Is this a typo? The way Matt has written this paragraph, I'm not seeing any marriage penalty at all, it is the single mother who is penalized while the married couple is actually getting more social welfare.
"A lot of programs are means-tested in an effort to maximize the alleviation of material suffering while minimizing expense. But because marriage itself alleviates material suffering, programs are often structured such that a mom with two kids who earns $20,000 per year gets less help than a mom and a dad with two kids and combined earnings of $40,000 per year. There is a certain logic to that, but it discourages people from getting married. The most straightforward solution is to consolidate and simplify these social assistance programs while also making them more generous overall. Universal benefits do not create marriage penalties."
Clearly, the government should provide free, convenient abortions for women under 21, without a high school diploma, who are unmarried, or when the father-to-be is under 21 or lacks a high school diploma.
Correct. I agree that we should decouple the tax incentives and encourage co-habitation. The reality is that with the decline of religion (specifically Christianity) comes the decline of marriage rates. It's a much deeper cultural issue that might be helped on the margins by some policy but overall can't be solved by policy means.
And with the decline of religion over the last 20 years, those have gotten even higher. As you point out, there is something interesting there though even when comparing blacks/non-blacks over the same time period. I would point to a range of cultural things effecting that.
I imagine that the conservative response would be that you’re correct that there aren’t many policy levers that we can pull. But they would insist that there is plenty that we could do in the cultural space. In the same way that the mass media helped to normalize same sex relationships and draw attention to racism, they could address the crisis in parenting. So we could see a bunch of moralizing movies and television shows on how hard it is to grow up without a father. The New York Times could run a series ala 1619 project on the crisis in parenting. Pop stars and influencers could discuss the toll of absent fathers. There could be calls for another million man march. I’m not sure if I think this is either feasible or helpful, but I imagine it’s one of the sources of conservative anger at the ”mainstream media.” The progressive elite has a big say in dictating the content that our culture produces. So why not shape it in a way that helps the poor, whom they claim to care so much about?
Daniel Moynihan when he was more an academic than politician wrote a book with the controversial theme that absent black fathers was a major cause of social and economic problems in black community
His solution was better jobs for black males so there would be more incentives for families to stay together
Of course this in part reflected his own family experience in which his Irish father abandoned the family when he was a boy
I think Matt is missing a lever conservatives (and a lot of moderates on both sides) see and act on. Sure, the Republican Party seems to be less vocal about this, but there are a lot of cultural figures and institutions pushing hard on it. I'm thinking of the attempt at culture change from people like Jordan Peterson and the general "Be a responsible man, clean up your act and get a job and become a good mate and settle down and raise a family and be a positive, contributing member of your community" strain of discourse. In this frame, the highest leverage point is making men better--they're the ones leaving their partners to raise the kids alone (either because they're not willing to commit, unable to support the family, or commiting crimes that leave them in jail and away from the kids). Clearly, there are upstream variables: why are so many men ending up without the psychological, social, and economic resources to play those constructive, positive roles in the first place? But setting that aside for a different discussion and trying to deal with the situation as it is right now, there's still what I consider an entirely worthwhile effort to increase marriage rates by increasing the character of men.
Unfortunately, I think this is offputting to progressives because it triggers three sacred cows: 1) individuals taking 'personal responsibility' for their actions, becoming more virtuous, and 'pulling themselves up by their bootstraps' are the solution to systemic social ills, 2) talking to poor people (and especially people of color) about 'engaging in more responsible behaviors' and 'developing character' reminds them of old-school thinly veiled actual white supremacy, and 3) this kind of approach is very often closely intertwined with religious institutions or messaging, which comes with baggage the left doesn't like. A more cynical take is that it circumvents progressives' ideological and political machinery, cutting them out of the loop on money and power. Seems like that's a factor for some, but I generally lean charitably on this one.
I don't think any off those three objections are legitimate critiques of a genuinely good-faith approach to developing healthier, more positive men. And tragically, I think if progressives could look past their prejudices (and many can or already do, I'm sure), they would see that this is exactly the natural complement to something like the #MeToo movement: we have a problem with men abusing their power and hurting women in this society, and what should we do about it? Develop men into stronger, more loving and capable male figures who both provide for and support their families while respecting women, themselves, and their communities. That requires not just shaming and calling them out, but also providing them with support (in particular, from other men) to grow into the kind of healthier, more responsible, strong but safe figures we would all like to see.
As usual, there seems to be an enormous amount of common ground here between working/middle class people on both sides of the aisle and across all races. In Shelby Steele's "What Killed Michael Brown?" (which I found to be kind of cringy but also illuminating), he interviews leaders of community orgs that are doing this kind of thing: pastors, nonprofit heads, etc., all of whom are focused on providing healthy outlets for (especially young, poor, or black) men to form part of a community, find redemption or hope, and contribute their efforts to something meaningful and positive (instead of, say, meaningful and destructive, like being part of a gang). They seem to be liberals and conservatives, but united by pragmatism and in-the-trenches, skin-in-the-game, real-world experience. Maybe I'm romanticizing, but they seem representative of a very positive, often-underlooked thread of community work. I think Jamil Jivani has some good thoughts on this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2vctUezliE).
