-parent households than divorced parent households. This would seem to suggest the divorce is more of a signal of family/status than something which is driving bad outcomes. At the same time, I do think people have gone a bit too far in their want to not give anyone shame. Yes - some shame is not…

Could it be that a widow might inherit some of the remaining assets of the deceased, whereas in a divorce the assets are split?

Not to mention the possibility of life insurance.
Post reply on HN