= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JQuinton comments on [Link] More ominous than a [Marriage] strike - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (90)
I don't see the point of this post. It assumes that only men can earn money, or that lack of marriage is somehow bad for society. Those premises need to be argued for and not just assumed.
Apparently Scandinavian countries didn't get that memo that lack of marriage destroys societies; they are still some of the best places to live on the planet.
The article you linked to contradicts the point you want to make. It explicitly says that lack of marriage is bad for countries that have a sizable underclass, which is most countries.
I think both JQ's comment and yours are pretty much non sequitur. The post has one complaint about falling marriage rates; JQ provides defense against a different complaint; and you provide yet a third complaint. All three of you can be correct.
Scandinavia shows that nuclear family formation can occur without formal marriage. But it seems to show that such families do not last as long. The standard complaint is that without pressure towards nuclear families: (1) children will not be raised by fathers; (2) polygyny; (3) destructive tournaments. That is what people (I think including the link) often mean by "underclass," but that definition is after the fact, so it didn't allow one to predict that Scandinavia would be different. Anyhow, the complaint of the OP is a completely different one, that men are dropping out of production and procreation in non-destructive (non-underclass) ways.
A sizable underclass isn't desirable regardless of marriage rates...