Almost everyone who doesn't form part of the woke Ivy League crowd agrees that this kind of approach is awesome and totally not a dog whistle for "Black men are degenerate criminals who need to be reformed by white saviors". Duh, it's often black men trying to mentor other black men! But then someone like Denis Prager (an older white man) says "The solution is simple: anyone in this country can succeed and live a good life if they follow Judeo-Christian values of hard work, personal responsibility, etc." and it's off to the races on the racism stuff.
Anyway, I hope that doesn't get overlooked, because I think it's probably the best bet. And my sense is that Matt, as a left of center wonk, is going to underweight the value and legitimacy of "bottom-up culture change" as a path to improving outcomes.
Also, good piece!
**EDIT: I thought about this a bit and I feel like I kind of leaned into defending Peterson because of my frustration with progressives who annoy me, rather than because I think he's a great example of the thing I'm trying to describe. I haven't read any of his books, have just watched a few of his interviews and portions of his talks. I know what I'm thinking of, and Peterson doesn't really embody it fully; just a small part (the "have courage, think of yourself as a hero on a journey, clean up your act and at least try to be a good man" shtick). I regret falling into the either/or culture war trap (Peterson or the libs!), albeit mildly.
I also regret using the phrase "Ivy League Woke crowd," which is obviously pretty inflammatory. I do think there's something to what I'm saying there, and if I were to rephrase it less antagonistically, I'd say something like "most people who are not self-identified strong progressives, young people attending elite colleges, politically active Twitter users -- people often referred to as 'liberal elites'".
I feel like a lot of the pushback from the individual improvement crowd is because there's a kind of patriarchal quality to the kind of self improvement a lot of these guys recommend. Like no one has ever gotten mad at me for modeling anger management techniques in the classroom. No one has gotten mad at me for sharing stories that indicate that I do chores, and have hobbies typically coded as feminine.
I mean Twitter is an outrage machine so someone out there thinks this is bad I'm sure but it's not like I'm getting yelled at.
Jordan Peterson is currently having a meltdown over a Sports Illustrated cover.
So here's an interesting note -- the children of the "woke Ivy League crowd" often have excellent social outcomes and are quite likely to be married themselves.
Now, why do you think this is?
Progressives (including, well, the woke Ivy League crowd themselves) will put the focus on material factors. The opportunities their family provided, money, and so on. Sure, hard work and responsibility was a necessary condition to some degree, but it's clearly not the sufficient one. Moreover, clearly their values are working for them when it comes to childrearing.
On the other hand, conservatives have plenty of opportunities on their own to run this sort of organization -- for instance, their churches, their small towns, and so on. Their are lots of GOP state government, long periods of Republicans in power, and so on. If this theory was true, they should be able to teach men the value of hard work and individual responsibility, and produce good results. It's just hard to see that happening.
The Sports Illustrated thing is ugly, and I think Peterson was out of line with his comment. I would put a question to you: do you think this incident (or any other culture war dustup Peterson has gotten into) discredits the rest of his work? Do you think it renders all of the advice he's given to young men bad, or invalidates the large number of young men who attribute significant positive personal growth to his influence? I have my gripes with his approach; concretely, I think he's too harsh and rigid and falls into the culture war lanes too easily. However, I would say emphatically no, his failure to meet his own standards does not wipe away the good that he has done. AND, I also think it's also absolutely worth calling out his failing to be a good man in this moment (and many others). But there's a baby in the bathwater, in my view, which is the kind of guidance for men becoming healthier and playing more positive roles in the world. Curious if you think JP has not had that effect on his audience (acknowledging that clearly it's not foolproof, as a number of his followers seem to be dicks; although Twitter is also not real life).
I agree with your analysis that something is working for the "woke Ivy League crowd" in that their kids tend to have good outcomes. I'd agree it's not all material (although clearly that's a huge factor, as the part of Matt's post about income indicates). I think we both agree, then, that there's a major role for culture and values in individuals' decisions and outcomes for their kids. That's my point! A good way to make the world better is to influence people (especially men) with good values and culture.
I think you read my theory to be "Conservatives/Republicans know how to teach men how to be good men, and progressives don't." That is absolutely not my theory. My claim is "There seem to me to be avenues to increase the marriage rate by providing men, in particular, and men from poor or less well-off communities in particular, with social and cultural support that will guide them towards greater responsibility and more positive, constructive behavior (which usually includes elements of "progressive" values like 'Be gentle and caring and nurturing' as well as "conservative values like 'Be tough and strong and get shit done'). That includes many organizations involved in communities doing work that is both effective, and that people on both the left and right would support. I think we should do more of this and support it, because it seems to me to be a unifying thing AND a constructive way (among others, like policy change I don't know enough about) to ameliorate this problem. However, it seems like many people that could be characterized as "liberal elites" don't support this kind of thing because they have negative perceptions associated with some elements of it." <- Is there anything in there you you disagree with? FWIW, if conservatives oppose the kind of thing I'm talking about, I think they're mistaken, too! I'm not trying to do a political team thing, I'm trying to identify shit that actually works and brings people together and lift that up.
What would you like to see, or what do you think would work to address the extremely high rate and destructive rate of single parenthood in the US?
I'm not super familiar with JBP's work (just have a friend who digs him) but my impression is that he isn't really pushing young men to do the actual most valuable thing that society fails to teach men in my view: learning to reason about their emotions.
