Get Married and Have Kids - Brad Wilcox | Maiden Mother Matriarch 75
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 พ.ค. 2024
- 📰 Subscribe to Maiden Mother Matriarch here to listen to full extended episodes: louiseperry.substack.com
My guest today is Brad Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, fellow at the Institute for Family Studies, and author of the new book 'Get Married: Why Americans Must Defy the Elites, Forge Strong Families, and Save Civilization.'
We spoke about why a third of Gen Z Americans are likely to never marry, the so-called 'neo-traditional' model of marriage, the rise of female breadwinners, and the role of male employment in marital happiness. In the extended version of the episode, we also spoke about childfree weddings, same-sex marriage, and why women are more likely to initiate divorce.
03:30 Demographic story behind marriage decline
04:35 Living as married
06:00 Religion, class and cultural divide on marriage
13:20 How elites talk left and walk right in the privacy of their homes
21:39 Female employment and the Neo-traditional model
23:02 Stay at home dads model
29:10 Higher status men are more likely to be more engaged with their children
31:35 Are Neo-traditional values passed on to generations?
36:09 Connection between children of divorced parents and disinterest in marriage
37:21 Are personality traits a reason behind divorce
40:17 Data surrounding adopted children
MMM is sponsored by 321 - a new online introduction to Christianity, presented by former MMM guest Glen Scrivener. Check it out for free at 321course.com/MMM. Just enter your email, choose a password and you’re in - there’s no spam and no fee
The MMM podcast can also be found on Apple, Spotify, and all other streaming platforms: linktr.ee/maidenmothermatriarch
Follow Maiden Mother Matriarch on social media:
Twitter: @maiden_podcast
Instagram: @maiden_mother_matriarch
TikTok: @maiden_podcast
#LouisePerry #BradWilcox #MaidenMotherMatriarch
![อาจารย์ยอด : พระเตะผี [ผี]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zusDOIFasaE/mqdefault.jpg)
15:37 that is intentional. It is eugenics. “Stable happy life for me, but not for thee”
People tall about the 1950s model forgetting that it was aspirational. Men were happy to finally earn enough that their wives didn't HAVE to work. Most women always did work, and their work was a drudgery as was men's, so they were happy to be able to stay home and not have to be a washerwoman, or a maid, or some one else's cook. The middle classes and working classes finally obtained that goal after 100 years of industrialisation only to have it snatched away by businesses that wanted women back in the workforces, and forced more consumerism onto society
This is one of the best comments I've read in years. I would add it was also the advances of the 1950s in household appliances. I've heard of my grandmother's workday, not working outside the home, but within as a farmers wife.
No electricity. Milking the cows morning and night. Making the butter. Boiling the nappies (diapers) daily over a fire. Ironing the clothes with irons heating on woodstoves. Cooking from scratch for a mid-day dinner. At harvest time not just for the family, but for harvest workers. Boiling water on the wood stove so the family could bath. And in summer it was forty degrees Celsius but the wood stove was the only source of power.
In 1950 they got electricity. And every year a new appliance. An electric stove. An electric jug (a big kettle) an electric iron. A radio to listen to at night. Eventually a second hand washing machine.
Finally working class women had time to devote to their children and husband. It was certainly something to aspire to.
I would say that the goal gained from industrialization was not snatched away by businesses, but by governments themselves, who kept raising taxes that went from as little as 5% in the early 1900's to approximately 20% in the 1970's and are currently running close to 50% today. As a personal example, my income can fully feed my family of 7 with my wife staying at home, except my tax rates have been close to 50% in the past few years, and due to it, we've become so cash strapped that my wife has had no choice but to take on some low level work to make ends meet. If my tax rate would have been 5% or even 20%, she could have stayed home with only me working.
Yeah, @@Stabu! Repeal the 16th Amendment NOW!
