This shift is caused by of the lack of social supports for parents and caregivers. There is almost no help that parents get for being parents - mothers get lower wages, fathers get wage bumps and are expected to work more. Caregivers are poorly paid.
There is absolutely a lack of value for parents and parenting, evidenced by the lack of social safety nets and governments support. Clearly, we are choosing ‘The rat race’ over love and relationships, and that’s scary. It seems to me that the issue really isn’t with having kids or committed relationships, it’s with the environment in which we are having them. Several European countries do not struggle with these issues in the same way we do in the US.
If we had more stay at home dads then we wouldn’t need safety nets and government support for childcare etc. This is what the cost of living crisis has done.
I’m very lucky to live in Australia, where it’s much more 50:50. And my wonderful husband has enjoyed periods of being the primary carer, and would do more if the finances permitted. Sadly it’s a dual income world. I sense you’ll respond with another ugly comment, and in doing so recognise you’re more of the problem than the solution.
When my husband and I discussed having a family, he was the one who agreed to be "stay at home" because he didn't love his job, while I completely loved mine. Baby was born, we realized pretty quickly that I should stay home with her… But our wage disparities was the real decision. Even though I had a masters degree, he made at least double my salary. Also, staying home to raise kids (which I chose to do) has impacted me professionally, even to this day. This isn't *about* feminism, Richard. It's about an economic system that disproportionately affects women While giving them zero support when they choose to become mothers (no paid leave for most), and childcare expenses that will eat up a huge chunk of wages. I could go on...
Errr, it's clearly the biological system that disproportionately affects women. And why should you get paid leave when you can just have your husband go to work? Social security doesn't exist to let you do whatever is your preferred option. You need to respect the fact that it's other people's money and you don't have a right to it.
So you’re saying we should tell 50% of the population that their only role in life is to stay at home, cook & do housework? What if they have other skills and talents and can contribute to society and the economy in other ways? What if bring a stay at home mum makes many women depressed and miserable.
Either way, everyone should have the opportunity to choose what they want to do with their life, rather than telling 50% of the population they can only do one thing.
I didn't want to stay home. I worked part time until my kid started school. I was able to find rewarding work in a school, and so it's been family friendly. I work 35 hours a week 181 days a year. My spouse has a grueling job. I wouldn't trade him places, BUT had I picked a career that paid like his, I'd have been the one working more hours. Women don't tend to pick careers like my husbands. I don't think women should stay home, but I do think it's nice if one person can stay home when the children are under three. I believe it's easier on the entire family when one person has a family friendly job. I've never heard Jordan say women should not work. When my son was young, I worked part time in the evenings so we didn't have to pay for day care. What works for the family and keeps our partnerships (foundation for the kids) strong, is always good for the kids.
We do not all pretend that our work is rewarding. Work often does, however, reward us more than staying home. I think it is risky to stay home. Too many years out of the work force would have put me in a vulnerable position on several levels. This doesn't mean that a women should never stay home. They should protect themselves by having a skill/education and consider staying home for a shorter period of time. Part time employment was a good balance for me but when the kid went to school I had plenty time for a job. It's different when you have small kids and especially when there's more than one. I don't know how young families manage when both parties work demanding jobs...I am guessing that something suffers.
I think a universal basic income could help with this. Giving people money frees up time for them to slow down, to be present, to make time for their families and kids and relationships. In a country where the dominant force is production and consumption, giving people a means to exit anxiety-mode (scarcity mindset) and into safety (abundance mentality)is a start for bringing our society back to sanity.
Failing to have a category for meaningful relationships or community strikes me as a profound limitation to the statistic. The question forces a skew between having a bio family or traditional family and working. So many of us (parents) have friendships or a life outside of work.