It seems to me that it's only a minority of young men who even attempt understandings like "I am feeling [this way] and it's causing me to engage in [these behaviors]" and "it's [these circumstances] that seem to bring about feeling [this way]" for all but a narrow range of emotions like anger and jealousy. And IME this is particularly true in poorer and less progressive milieus where I think dudes are more generally expected to put up a strong front.
If you tell me some psychologist is shepherding young men toward a brighter future and then I don't see any evidence of him doing that, well, color me underwhelmed.
So I'm actually not super familiar with his work either, but I share your desire for more men to hear and viscerally take in "Look guys, it's a really good thing to be able to recognize how your behavior is driven by your emotions. That means noticing what you're feeling, being okay with it on some level (even if it's uncomfortable, especially with shame or fear), and working with it in a positive way--say, by sharing it with someone or making art out of it or taking constructive steps to improve the situation rather than just lash out and hurt yourself or others." That's the shit I love, and I think JP probably does some of that (I'm not super familiar with his work either, tbh) but definitely not enough. I also feel disappointed that Peterson is the most visible and popular guy out there in the "Help young men build character" game, since my aspiration is much higher.
Now, as for my actual policy views, I'm a liberal Democrat. That means I support stronger unions (thus helping working class men), full employment (creating jobs), regulations on working hours (preventing people from needing to be on call all the time), access to contraception and abortion (thus preventing unwanted pregnancy), building more housing (so families have somewhere to live), so on and so forth. I would also promote tax code changes to avoid a "marriage penalty", though I'd need to read up on it more to know for sure. I support expanding access to education (college-educated people are less likely to be singled parents, and can have more stable careers.)
I'm fine with funding community organizations like you describe, but not if they're just about pushing people to go to church.
I'm deeply skeptical about approaches that try to incalculate some sort of "individual responsibility", for the same reason I dislike diversity training. The evidence for "just say nice things about marriage and fatherhood" just seems very marginal, and trying to scale that kind of intervention upwards is very difficult.
Yeah, man, it seems to me like you're missing a huge chunk of what causes people to actually change their lives for the better. Your characterization of what I think is valuable ("just say nice things about marriage and fatherhood") is obviously extremely dismissive and reductive, but I've explained it a couple times so I think you're attached to ignoring it and don't think I'll say more.
I'm bummed about it though, because I bet if you thought about it you'd agree that most of the time when people turn their lives around it's not simply the result of material provisions or policy (although of course that plays a role in allowing opportunities for spiritual/character development). I have no objections to any of the policies you mentioned really, they all seem good. But people who go from gangs to taking care of their community aren't out there gushing about how much the union helped them (even though it very well may have!); they're expressing their thanks for a person who cared enough about them to support and mentor them, to help them realize their potential and find a good path.
I mean, not to plunge us into a whole other third rail, but it's not as if we don't have enough homes to house homeless people; there's just a lot more to solving that problem than giving someone a home. My dad, for example, just got evicted and is allowing his health to deteriorate at a shocking rate. He has all the resources he could possibly need, but there's something else, something inside, that is preventing him from using them. Policies matter, they really do. AND they're necessary but insufficient, in my mind, without support from local institutions that provide a healthy, solid culture. Seems tragic to me if you can't see that.
Oh also, I definitely appreciate your skepticism of things like diversity training programs, but that's because studies have proven their ineffectiveness (or even counterproductiveness). But I think there's good reason to expect community programs are vastly more effective. Human evolutionary history, for example, suggests small groups of people (up to Dunbar's 150, eg.) is the scale we're equipped for. Agree it's difficult to scale, but that's kind of the point. Big top-down things are often more likely to fail because they're working at odds with human tendencies towards the local. I think a good question is, "Which are the most effective local organizations/programs that have positive impact on mens' lives and behavior, and how feasible is it to scale them?"
In general, one heuristic that probably differs between a liberal Democrat like yourself and a politically homeless radical centrist like myself (or a conservative) is confidence in the global / top-down versus the local / bottom-up. Obviously that's not a rule across the board, but my bias is towards the local, the bottom-up, the person-to-person, the embedded in a community. Based on your responses, seems like you put more stock in the higher-level, systemic, top-down policy changes. Seems like there's worth in both.
Ah okay, I don't think Jordan Peterson is "bad", so we have a disagreement there. As I said before, I disagree with things he says and don't like his rhetorical style much of the time. I also think he has real insight and positive contributions to our culture/discourse. You seem pretty committed to lining up against him, so I think there's no point trying to find any nuance there. I'll say that the Reddit thread looks like motivated crap to me. "He said this thing, which is similar to a thing Hitler said" is some of the most bush league hit job work there is, so place absolutely no stock in that. It's clear to me he's not an anti-Semite, so "Look how his words are like a Nazi's words!" holds absolutely no significance to me. I'd just reiterate my question about whether picking all of someone's worst moments is enough in your mind to discredit everything they've said and make them "bad". I'd also recommend "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt, if you haven't read. Could be interesting, and I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on it.
I thought about this a bit and I feel like I kind of leaned into defending Peterson because of my frustration with progressives who annoy me, rather than because I think he's a great example of the thing I'm trying to describe. I haven't read any of his books, have just watched a few of his interviews and portions of his talks. I know what I'm thinking of, and Peterson doesn't really embody it fully; just a small part (the "have courage, think of yourself as a hero on a journey, clean up your act and at least try to be a good man" shtick). I regret falling into the either/or culture war trap (Peterson or the libs!), albeit mildly.