@@StabuTaxes are very low in the US compared to Europe, but the same issues obtain. Worker productivity is way up since the 1950s, but families can no longer get by on 1 income. Taxes on the middle class are actually lower than the 1960s. Where is that excess money going? Corporate profits.
@@corriewatterson I currently live in Switzerland (entirely because of tax reasons - my wife just stopped working), but recently lived in a very-high tax European country. I also lived in the US for 12 years, and with my then 20% tax rate, I was able to support my entire family with my wife stayed at home with the kids. It was a much better setup for both of us, and is the reason why we recently moved to Switzerland.
Interesting information. I shall have to get that book.
It seems like every time someone quotes statistics on the positive impact marriage has on men, they are so skewed in only measuring those positive things from men who have never been divorced (which would be more than 40% of them).
I am not anti-marriage or anti-natalist. I am a big fan of Louise's work/channel and want people to fall in love, but I can appreciate the reticence of young men who are terrified of alimony, or custody battles, or women's attitudes towards prenups, or the assumption of male toxicity, or how little sex married men have, or that women are fatter than ever (as are men), etc.
I wish we would see more studies on men and women who are divorced and the specific issues that they faced and are *likely* to face.
Oh my bad, I thought men and women were "phatter" than ever, as in "cool" and "stylish," but they're actually "fatter," now I get it.
Well said. 👍
Divorce worries are the results of non sacramental marriages. If you are in a cult that does not value marriage as the pursuit of happiness in that it brings forth children (matrimony means becoming a mother) then the fear of marriage implicitly must exist. Islam and Judaism have divorce as an option but Catholicism doesnt. Protestant cults are no even close to valuing marriage as much as the purport. Happiness in marriage has to do with contentment and sacrifice. Modern happiness is confined to pleasure responses and so has misled millions to even recognize when they are truly happy. Especially women. If women internalize happiness as not having a house full of children to clean for and a husband to cherish and be bonded to motherhood will decay and become just another job many women make it to be as they work for profit rather than the emotional benefit of the family. Somewhere along the way a lie was told that making money is more important than creating a stable happy home.
1) My advice is to accept that married property should be divided 50/50. Don't go for a prenup they have a bad reputation. Go for a contract of cohabitation. Early when still in the hight of romantic love.
2) And how much sex do unmarried men get ? Once or twice a week. Is that too little when you're young. And who else will have sex when you are 62?
An episode with Ed Dutton today on a channel called Sangam Talks is very good for ppl who also watch this channel.
Just to add to this comment from a couple days ago (I'm listening to a Zeihan keynote from past 12 months, as usual) Ed is an excellent fountain of info on many other things, however on India, the bottom line is that they're absolutely guaranteed to indefinitely remain a minor regional power, situated much like today, one of the few places that won't change much.
And yes, they won't experience demographic decline or significant loss of populace. They're a self-contained entity, and will remain as such, they're just obviously not 1st world.
(It is my desire to appropriate their cuisine, and their ancient, pseudo-religious approximate knowledge, of mind & body. And I would also like to play the sitar).
Very much enjoyed this. Towards the end around the 40 minute mark, I think heritability can also help explain the more negative outcomes for adopted children, another way genes show themselves at work
I was thinking the same thing.
That's interesting. Still a better outcome then getting torn limb from limb.
@@grannyannie2948Absolutely.
The days when women would stay at home and take care of their children and take care of the household was the days… Respecting our differences as male and female and sticking to what worked. Happier children and happier families.
- Women truly enjoying cooking for the family and making sure her husband has a nice meal to enjoy after a long day of work.
Children were taught to be polite and respectful. Dad providing for the family and mom making sure everyone is happy.
- One can only dream of seeing some version of those days returning. Meanwhile we can watch and listen to this gentleman in conversation with this lovely podcaster.
My Rabbi added another lesson that I think is VERY important:
He asked both the man and the woman: “are you prepared to give up just being a man, and become now a husband - which is something different?