An interesting read! You might be wrong jumping to the conclusion that parents value meaningful work for their children more than meaningful relationships. You assume that marriage and parent/child relationships are the only/most meaningful ones to have. What about defacto relationships and friendships, for example? I think the rejection (noticeably by mothers more than by fathers) is of traditional structures not of meaningful relationships. People are, I think, able to see that there are a variety of ways to be fulfilled and to contriubte in life other than following the traditional path. I suspect the state of the world (politics, war, climate change, pandemic, cost of living etc) could be another reason that parents are less keen to become grandparents. Not because they don't want grandchildren but that they worry about the world their grandchildren would be brought into.
I like this take a lot, and it also leads me to a correlated thought about the role of capitalism (as we experience it now in the US).
For a lot of folks who entered the job market and shortly thereafter the “when are you going to have kids” market in the mid to late aughts, work and the ability to support ourselves seemed precarious.
If you had a job, there was a sense you could lose it at any time. Combine that with some of the other economic tropes of the past 15+ years - like wages not keeping up with inflation, the inability of many/most families to exist on a single income, or the threat of losing your access to health coverage tied to a job - and you have a lot of people who feel harnessed to work, and like they had to wait longer to save in order to achieve traditional milestones like marriage and children.
At some point, people are going to look at this landscape and many of them might say “well, I need the job to... live.” So they commit to work, not because they value money over family, but because they’re trying to achieve security in a world that feels precarious. Then, if you’re committing to work so sincerely, of course you’re going to want that work to be fulfilling.
If you’ve committed to work, and you do have children, your job can often pull you away from them and create the sense that you’re failing at both parenthood and career. You may recognize how hard it is to fight against the machinery of late stage capitalism, concede that this is just how working *is*, and want your kids to at least be able to support themselves in a job that gives them some sense of fulfillment.
You may also understand how hard you’ve had it, raising kids in the above scenario, and not seeing any improvement in the future, decide that marriage and child rearing aren’t your top priorities for your kids. A life of meaningful work and rich friendships may seem better balanced and less haunted by the specter of failure than one where people are constantly trying to keep all the plates spinning with no support.
Absolutely! This is it, you hit the nail on the head. The inspiration for my Substack is somewhat on this theme, and it’s about a writer (sociologist/psychoanalyst) from the 50s who said society is sick. And that’s one of the reasons why. He was brilliant.
It's not so much about having a fat bank account as it is having any money at all. When you can't make ends meet for yourself without holding down several jobs or living with multiple roommates, how can you add children to the equation? It's not that people don't want to have families, it's often that they can't afford to.
Exactly! And if you do add children to the equation, what kind of childhood will they have? For me, one not worth the endeavour. Sounds like so many others are coming to the same conclusion.
The LOCKDOWN of schools and small businesses caused these societal shifts not the virus! The teacher’s unions in concert with the CDC and their draconian mandates have caused immense harm to our children.
Mothers need to get back to growing independent children who can stand on their own, raise a family and contribute to society in a positive unselfish way.
Fathers are incredibly vital to raising well balanced kids. If you look at who’s responsible for all this gender mutilation crap it’s 99% single moms… a lot of that is these leftist court’s cutting the fathers out of the equation, I know cause the bastards did it to me…
The options to answer are worded weirdly… for instance ‘children’ as compared to ‘enjoyable work’ - perhaps people would have answered differently if given an option like ‘meaningful familial relationships.’ Not to mention the comparisons; in this day and age, financial stability is pretty much a baseline requirement for said children.
I care if my children are happy and fulfilled. I don’t particularly mind if they don’t marry or have children. I believe having financial freedom & a job they enjoy is pretty key to feeling happy & getting pleasure and purpose from life. Some people will also feel a need for marriage & children and other people will find other ways to give their life meaning and both are equally valid.
"Happiness is defined more by work these days than by family. If given a choice between having children find meaningful work or meaningful relationships, parents by four to one prefer the former." That not a sound conclusion based on the data. Too much inference. There was no "meaningful relationships" question. Lots of people have meaningful relationships and community without getting married or having children. Getting married and having children has never been a surefire way for meaningful relationships, anyway (half of marriages end in divorce; many children and adults do not have meaningful relationships with their parents).