I also regret using the phrase "Ivy League Woke crowd," which is obviously pretty inflammatory. I do think there's something to what I'm saying there, and if I were to rephrase it less antagonistically, I'd say something like "most people who are not self-identified strong progressives, young people attending elite colleges, politically active Twitter users -- people often referred to as 'liberal elites'".
Is it really about marriage? Or having two people invested in parenting?
Can we really say that people that are unmarried or divorced would have better outcomes for their children, if they married/stay married to their partner, regardless of how that person behaved?
The problem with encouraging marriage is that conservatives always use it to try to get women back in traditional gender roles. We also imply that having more economic freedom and choice is bad, and the unspoken assumption is that financially trapping people together is somehow good for people. Why is it that women are the ones that have to give stuff up? Give up choice? Give up individualism? Where are the conservative messages (or liberal) advocating for marriage that help men learn and value how to be better partners?
I just posted a long comment above on exactly this. I think people like Jordan Peterson, Jamil Jivani, and lots of community organizations working in poor neighborhoods and communities of color, are doing exactly this. And working/middle class or non-dogmatic people on the left and right can see and appreciate the value of it. But many on the left are allergic to it because they perceive it as dog-whistle white supremacy or conservative religious bullshit.
I think the conservative messages advocating for marraige that help men learn and value how to be better partners are very much out there, but only if you're willing/able to look past an older man (maybe black, but maybe white) telling a younger man (probably black, but maybe white) "Hey, son. You need to get your life together and stop messing around. You need to focus yourself on what matters, stay away from crime and gangs and drugs, study, work hard, get a job, stop trying to be a player, commit to a woman, treat her with the repsect she deserves, provide and care for your childern, and become a positive, constructive member of your community. You need to become a strong, healthy man." But sometimes, for shorthand they might say "You need to follow Judeo-Christian or American values" and that'd be tougher to hear. Or they'd frame it as I did, all heternormative and traditional, with the implication that men should be strong providers and women should be primary caregivers. I think you might be asking for something impossible, which is "Where are the conservative messages advocating for marriage that are actually not conservative in any ways that I [a lot of assumptions about what you believe there, forgive me if I presume incorrectly] and other liberals don't like?"
Is there any evidence that kids are worse off today than they were 50 years ago? From what I understand drinking, drugs, sex and general delinquency are down substantially. It doesn't seem like the kids living with just mom today are worse off than the kids living with mom and a shitty father c. 1970.
To a young woman with a bleak outlook on life, having a child provides hope, love, acceptance and a purpose. The child is innocent, full of wonder and carries the potential for a better life. All things she isn't finding in a husband.
The lack of contraception is a fiction; these women get pregnant because they WANT a baby. They just don't want a husband, or at least not the ones that are available. Society has been telling young men they are toxic, they aren't valued, they are oppressors for almost 2 decades now. The results are happening and until we change that message, we will continue to see the problems that are caused by disaffected, depressed young men.
To be fair, there really are a heckuva lot of very low-quality dudes out there. I assume others have experienced this too, but it's much easier to think of women to recommend if you want to play matchmaker for a single guy friend over age 30 or so, and much harder to do the reverse.
Women outnumber men at college by 60-40 and have for quite a while. Assuming you are college educated and surrounded by other college educated people, I’m not at all surprised at your experience.
"Society has been telling young men they are toxic, they aren't valued, they are oppressors for almost 2 decades now. "
That seems more like an online talking point that objective reality for low status men. We've always had low status men, it's nothing new. What has changed is that in the past propriety and economic necessity required women marry. Now they don't have to. What feminist grad students say or don't say about men isn't going to change how unappealing these low status men are.
Cutting back on immigration to keep the labor shortage going - now that might move the needle.
The marriage affect is so large that it swamps inequality concerns. Check out this great podcast by Nobel Prize Economist James Heckman saying that mobility in Denmark - yes, Denmark - is about the same as the United States because of marriage. https://www.econtalk.org/james-heckman-on-inequality-and-economic-mobility/
I find it a bit odd that the guy who is a strong believer in government incentives to increase a countries fertility is suddenly skeptical of government incentives to do the same. Granted, its not exactly apples to apples, but the two overlap heavily.
Here's my "A Modest Proposal" ala Jonathan Swift. Cities provide less optimal marriage outcomes then the suburbs and rural communities. Thus to improve marriage outcomes, start encouraging people to leave the city. :P
Is this a typo? The way Matt has written this paragraph, I'm not seeing any marriage penalty at all, it is the single mother who is penalized while the married couple is actually getting more social welfare.
"A lot of programs are means-tested in an effort to maximize the alleviation of material suffering while minimizing expense. But because marriage itself alleviates material suffering, programs are often structured such that a mom with two kids who earns $20,000 per year gets less help than a mom and a dad with two kids and combined earnings of $40,000 per year. There is a certain logic to that, but it discourages people from getting married. The most straightforward solution is to consolidate and simplify these social assistance programs while also making them more generous overall. Universal benefits do not create marriage penalties."
Clearly, the government should provide free, convenient abortions for women under 21, without a high school diploma, who are unmarried, or when the father-to-be is under 21 or lacks a high school diploma.