He asked the woman the exact same question.
Both of the people had some questions about what exactly that meant.
But he would not let them get past this lesson before they could demonstrate a clear understanding of what their new roles would be, and an acceptance of them.
An unwed couple I know with a single child separated. He was a vocational stay at home dad, who didn't have ambition, lacked meaning and purpose and she was the breadwinner, full of life, who had multiple contract jobs as a freelancer. One day, while he was away, she met a random guy, broke up with her partner and followed the guy she just met to another country with her child.
As an older traditional wife I can understand why the wife hated it. However in my country women get in trouble for moving a child interstate. I don't know about another country. Surely that would take a lot of planning. Was the Dad too busy on a screen to notice.
WHY did she marry him to BEGIN with?
@@grannyannie2948 I would say the dad knew his partner likes to explore other opportunities and values freedom and novelty, but stayed with her because he knew she wouldn't change. In such relationships, it's the child that suffers, especially if they are young.
@@marlonmoncrieffe0728 They were never married. Unwed = unmarried is what I meant.
@@v9b23j It's always the children who suffer.
So the take-home is that, in societies heavily shaped by patriarchy, following patriarchal norms still produces the best outcomes on average.
Just starting this episode, which is very much teaching me things I want to know.
I think in terms of the whole Liberal/Conservative dichotomy, it's probably often more useful with many of these cultural issues to discuss "small l" liberalism, vs. "small c" conservatism. This is a different story, ppl might disagree on policy, and come from different narrow cultures, but what unites ppl like Louise and myself for example, and everyone at the ARC conference (I appreciated that Katharine Birbalsingh specifically made this point abt conservatism) is probably the "small c" conservative ethos.
Drawing from Jonathan Haidt's often cited work, in terms of how liberals have a couple moral values, but conservatives have those plus a few others, I think that conservatism contains and includes liberalism, but liberalism does not include conservatism in the same way.
Drawing from Iain McGilchrist, I'd suggest that liberalism involves literally favoring the left side of the brain over the right, and conservatism vice versa.
Finally, (this is already pretty well understood,) I think liberalism involves neuroticism, but specifically a certain amount, relative to both the prevalence of other traits, and also relative to IQ. Another important factor is that, it's now known, neuroticism is higher when ppl are younger.
Hey Jules, how's it going?
@@JackCoombs-iy8vz Hah, still good.
@@JackCoombs-iy8vz I see from your pfp, that you've been stationary for nearly 12 months, remember to stretch.
@@Jules-Is-a-Guy I do physical therapy/workout, but thanks for your concern, lol.
@@JackCoombs-iy8vz Np, I'm primarily concerned that the recipe you're constructing presumably for some delicious baked goods will never be completed, and fated to remain forever as mere ingredients, disseminated into its constituent parts.
'What is a cake that doesn't get baked, Jaaack? It's a cheap gold retirement watch' ~Dennis Hopper (Speed, 1994)
7:56 That is the least surprising thing ever. People who value traditional values of marriage, children, family etc are more likely to participate in those things…..how is that surprising.
I was born and raised in a different country than US. The one problem that I see here is that there is too much emphasis on the birth family but not the family that one makes for themselves via marriage. Birth family ties are almost to the level of enmeshment and due to this even when people try to form relationships outside they don’t value them very much. In other countries, the family one makes is the most important thing and infact one is trained to think that your parents will pass on and your siblings will create their own families so you need to have your own family too. Here there is too much enmeshment which is why people keep on having children without marriage as well because you are not required to create a family for your children as you have a default birth family. It is very weird. Also, these birth family members interfere way too much and also are the cause of divorces even if one gets married. Just pointing out my observation.