Imo, more parents are realizing that pressuring people to conform to traditional societal mandates is a quick road to unhappy, unfulfilling lives. Examples: pressuring their children into status careers, regardless of enjoyment; pressuring them to have children, whether or not they actually want them; pressuring them to get married, usually by a certain age, and not to get divorced no matter how terrible or abusive the marriage is. Also, not being financially stable is one of the biggest factors for low quality of life, poor health, unhappiness--"financial independence" doesn't mean buying fancy things. It means meeting Maslow's hierarchy of needs without your parents help. And many parents, because of the economy of the last decades, don't have enough financial stability to help their kids out, even if they wanted to. I think parents are learning that children need to be empowered to become themselves and make their own responsible choices--that they're kids are not actually belongings or a literal part of them. They are separate humans who who need to be able to become independent adults with their own minds, opinions, lifestyles--rather than being forced into their parents ideal lives.
I agree that people need a good, steady job and adequate income to support themselves and their family. However, the priority of many young people today is to live together, buy a house, nice cars, at least one dog, take nice vacations and then maybe think about getting married and having a child. I think their priorities are wrong.
This shift is caused by of the lack of social supports for parents and caregivers. There is almost no help that parents get for being parents - mothers get lower wages, fathers get wage bumps and are expected to work more. Caregivers are poorly paid.
There is absolutely a lack of value for parents and parenting, evidenced by the lack of social safety nets and governments support. Clearly, we are choosing ‘The rat race’ over love and relationships, and that’s scary. It seems to me that the issue really isn’t with having kids or committed relationships, it’s with the environment in which we are having them. Several European countries do not struggle with these issues in the same way we do in the US.
If we had more stay at home moms then we wouldn't need safety nets and government support for childcare etc. This is what feminism has done.
If we had more stay at home dads then we wouldn’t need safety nets and government support for childcare etc. This is what the cost of living crisis has done.
As if you would have any respect for, and stay married to, a stay at home dad.
I’m very lucky to live in Australia, where it’s much more 50:50. And my wonderful husband has enjoyed periods of being the primary carer, and would do more if the finances permitted. Sadly it’s a dual income world. I sense you’ll respond with another ugly comment, and in doing so recognise you’re more of the problem than the solution.
I'm male and disagree with you so I'm part of the problem? Typical feminist. And btw, it's nowhere near 50:50.
When my husband and I discussed having a family, he was the one who agreed to be "stay at home" because he didn't love his job, while I completely loved mine. Baby was born, we realized pretty quickly that I should stay home with her… But our wage disparities was the real decision. Even though I had a masters degree, he made at least double my salary. Also, staying home to raise kids (which I chose to do) has impacted me professionally, even to this day. This isn't *about* feminism, Richard. It's about an economic system that disproportionately affects women While giving them zero support when they choose to become mothers (no paid leave for most), and childcare expenses that will eat up a huge chunk of wages. I could go on...
Errr, it's clearly the biological system that disproportionately affects women. And why should you get paid leave when you can just have your husband go to work? Social security doesn't exist to let you do whatever is your preferred option. You need to respect the fact that it's other people's money and you don't have a right to it.
So you’re saying we should tell 50% of the population that their only role in life is to stay at home, cook & do housework? What if they have other skills and talents and can contribute to society and the economy in other ways? What if bring a stay at home mum makes many women depressed and miserable.
Why do feminists keep pretending that going to work is some amazing, fulfilling experience when for the vast majority of people it is just drudgery?
Either way, everyone should have the opportunity to choose what they want to do with their life, rather than telling 50% of the population they can only do one thing.
As much as I love my children, I find a day at work more rewarding & easier than a day of childcare & housework.