Single parenthood is another result of the war on drugs: "differences in incarceration and employment dynamics between black and white men account for half of the black–white marriage gap." https://voxeu.org/article/incarceration-unemployment-and-black-white-marriage-gap-us
Webster Grove (or is it Groves?) I was surprised to learn how big the St Louis Metro area was when I first visited
Correct. I agree that we should decouple the tax incentives and encourage co-habitation. The reality is that with the decline of religion (specifically Christianity) comes the decline of marriage rates. It's a much deeper cultural issue that might be helped on the margins by some policy but overall can't be solved by policy means.
Black Americans tend to be very religious, but have high rates of single parenthood.
And with the decline of religion over the last 20 years, those have gotten even higher. As you point out, there is something interesting there though even when comparing blacks/non-blacks over the same time period. I would point to a range of cultural things effecting that.
I imagine that the conservative response would be that you’re correct that there aren’t many policy levers that we can pull. But they would insist that there is plenty that we could do in the cultural space. In the same way that the mass media helped to normalize same sex relationships and draw attention to racism, they could address the crisis in parenting. So we could see a bunch of moralizing movies and television shows on how hard it is to grow up without a father. The New York Times could run a series ala 1619 project on the crisis in parenting. Pop stars and influencers could discuss the toll of absent fathers. There could be calls for another million man march. I’m not sure if I think this is either feasible or helpful, but I imagine it’s one of the sources of conservative anger at the ”mainstream media.” The progressive elite has a big say in dictating the content that our culture produces. So why not shape it in a way that helps the poor, whom they claim to care so much about?
So in other words, they're demanding political correctness?
Daniel Moynihan when he was more an academic than politician wrote a book with the controversial theme that absent black fathers was a major cause of social and economic problems in black community
His solution was better jobs for black males so there would be more incentives for families to stay together
Of course this in part reflected his own family experience in which his Irish father abandoned the family when he was a boy
I say bring back the stigma on out of wedlock pregnancy, and bring back the shotgun weddings.
And then absent abuse, stay married. Do the work, make it work. Doubly so once you have kids.
You could replace some of the woke indoctrination in schools with relationship management, and financial literacy
I say bring back the stigma on out of wedlock pregnancy, and bring back the shotgun weddings.
And then absent abuse, stay married. Do the work, make it work. Doubly so once you have kids.
You could replace some of the woke indoctrination in schools with relationship management, and financial literacy
**See edits below**
I think Matt is missing a lever conservatives (and a lot of moderates on both sides) see and act on. Sure, the Republican Party seems to be less vocal about this, but there are a lot of cultural figures and institutions pushing hard on it. I'm thinking of the attempt at culture change from people like Jordan Peterson and the general "Be a responsible man, clean up your act and get a job and become a good mate and settle down and raise a family and be a positive, contributing member of your community" strain of discourse. In this frame, the highest leverage point is making men better--they're the ones leaving their partners to raise the kids alone (either because they're not willing to commit, unable to support the family, or commiting crimes that leave them in jail and away from the kids). Clearly, there are upstream variables: why are so many men ending up without the psychological, social, and economic resources to play those constructive, positive roles in the first place? But setting that aside for a different discussion and trying to deal with the situation as it is right now, there's still what I consider an entirely worthwhile effort to increase marriage rates by increasing the character of men.
Unfortunately, I think this is offputting to progressives because it triggers three sacred cows: 1) individuals taking 'personal responsibility' for their actions, becoming more virtuous, and 'pulling themselves up by their bootstraps' are the solution to systemic social ills, 2) talking to poor people (and especially people of color) about 'engaging in more responsible behaviors' and 'developing character' reminds them of old-school thinly veiled actual white supremacy, and 3) this kind of approach is very often closely intertwined with religious institutions or messaging, which comes with baggage the left doesn't like. A more cynical take is that it circumvents progressives' ideological and political machinery, cutting them out of the loop on money and power. Seems like that's a factor for some, but I generally lean charitably on this one.
I don't think any off those three objections are legitimate critiques of a genuinely good-faith approach to developing healthier, more positive men. And tragically, I think if progressives could look past their prejudices (and many can or already do, I'm sure), they would see that this is exactly the natural complement to something like the #MeToo movement: we have a problem with men abusing their power and hurting women in this society, and what should we do about it? Develop men into stronger, more loving and capable male figures who both provide for and support their families while respecting women, themselves, and their communities. That requires not just shaming and calling them out, but also providing them with support (in particular, from other men) to grow into the kind of healthier, more responsible, strong but safe figures we would all like to see.
As usual, there seems to be an enormous amount of common ground here between working/middle class people on both sides of the aisle and across all races. In Shelby Steele's "What Killed Michael Brown?" (which I found to be kind of cringy but also illuminating), he interviews leaders of community orgs that are doing this kind of thing: pastors, nonprofit heads, etc., all of whom are focused on providing healthy outlets for (especially young, poor, or black) men to form part of a community, find redemption or hope, and contribute their efforts to something meaningful and positive (instead of, say, meaningful and destructive, like being part of a gang). They seem to be liberals and conservatives, but united by pragmatism and in-the-trenches, skin-in-the-game, real-world experience. Maybe I'm romanticizing, but they seem representative of a very positive, often-underlooked thread of community work. I think Jamil Jivani has some good thoughts on this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2vctUezliE).