Social media also contributes in this enmeshment. In the earlier days, there was no internet. People met their birth families a few times in the year, not like nowadays where you are constantly bombarded with each others lives on Facebook etc. There is too much involvement from everyone else, like birth family and friends constantly. You are receiving constant life updates every single day from everyone. This takes your attention away from the family you create. You are not supposed to be bombarded with everyone’s life updates constantly
It's my opinion that after establishing higher-level variables like mortality salience and urban environmental constraints, for the depopulation problem, we can subsequently have better context to understand, and incorporate other relevant ostensible factors into the analysis, such as, being broke af.
🤣🤣
Someone will always argue that since there are subsistence farmers with 5 kids, finances don't matter.
Very polite episode from Minnesota, which is where my partly Swiss German mom is from, lol.
I'm not actually aligned with the Nietzschean right, who say that genetics is responsible for ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING, I just think it's especially important to incorporate that major variable, most ppl can't recognize this because it's 'scary,' but they don't hangout virtually with the Aporians and Duttonians, and realize that it's just a major part of reality.
In terms of how environment interacts, I was rly interested in something I heard Peter Zeihan discuss in an earlier book, in a chapter that I listened to recently. He explains how, because of the unprecedented access to an ideally interconnected series of waterways in the US for cheaply and safely shipping goods, among multiple different types of environments covering an enormous area, it became possible for skilled workers to become highly specialized.
This type of important environmental variable, interacts with gene selection over generations (we don't always realize that we, the 'human animal,' are still interacting with a selection environment). A further consideration is that, ppl who were willing to immigrate to a new country halfway across the world to begin with, would typically have been higher in (heritable) extraversion, which has its own set of associated characteristics.
Genes interacting with the environment tells us so much. However, someone of whom I'm becoming a super-fan lately, is biologist Michael Levin. I can hardly begin to succinctly summarize how, lots of our heuristics don't hold up so well, at the limits of our understanding and new discoveries in Levin's pioneering field of bioelectricity, and at the cutting edge of biophysics and physics.
The short version is: Sapolsky was right abt free will as we understood it, and Hume abt "selves," epistemological skeptics regarding "individuals" and "agency" like myself would acknowledge the obvious utility in retaining these functional concepts as we all constantly do anyway, while recognizing their illusory nature.
However, there are more applicable conceptualizations of what goes by the name "agency" in control systems, the same could be said of "selves". Is your thermostat for example, a self-monitoring, conscious agent? Yes, but Levin explains that it's a matter of scale and complexity, and there's a gray area where we'd draw a line for humans and some smart mammals/animals.
Furthermore, so called "libertarian free will" remains technically disproven, you're not an agent immune from manipulative stimuli, you're just a goal-directed entity at greater or lesser levels of complexity.
Another headline from Levin's work, is that genes are much more like reprogrammable hardware than we thought, the software is much more like bioelectrical patterns. Phenotype and ecology are as relevant as genotype, but again, it's just that ppl in popular discourse nevertheless neglect to recognize the importance of behavioral genetics. This subject area is not undercut, only supplemented, by the latest findings in advanced biophysics.
Academia hates the idea that people are born a bunch of equal blank slates, and be can shaped infintely. That would be classist, sexist, and racist, I guess.
Anyone see the substack about gay marriage? And gooood? :)
No kids makes their replacement with immigrants inevitable
100% But here in Australia I don't think our birthrates are low. Certainly not rurally. But we have record numbers. And our census shows if you have a grandparent, even one , born in the country you are a statistical minority. So no job voting about it. Too many people have Whyte flight from cities. So now they all get sent rural. All planned for Anglosphere. 😔
I suspect our elites would be forcing mass-immigration on us regardless of how many kids we have.
The more interesting situation is white men having kids with mixed or nonwhite women. My marriage falls under this. I've seen a lot of the reverse with white women. I think there's a lot of hatred between white men and white women.
I travel to different rural areas with my husband, and I honestly see many interracial or mixed partnerships and their children. It's common in the Southwest, and it's becoming near common in the Midwest. I know more minorities live in urban areas than rural areas and small towns, but I find that they generally prefer their own ethnic group compared to rural minorities. Then again, cities provide more options for staying within the same phenotype. Sparse areas have more mixing because there are mostly whites.
