- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Let's talk about some marital privilege and class signaling
Posted on 6/6/17 at 3:44 pm
Posted on 6/6/17 at 3:44 pm
US News article. it doesn't use the "P-word" but i did. it's also a bit old
this is one of those great ironies of intersectionalism. marriage was once promoted as this institution that hindered women and aided men, however, only the very top of society seem to be getting (and staying) married. are they oppressing themselves? is this some sort of leveling oppression where only through oppression can people find economic success?
this phenomenon is highly linked to Nuclear Family Privilege, which is a huge advantage given to children of 2-parent homes.
this is just one of those classic "class values" situations, where it's clear that we know which avenue is superior and for whatever reason, we create a negative connotation around the behavior while defending those who reject the more optimal set of decisions. it's insanity of progressivism and really, REALLY ends up fricking over the very people they claim to defend.
quote:
While some conservative Americans point to the decline of marriage and the traditional family as a reason for the country's moral ills, researchers are worried about the economic implications of a negative trend in nuptials.
The cause of their concern: A growing gap in marriage is helping to drive economic inequality in the U.S.
quote:
Meanwhile, household income has grown 174 percent for the richest 1 percent of Americans in recent decades, but has only grown 16 percent for the poorest, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Researchers estimate that between one-fifth and two-fifths of the growth in family income inequality is due to a difference in marriage patterns between Americans of higher and lower socioeconomic status, determined by educational achievement. And projections show that the gap in marriage will continue to widen over time, according to a recent research compilation from Princeton University and The Brookings Institution.
quote:
"The United States also shows striking racial and ethnic differences in marriage patterns, even after adjusting for differences in education," the Princeton-Brookings report says. "Compared to both white and Hispanic women, black women marry later in life, are less likely to marry at all and have higher rates of marital instability."
this is one of those great ironies of intersectionalism. marriage was once promoted as this institution that hindered women and aided men, however, only the very top of society seem to be getting (and staying) married. are they oppressing themselves? is this some sort of leveling oppression where only through oppression can people find economic success?
quote:
Many studies additionally have shown that children raised by married, biological parents have better physical, cognitive and emotional outcomes on average than children raised in other arrangements.
this phenomenon is highly linked to Nuclear Family Privilege, which is a huge advantage given to children of 2-parent homes.
quote:
Marriage has immense economic benefits that the rich continue to reap but that the poor don't accumulate in a time when income inequality already is skyrocketing.
Married couples typically have higher incomes than single-parent households or cohabiting couples, a disparity that has only widened in the wake of the Great Recession. Married couples have more assets – often owning homes – are more likely to have access to checking and savings accounts, and are more likely to have health insurance.
this is just one of those classic "class values" situations, where it's clear that we know which avenue is superior and for whatever reason, we create a negative connotation around the behavior while defending those who reject the more optimal set of decisions. it's insanity of progressivism and really, REALLY ends up fricking over the very people they claim to defend.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 3:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
this is just one of those classic "class values" situations, where it's clear that we know which avenue is superior and for whatever reason, we create a negative connotation around the behavior while defending those who reject the more optimal set of decisions.
Yep. I've never understood this.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 3:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
I almost married a girl that was super rich. Problem was that she was absolutely historically insane. It was a real shame.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 3:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Married couples typically have higher incomes than single-parent households or cohabiting couples, a disparity that has only widened in the wake of the Great Recession. Married couples have more assets – often owning homes – are more likely to have access to checking and savings accounts, and are more likely to have health insurance.
2 people working typically have more money and assists than 1? Wait 2 > 1? frick me! We need to start theaching this in school.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 3:51 pm to Aubie Spr96
quote:
Yep. I've never understood this.
i mean i somewhat get it. the progs of any intelligence who do this know they are much more advanced than their "lessers" they're discussing. they feel bad for "being mean" to them, because the lower class life is so shitty. also i believe there is a ton of elitism, i.e., "they will never be able to comprehend these concepts on their own"
it's this weird merging of guilt and elitism without the strength to state reality
Posted on 6/6/17 at 3:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:we don't, we want people to make good decisions, but we don't stigmatize people in the other lifestyles who make it work for themselves.
where it's clear that we know which avenue is superior and for whatever reason, we create a negative connotation around the behavior
I wouldn't call it marriage privilege, bc those in a marriage can decide whether or not it continues, as opposed to children who can't decide such when we use the term "nuclear family privilege"
Posted on 6/6/17 at 3:55 pm to chalmetteowl
quote:
but we don't stigmatize people in the other lifestyles who make it work for themselves.
but yeah the data clearly shows they're not "making it work"
you'd have an argument if there wasn't such a divide, but there is, so we know which behavior is more optimal and which one SHOULD be stigmatized. why is it bad to point out sub-optimal (and often terrible) behavior/decision making?
Posted on 6/6/17 at 3:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
edit:
derp
derp
This post was edited on 6/6/17 at 3:58 pm
Posted on 6/6/17 at 3:59 pm to chalmetteowl
quote:
, but we don't stigmatize people in the other lifestyles who make it work for themselves.
I believe it's high time we stigmatize.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 4:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
Notice the timing of the dip in all those charts.
F'ing baby boomers.
F'ing baby boomers.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 4:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
It's interesting and really apparent when you think about it. The article covers basically four life decisions:
Level of education
Marriage (legally binding assets)
Situation during child birth
Situation during child rearing
The data is pretty clear that the more "right paths" of these you choose - the better situation you will be in (or as the article insultingly phrases "privilege.")
For instance a single man with no children and advanced education is going to be okay despite only checking three of the four.