Almost everyone who doesn't form part of the woke Ivy League crowd agrees that this kind of approach is awesome and totally not a dog whistle for "Black men are degenerate criminals who need to be reformed by white saviors". Duh, it's often black men trying to mentor other black men! But then someone like Denis Prager (an older white man) says "The solution is simple: anyone in this country can succeed and live a good life if they follow Judeo-Christian values of hard work, personal responsibility, etc." and it's off to the races on the racism stuff.
Anyway, I hope that doesn't get overlooked, because I think it's probably the best bet. And my sense is that Matt, as a left of center wonk, is going to underweight the value and legitimacy of "bottom-up culture change" as a path to improving outcomes.
Also, good piece!
**EDIT: I thought about this a bit and I feel like I kind of leaned into defending Peterson because of my frustration with progressives who annoy me, rather than because I think he's a great example of the thing I'm trying to describe. I haven't read any of his books, have just watched a few of his interviews and portions of his talks. I know what I'm thinking of, and Peterson doesn't really embody it fully; just a small part (the "have courage, think of yourself as a hero on a journey, clean up your act and at least try to be a good man" shtick). I regret falling into the either/or culture war trap (Peterson or the libs!), albeit mildly.
I also regret using the phrase "Ivy League Woke crowd," which is obviously pretty inflammatory. I do think there's something to what I'm saying there, and if I were to rephrase it less antagonistically, I'd say something like "most people who are not self-identified strong progressives, young people attending elite colleges, politically active Twitter users -- people often referred to as 'liberal elites'".
I feel like a lot of the pushback from the individual improvement crowd is because there's a kind of patriarchal quality to the kind of self improvement a lot of these guys recommend. Like no one has ever gotten mad at me for modeling anger management techniques in the classroom. No one has gotten mad at me for sharing stories that indicate that I do chores, and have hobbies typically coded as feminine.
I mean Twitter is an outrage machine so someone out there thinks this is bad I'm sure but it's not like I'm getting yelled at.
Jordan Peterson is currently having a meltdown over a Sports Illustrated cover.
So here's an interesting note -- the children of the "woke Ivy League crowd" often have excellent social outcomes and are quite likely to be married themselves.
Now, why do you think this is?
Progressives (including, well, the woke Ivy League crowd themselves) will put the focus on material factors. The opportunities their family provided, money, and so on. Sure, hard work and responsibility was a necessary condition to some degree, but it's clearly not the sufficient one. Moreover, clearly their values are working for them when it comes to childrearing.
On the other hand, conservatives have plenty of opportunities on their own to run this sort of organization -- for instance, their churches, their small towns, and so on. Their are lots of GOP state government, long periods of Republicans in power, and so on. If this theory was true, they should be able to teach men the value of hard work and individual responsibility, and produce good results. It's just hard to see that happening.
The Sports Illustrated thing is ugly, and I think Peterson was out of line with his comment. I would put a question to you: do you think this incident (or any other culture war dustup Peterson has gotten into) discredits the rest of his work? Do you think it renders all of the advice he's given to young men bad, or invalidates the large number of young men who attribute significant positive personal growth to his influence? I have my gripes with his approach; concretely, I think he's too harsh and rigid and falls into the culture war lanes too easily. However, I would say emphatically no, his failure to meet his own standards does not wipe away the good that he has done. AND, I also think it's also absolutely worth calling out his failing to be a good man in this moment (and many others). But there's a baby in the bathwater, in my view, which is the kind of guidance for men becoming healthier and playing more positive roles in the world. Curious if you think JP has not had that effect on his audience (acknowledging that clearly it's not foolproof, as a number of his followers seem to be dicks; although Twitter is also not real life).
I agree with your analysis that something is working for the "woke Ivy League crowd" in that their kids tend to have good outcomes. I'd agree it's not all material (although clearly that's a huge factor, as the part of Matt's post about income indicates). I think we both agree, then, that there's a major role for culture and values in individuals' decisions and outcomes for their kids. That's my point! A good way to make the world better is to influence people (especially men) with good values and culture.
I think you read my theory to be "Conservatives/Republicans know how to teach men how to be good men, and progressives don't." That is absolutely not my theory. My claim is "There seem to me to be avenues to increase the marriage rate by providing men, in particular, and men from poor or less well-off communities in particular, with social and cultural support that will guide them towards greater responsibility and more positive, constructive behavior (which usually includes elements of "progressive" values like 'Be gentle and caring and nurturing' as well as "conservative values like 'Be tough and strong and get shit done'). That includes many organizations involved in communities doing work that is both effective, and that people on both the left and right would support. I think we should do more of this and support it, because it seems to me to be a unifying thing AND a constructive way (among others, like policy change I don't know enough about) to ameliorate this problem. However, it seems like many people that could be characterized as "liberal elites" don't support this kind of thing because they have negative perceptions associated with some elements of it." <- Is there anything in there you you disagree with? FWIW, if conservatives oppose the kind of thing I'm talking about, I think they're mistaken, too! I'm not trying to do a political team thing, I'm trying to identify shit that actually works and brings people together and lift that up.
What would you like to see, or what do you think would work to address the extremely high rate and destructive rate of single parenthood in the US?
I'm not super familiar with JBP's work (just have a friend who digs him) but my impression is that he isn't really pushing young men to do the actual most valuable thing that society fails to teach men in my view: learning to reason about their emotions.