The urban West Coast is an exception since more than half of the West Coast is either part Asian or part Latino (Mexican mostly) if not full-on Asian or Latino.
Also, cities don't stop immigrants from having at least 2 children like it does for America whites. Rural couples tend to have larger families regardless of race.
That's what I've experienced as a rural nonwhite American (technically half white but it's not a topic most find comfortable admitting).
Meanwhile in Japan and South Korea, they don't have many kids, they don't let in many replacements, and most people aren't white either.
If either spouse can break down the marriage, on no grounds at all, against the wishes of the other spouse, halving her living standard, without penalty, and without the requirement to compensate her, then marriage does not exist at all.
Marriage was never a contract to begin with. It is a vow. Contracts can be broken.
Having children is extremely dangerous for women. Children have needs that are unpredictable and often inconvenient.
The only fair division of parental responsibility is for both parents to absorb the inconvenience of their child's needs equally, and for both to have the same amount of time and energy in which to gain experience, skills, knowledge and contacts, that have monetary value in the workplace.
Louise Perry is a very intelligent woman. And she has a knack for inviting people who have precious data to share on the issues that interest her. These issues also interest me. This is why I watch her videos from time to time. But her imagination is much too small to conceive and encompass the sheer disgust that christianity and family values can inspire in some of us. This not political: it is totally heartfelt.
Family and other values exist regardless of Christianity. Moral relativism is for the weak and easily deceived. Your feelings of disgust stem from shame you once felt about your need for intimacy.
@@aalliaandreadis5109 Lo and behold! A psychologist has come unto us. A genius in the field, who appears to know everything there is to know about shame and intimacy, and who also appears to be a proud Defender of the Faith. Aren't we lucky?
@@patcartier8171 Very well, explain how shintoism and zen buddhism ensured Japan would stay radioactive ash after WWII.
I am 56 and only now am I earning enough to have a family but I am invisible.
Similar age and been happily married forever, what did you think you needed to achieve?
May i ask how? What is the story of your 30s and what is different now?
@@benjywa8032 I agree. Or his twenties? We married much younger then.
Men, get married and have kids. Also get divorce graped in courts and lose everything.
Men don't lose everything in a divorce. They have the earning capacity that they were able to develop because they did not take time out of the workforce to look after their own babies.
Unless conservatives are unloading the Russian roulette guns of marriage, the marriage numbers will never go back up. People like Wilcox will just keep complaining about a lack of marriage and thinks saying "Grow up" or "God commands it" will make a difference.
Such people sound like cigarette salesmen that pretend addiction and premature death aren't a thing affecting sales.
Mormons actually made better furniture than the Shakers but they have too many kids so none of the furniture survived
💋💋💋💌💋💋💋
Marriage is unreasonably risky for men.
I say pair bond and have kids… but don’t sign that contract 😬
I see comments like this all the time, but from what I can tell-it's men's fault. Men are the ones who neglect their husband and fatherly duties. Men are the angry abusive ones, and I say this as a man. Behind every crazy woman - there's a man
@@hieronymusvonlipschitz Stop simping my guy.
Kids should be conceived (or adopted) to a MARRIED couple.
Yes, there are divorce law issues but fix those before or during your marriage if you want to raise kids.
People are against NO-FAULT DIVORCE, @@hieronymusvonlipschitz.
So abuse IS divorceable.
Even riskier for women, who are turning away from it as well.
No. Marriage is over and Romance is dead. They're both gone and people need to move on.
Louise Perry is married to a police officer.
So?
@@Project-yo4nf derp
Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, is he? Family to prison pipeline? More like genetics to prison pipeline. How can he reach for all these far-fetched environmental explanations when genetics explain all of these "paradoxical" outcomes easily?