I didn't want to stay home. I worked part time until my kid started school. I was able to find rewarding work in a school, and so it's been family friendly. I work 35 hours a week 181 days a year. My spouse has a grueling job. I wouldn't trade him places, BUT had I picked a career that paid like his, I'd have been the one working more hours. Women don't tend to pick careers like my husbands. I don't think women should stay home, but I do think it's nice if one person can stay home when the children are under three. I believe it's easier on the entire family when one person has a family friendly job. I've never heard Jordan say women should not work. When my son was young, I worked part time in the evenings so we didn't have to pay for day care. What works for the family and keeps our partnerships (foundation for the kids) strong, is always good for the kids.
We do not all pretend that our work is rewarding. Work often does, however, reward us more than staying home. I think it is risky to stay home. Too many years out of the work force would have put me in a vulnerable position on several levels. This doesn't mean that a women should never stay home. They should protect themselves by having a skill/education and consider staying home for a shorter period of time. Part time employment was a good balance for me but when the kid went to school I had plenty time for a job. It's different when you have small kids and especially when there's more than one. I don't know how young families manage when both parties work demanding jobs...I am guessing that something suffers.
I think a universal basic income could help with this. Giving people money frees up time for them to slow down, to be present, to make time for their families and kids and relationships. In a country where the dominant force is production and consumption, giving people a means to exit anxiety-mode (scarcity mindset) and into safety (abundance mentality)is a start for bringing our society back to sanity.
Is there a problem that you think isn't solved by taking other people's hard-earned money off them?
Yeah, I'm afraid this is way bigger than feminism....read a book lately?
Failing to have a category for meaningful relationships or community strikes me as a profound limitation to the statistic. The question forces a skew between having a bio family or traditional family and working. So many of us (parents) have friendships or a life outside of work.
An interesting read! You might be wrong jumping to the conclusion that parents value meaningful work for their children more than meaningful relationships. You assume that marriage and parent/child relationships are the only/most meaningful ones to have. What about defacto relationships and friendships, for example? I think the rejection (noticeably by mothers more than by fathers) is of traditional structures not of meaningful relationships. People are, I think, able to see that there are a variety of ways to be fulfilled and to contriubte in life other than following the traditional path. I suspect the state of the world (politics, war, climate change, pandemic, cost of living etc) could be another reason that parents are less keen to become grandparents. Not because they don't want grandchildren but that they worry about the world their grandchildren would be brought into.
I like this take a lot, and it also leads me to a correlated thought about the role of capitalism (as we experience it now in the US).
For a lot of folks who entered the job market and shortly thereafter the “when are you going to have kids” market in the mid to late aughts, work and the ability to support ourselves seemed precarious.
If you had a job, there was a sense you could lose it at any time. Combine that with some of the other economic tropes of the past 15+ years - like wages not keeping up with inflation, the inability of many/most families to exist on a single income, or the threat of losing your access to health coverage tied to a job - and you have a lot of people who feel harnessed to work, and like they had to wait longer to save in order to achieve traditional milestones like marriage and children.
At some point, people are going to look at this landscape and many of them might say “well, I need the job to... live.” So they commit to work, not because they value money over family, but because they’re trying to achieve security in a world that feels precarious. Then, if you’re committing to work so sincerely, of course you’re going to want that work to be fulfilling.
If you’ve committed to work, and you do have children, your job can often pull you away from them and create the sense that you’re failing at both parenthood and career. You may recognize how hard it is to fight against the machinery of late stage capitalism, concede that this is just how working *is*, and want your kids to at least be able to support themselves in a job that gives them some sense of fulfillment.
You may also understand how hard you’ve had it, raising kids in the above scenario, and not seeing any improvement in the future, decide that marriage and child rearing aren’t your top priorities for your kids. A life of meaningful work and rich friendships may seem better balanced and less haunted by the specter of failure than one where people are constantly trying to keep all the plates spinning with no support.