It seems to me that it's only a minority of young men who even attempt understandings like "I am feeling [this way] and it's causing me to engage in [these behaviors]" and "it's [these circumstances] that seem to bring about feeling [this way]" for all but a narrow range of emotions like anger and jealousy. And IME this is particularly true in poorer and less progressive milieus where I think dudes are more generally expected to put up a strong front.
If you tell me some psychologist is shepherding young men toward a brighter future and then I don't see any evidence of him doing that, well, color me underwhelmed.
So I'm actually not super familiar with his work either, but I share your desire for more men to hear and viscerally take in "Look guys, it's a really good thing to be able to recognize how your behavior is driven by your emotions. That means noticing what you're feeling, being okay with it on some level (even if it's uncomfortable, especially with shame or fear), and working with it in a positive way--say, by sharing it with someone or making art out of it or taking constructive steps to improve the situation rather than just lash out and hurt yourself or others." That's the shit I love, and I think JP probably does some of that (I'm not super familiar with his work either, tbh) but definitely not enough. I also feel disappointed that Peterson is the most visible and popular guy out there in the "Help young men build character" game, since my aspiration is much higher.
Now, as for my actual policy views, I'm a liberal Democrat. That means I support stronger unions (thus helping working class men), full employment (creating jobs), regulations on working hours (preventing people from needing to be on call all the time), access to contraception and abortion (thus preventing unwanted pregnancy), building more housing (so families have somewhere to live), so on and so forth. I would also promote tax code changes to avoid a "marriage penalty", though I'd need to read up on it more to know for sure. I support expanding access to education (college-educated people are less likely to be singled parents, and can have more stable careers.)
I'm fine with funding community organizations like you describe, but not if they're just about pushing people to go to church.
I'm deeply skeptical about approaches that try to incalculate some sort of "individual responsibility", for the same reason I dislike diversity training. The evidence for "just say nice things about marriage and fatherhood" just seems very marginal, and trying to scale that kind of intervention upwards is very difficult.
Yeah, man, it seems to me like you're missing a huge chunk of what causes people to actually change their lives for the better. Your characterization of what I think is valuable ("just say nice things about marriage and fatherhood") is obviously extremely dismissive and reductive, but I've explained it a couple times so I think you're attached to ignoring it and don't think I'll say more.
I'm bummed about it though, because I bet if you thought about it you'd agree that most of the time when people turn their lives around it's not simply the result of material provisions or policy (although of course that plays a role in allowing opportunities for spiritual/character development). I have no objections to any of the policies you mentioned really, they all seem good. But people who go from gangs to taking care of their community aren't out there gushing about how much the union helped them (even though it very well may have!); they're expressing their thanks for a person who cared enough about them to support and mentor them, to help them realize their potential and find a good path.
I mean, not to plunge us into a whole other third rail, but it's not as if we don't have enough homes to house homeless people; there's just a lot more to solving that problem than giving someone a home. My dad, for example, just got evicted and is allowing his health to deteriorate at a shocking rate. He has all the resources he could possibly need, but there's something else, something inside, that is preventing him from using them. Policies matter, they really do. AND they're necessary but insufficient, in my mind, without support from local institutions that provide a healthy, solid culture. Seems tragic to me if you can't see that.
Oh also, I definitely appreciate your skepticism of things like diversity training programs, but that's because studies have proven their ineffectiveness (or even counterproductiveness). But I think there's good reason to expect community programs are vastly more effective. Human evolutionary history, for example, suggests small groups of people (up to Dunbar's 150, eg.) is the scale we're equipped for. Agree it's difficult to scale, but that's kind of the point. Big top-down things are often more likely to fail because they're working at odds with human tendencies towards the local. I think a good question is, "Which are the most effective local organizations/programs that have positive impact on mens' lives and behavior, and how feasible is it to scale them?"
In general, one heuristic that probably differs between a liberal Democrat like yourself and a politically homeless radical centrist like myself (or a conservative) is confidence in the global / top-down versus the local / bottom-up. Obviously that's not a rule across the board, but my bias is towards the local, the bottom-up, the person-to-person, the embedded in a community. Based on your responses, seems like you put more stock in the higher-level, systemic, top-down policy changes. Seems like there's worth in both.
Yes, Jordan Peterson is bad.
He recorded videos with Stefan Molyneux, an overt white supremacist.
He argues that Islamophobia doesn't exist (https://ottawasun.com/2017/06/10/chambers-islamophobia-is-real-sorry-prof-peterson/wcm/d07e9864-3422-4d8f-b976-e8695ec270f1 )
He supports climate denialism ( https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/825871336333574144 )
He has fantasized about child abuse, and talking about it potentially benefiting them ( http://nationalpost.com/news/excerpt-from-jordan-petersons-new-book-12-rules-for-life-if-you-hate-your-kids-so-will-other-people
).
I can go on if you want. See here for more -- https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughpetersonspam/comments/c2n9kj/whats_wrong_with_jordan_b_peterson_a_primer/
Ah okay, I don't think Jordan Peterson is "bad", so we have a disagreement there. As I said before, I disagree with things he says and don't like his rhetorical style much of the time. I also think he has real insight and positive contributions to our culture/discourse. You seem pretty committed to lining up against him, so I think there's no point trying to find any nuance there. I'll say that the Reddit thread looks like motivated crap to me. "He said this thing, which is similar to a thing Hitler said" is some of the most bush league hit job work there is, so place absolutely no stock in that. It's clear to me he's not an anti-Semite, so "Look how his words are like a Nazi's words!" holds absolutely no significance to me. I'd just reiterate my question about whether picking all of someone's worst moments is enough in your mind to discredit everything they've said and make them "bad". I'd also recommend "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt, if you haven't read. Could be interesting, and I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on it.