What would be really interesting to see would be a study on people who are placed on a wrong path not by choice - for instance a single mother whose husband died but both were educated. The ultimate disposition of she and her children would go along way in shedding light as to whether these factors are simply the visible correlative result of responsible living or whether they are directly causative.
Level of education
Marriage (legally binding assets)
Situation during child birth
Situation during child rearing
The data is pretty clear that the more "right paths" of these you choose - the better situation you will be in (or as the article insultingly phrases "privilege.")
For instance a single man with no children and advanced education is going to be okay despite only checking three of the four.
What would be really interesting to see would be a study on people who are placed on a wrong path not by choice - for instance a single mother whose husband died but both were educated. The ultimate disposition of she and her children would go along way in shedding light as to whether these factors are simply the visible correlative result of responsible living or whether they are directly causative.
This post was edited on 6/6/17 at 4:07 pm
Posted on 6/6/17 at 4:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
This is absurd. Could you imagine if we rejected things like knowing that being overweight is bad and instead pushed the idea that being unhealthy is acceptable?
Oh wait, we do that.
Oh wait, we do that.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 4:08 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
I believe it's high time we stigmatize.
Consequences change behavior. A lack of consequences never will.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 4:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
"Compared to both white and Hispanic women, black women marry later in life, are less likely to marry at all and have higher rates of marital instability."
On one hand I have little sympathy. Black women are obese and extremely loud. OTOH, I've known thin, quiet, intelligent black women who didn't marry because of the field they have to work with. As they explained to me:
"If you're looking for a black male who has not been in jail, has a college degree, has no drug issues, and doesn't prefer white women... then you're dealing with a very small group."
Posted on 6/6/17 at 4:08 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
I believe it's high time we stigmatize.
yeah i mean if not outright stigmatizing, just being honest about sub-optimal behavior and bad decision making
on a completely unrelated, but somewhat similar note. my mom is out of town with my sister b/c my sister is preggo and about to pop. my mom has tried to give her cleaning lady some peace by letting her mind my mom's house when she goes out of town. the cleaning lady apparently is a bad decision maker but trying to work her way out of it and isn't living in the most optimal scenario...so my mom thinks that by giving her a week "away" it will help her. and it helps my mom b/c she has a dogsitter and not only avoids the costs of a kennel, but avoids having them locked up all day for a week
well i go over there to look for something my mom needed me to scan and what do i see? the BDM has a fricking pit bull (of course it's a fricking pit bull, speaking of class signaling) in my mom's house. it's a puppy and she's just letting it roam around and it's fricking with my mom's dogs. my mom's tiny lapdog is just trying to chill and the pit puppy keeps trying to play with it. this leads to the little dog growl at it. does the lady say/do anything? no. not only does she have this pit, but she has no real sense of how to raise/discipline it and all it will take is a dog misunderstanding and that thing will literally rip my mom's dogs apart.
i called my mom when i left to tell her and my mom was just way too overly nice and basically forbade me from discussing it with the lady b/c i would "be too mean". but i mean what the frick? if you're a goddamn idiot with a history of making poor decisions, acquiring a goddamn pit bull is certainly on the list of things NOT to do. and then not training it and doing all the other lower class mentality bullshite...i swear if that dog huts my mom's dogs i'm going to dress that lady down so much that i'll bring her my gun to kill herself with because my goal will be to make her feel that worthless of a human
Posted on 6/6/17 at 4:09 pm to Scruffy
quote:
This is absurd. Could you imagine if we rejected things like knowing that being overweight is bad and instead pushed the idea that being unhealthy is acceptable?
Oh wait, we do that.
Slow thought the fatties were going to be the next victim class, he didn't anticipate the rise of the transgenders. Not his fault really as he probably didn't anticipate shitty city legislation and a kardashian creating a movement.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 4:11 pm to Turbeauxdog
What is the next victim class?
This could be an interesting wager
This could be an interesting wager
Posted on 6/6/17 at 4:12 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
The data is pretty clear that the more "right paths" of these you choose - the better situation you will be in (or as the article insultingly phrases "privilege.")
yerp
quote:
What would be really interesting to see would be a study on people who are placed on a wrong path not by choice - for instance a single mother whose husband died but both were educated. The ultimate disposition of she and her children would go along way in shedding light as to whether these factors are simply the visible correlative result of responsible living or whether they are directly causative.
that would be interesting
i'm from a broken home and only my mom has education. however, all of her children graduated from college. on my mom's side (lower-class, rural family from LA), no cousin on my level has graduated from college. ONE of them (a bit older) has a child who just graduated from NSU a year or so ago (another has a child who is gifted and she let him be lazy and he's a cop now. not a bad life but nowhere near his abilities). all of those cousins had 2-parent households but a completely different class upbringing
on my dad's side, only one cousin at our level has graduated from college (he's in NYC in finance and he paid for that by going into the navy for the GI Bill)
Posted on 6/6/17 at 4:12 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:because you're talking about people and not science experiments
why is it bad to point out sub-optimal (and often terrible) behavior/decision making?
In a world where females are gaining income and power, you won't win points with them by suggesting we go back to 1950s norms where they submit to a often less high value man just for the sake of being married
Posted on 6/6/17 at 4:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
this is just one of those classic "class values" situations, where it's clear that we know which avenue is superior and for whatever reason, we create a negative connotation around the behavior while defending those who reject the more optimal set of decisions. it's insanity of progressivism and really, REALLY ends up fricking over the very people they claim to defend.
I agree that marriage is a net positive on society and that it alleviates poverty. But calling those from 2 parent homes as privileged isn't the problem.
The problem is the marketing of privilege by the left.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News