Absolutely! This is it, you hit the nail on the head. The inspiration for my Substack is somewhat on this theme, and it’s about a writer (sociologist/psychoanalyst) from the 50s who said society is sick. And that’s one of the reasons why. He was brilliant.
So interesting and scary. I never would have expected this. I’m curious if this is affected by socioeconomics. Thank you for sharing!
I think it is affected by socioeconomics and the values of our western society.
This is a sobering commentary on our society. Family and children are more enriching than a fat bank account.
It's not so much about having a fat bank account as it is having any money at all. When you can't make ends meet for yourself without holding down several jobs or living with multiple roommates, how can you add children to the equation? It's not that people don't want to have families, it's often that they can't afford to.
Exactly! And if you do add children to the equation, what kind of childhood will they have? For me, one not worth the endeavour. Sounds like so many others are coming to the same conclusion.
Yes. And love, relationships, and connecting with others is a basic human need. We have built a society which puts that need to the very last place.
The LOCKDOWN of schools and small businesses caused these societal shifts not the virus! The teacher’s unions in concert with the CDC and their draconian mandates have caused immense harm to our children.
Mothers need to get back to growing independent children who can stand on their own, raise a family and contribute to society in a positive unselfish way.
Fathers have nothing to do with raising resilient children?
Fathers are incredibly vital to raising well balanced kids. If you look at who’s responsible for all this gender mutilation crap it’s 99% single moms… a lot of that is these leftist court’s cutting the fathers out of the equation, I know cause the bastards did it to me…
Fathers certainly do have a role in raising children!
Great comment; I totally concur… people need to put their grownup boots on, get to work and quit blaming everyone else for their problems.
The options to answer are worded weirdly… for instance ‘children’ as compared to ‘enjoyable work’ - perhaps people would have answered differently if given an option like ‘meaningful familial relationships.’ Not to mention the comparisons; in this day and age, financial stability is pretty much a baseline requirement for said children.
Maybe parents are recognising that their children don’t have to get married and raise children to have meaningful relationships and a happy life.
I care if my children are happy and fulfilled. I don’t particularly mind if they don’t marry or have children. I believe having financial freedom & a job they enjoy is pretty key to feeling happy & getting pleasure and purpose from life. Some people will also feel a need for marriage & children and other people will find other ways to give their life meaning and both are equally valid.
Why is the author assuming that meaningful relationships don't exist outside of marriage...?
"Happiness is defined more by work these days than by family. If given a choice between having children find meaningful work or meaningful relationships, parents by four to one prefer the former." That not a sound conclusion based on the data. Too much inference. There was no "meaningful relationships" question. Lots of people have meaningful relationships and community without getting married or having children. Getting married and having children has never been a surefire way for meaningful relationships, anyway (half of marriages end in divorce; many children and adults do not have meaningful relationships with their parents).
Imo, more parents are realizing that pressuring people to conform to traditional societal mandates is a quick road to unhappy, unfulfilling lives. Examples: pressuring their children into status careers, regardless of enjoyment; pressuring them to have children, whether or not they actually want them; pressuring them to get married, usually by a certain age, and not to get divorced no matter how terrible or abusive the marriage is. Also, not being financially stable is one of the biggest factors for low quality of life, poor health, unhappiness--"financial independence" doesn't mean buying fancy things. It means meeting Maslow's hierarchy of needs without your parents help. And many parents, because of the economy of the last decades, don't have enough financial stability to help their kids out, even if they wanted to. I think parents are learning that children need to be empowered to become themselves and make their own responsible choices--that they're kids are not actually belongings or a literal part of them. They are separate humans who who need to be able to become independent adults with their own minds, opinions, lifestyles--rather than being forced into their parents ideal lives.
I’ll save U the suspense...it’s not funny.
I agree that people need a good, steady job and adequate income to support themselves and their family. However, the priority of many young people today is to live together, buy a house, nice cars, at least one dog, take nice vacations and then maybe think about getting married and having a child. I think their priorities are wrong.