I thought about this a bit and I feel like I kind of leaned into defending Peterson because of my frustration with progressives who annoy me, rather than because I think he's a great example of the thing I'm trying to describe. I haven't read any of his books, have just watched a few of his interviews and portions of his talks. I know what I'm thinking of, and Peterson doesn't really embody it fully; just a small part (the "have courage, think of yourself as a hero on a journey, clean up your act and at least try to be a good man" shtick). I regret falling into the either/or culture war trap (Peterson or the libs!), albeit mildly.
I also regret using the phrase "Ivy League Woke crowd," which is obviously pretty inflammatory. I do think there's something to what I'm saying there, and if I were to rephrase it less antagonistically, I'd say something like "most people who are not self-identified strong progressives, young people attending elite colleges, politically active Twitter users -- people often referred to as 'liberal elites'".
Is it really about marriage? Or having two people invested in parenting?
Can we really say that people that are unmarried or divorced would have better outcomes for their children, if they married/stay married to their partner, regardless of how that person behaved?
The problem with encouraging marriage is that conservatives always use it to try to get women back in traditional gender roles. We also imply that having more economic freedom and choice is bad, and the unspoken assumption is that financially trapping people together is somehow good for people. Why is it that women are the ones that have to give stuff up? Give up choice? Give up individualism? Where are the conservative messages (or liberal) advocating for marriage that help men learn and value how to be better partners?
I just posted a long comment above on exactly this. I think people like Jordan Peterson, Jamil Jivani, and lots of community organizations working in poor neighborhoods and communities of color, are doing exactly this. And working/middle class or non-dogmatic people on the left and right can see and appreciate the value of it. But many on the left are allergic to it because they perceive it as dog-whistle white supremacy or conservative religious bullshit.
I think the conservative messages advocating for marraige that help men learn and value how to be better partners are very much out there, but only if you're willing/able to look past an older man (maybe black, but maybe white) telling a younger man (probably black, but maybe white) "Hey, son. You need to get your life together and stop messing around. You need to focus yourself on what matters, stay away from crime and gangs and drugs, study, work hard, get a job, stop trying to be a player, commit to a woman, treat her with the repsect she deserves, provide and care for your childern, and become a positive, constructive member of your community. You need to become a strong, healthy man." But sometimes, for shorthand they might say "You need to follow Judeo-Christian or American values" and that'd be tougher to hear. Or they'd frame it as I did, all heternormative and traditional, with the implication that men should be strong providers and women should be primary caregivers. I think you might be asking for something impossible, which is "Where are the conservative messages advocating for marriage that are actually not conservative in any ways that I [a lot of assumptions about what you believe there, forgive me if I presume incorrectly] and other liberals don't like?"
Is there any evidence that kids are worse off today than they were 50 years ago? From what I understand drinking, drugs, sex and general delinquency are down substantially. It doesn't seem like the kids living with just mom today are worse off than the kids living with mom and a shitty father c. 1970.
Good point, I always default to "things were worse in the past than they are in the present" unless and until I see evidence otherwise.
To a young woman with a bleak outlook on life, having a child provides hope, love, acceptance and a purpose. The child is innocent, full of wonder and carries the potential for a better life. All things she isn't finding in a husband.
The lack of contraception is a fiction; these women get pregnant because they WANT a baby. They just don't want a husband, or at least not the ones that are available. Society has been telling young men they are toxic, they aren't valued, they are oppressors for almost 2 decades now. The results are happening and until we change that message, we will continue to see the problems that are caused by disaffected, depressed young men.
To be fair, there really are a heckuva lot of very low-quality dudes out there. I assume others have experienced this too, but it's much easier to think of women to recommend if you want to play matchmaker for a single guy friend over age 30 or so, and much harder to do the reverse.
Women outnumber men at college by 60-40 and have for quite a while. Assuming you are college educated and surrounded by other college educated people, I’m not at all surprised at your experience.
"Society has been telling young men they are toxic, they aren't valued, they are oppressors for almost 2 decades now. "
That seems more like an online talking point that objective reality for low status men. We've always had low status men, it's nothing new. What has changed is that in the past propriety and economic necessity required women marry. Now they don't have to. What feminist grad students say or don't say about men isn't going to change how unappealing these low status men are.
Cutting back on immigration to keep the labor shortage going - now that might move the needle.
The marriage affect is so large that it swamps inequality concerns. Check out this great podcast by Nobel Prize Economist James Heckman saying that mobility in Denmark - yes, Denmark - is about the same as the United States because of marriage. https://www.econtalk.org/james-heckman-on-inequality-and-economic-mobility/
I find it a bit odd that the guy who is a strong believer in government incentives to increase a countries fertility is suddenly skeptical of government incentives to do the same. Granted, its not exactly apples to apples, but the two overlap heavily.
Here's my "A Modest Proposal" ala Jonathan Swift. Cities provide less optimal marriage outcomes then the suburbs and rural communities. Thus to improve marriage outcomes, start encouraging people to leave the city. :P