What do you think?
Rate this book
The Two-Parent Privilege: How Americans Stopped Getting Married and Started Falling Behind
The surprising story of how declining marriage rates are driving many of the country’s biggest economic problems.
In The Two-Parent Privilege, Melissa S. Kearney makes a provocative, data-driven case for marriage by showing how the institution’s decline has led to a host of economic woes—problems that have fractured American society and rendered vulnerable populations even more vulnerable. Eschewing the religious and values-based arguments that have long dominated this conversation, Kearney shows how the greatest impacts of marriage are, in fact, when two adults marry, their economic and household lives improve, offering a host of benefits not only for the married adults but for their children. Studies show that these effects are today starker, and more unevenly distributed, than ever before. Kearney examines the underlying causes of the marriage decline in the US and draws lessons for how the US can reverse this trend to ensure the country’s future prosperity.
Based on more than a decade of economic research, including her original work, Kearney shows that a household that includes two married parents—holding steady among upper-class adults, increasingly rare among most everyone else—functions as an economic vehicle that advantages some children over others. As these trends of marriage and class continue, the compounding effects on inequality and opportunity grow increasingly dire. Their effects include not just children’s behavioral and educational outcomes, but a surprisingly devastating effect on adult men, whose role in the workforce and society appears intractably damaged by the emerging economics of America’s new social norms.
For many, the two-parent home may be an old-fashioned symbol of the idyllic American dream. But The Two-Parent Privilege makes it clear that marriage, for all its challenges and faults, may be our best path to a more equitable future. By confronting the critical role that family makeup plays in shaping children’s lives and futures, Kearney offers a critical assessment of what a decline in marriage means for an economy and a society—and what we must do to change course.
In The Two-Parent Privilege, Melissa S. Kearney makes a provocative, data-driven case for marriage by showing how the institution’s decline has led to a host of economic woes—problems that have fractured American society and rendered vulnerable populations even more vulnerable. Eschewing the religious and values-based arguments that have long dominated this conversation, Kearney shows how the greatest impacts of marriage are, in fact, when two adults marry, their economic and household lives improve, offering a host of benefits not only for the married adults but for their children. Studies show that these effects are today starker, and more unevenly distributed, than ever before. Kearney examines the underlying causes of the marriage decline in the US and draws lessons for how the US can reverse this trend to ensure the country’s future prosperity.
Based on more than a decade of economic research, including her original work, Kearney shows that a household that includes two married parents—holding steady among upper-class adults, increasingly rare among most everyone else—functions as an economic vehicle that advantages some children over others. As these trends of marriage and class continue, the compounding effects on inequality and opportunity grow increasingly dire. Their effects include not just children’s behavioral and educational outcomes, but a surprisingly devastating effect on adult men, whose role in the workforce and society appears intractably damaged by the emerging economics of America’s new social norms.
For many, the two-parent home may be an old-fashioned symbol of the idyllic American dream. But The Two-Parent Privilege makes it clear that marriage, for all its challenges and faults, may be our best path to a more equitable future. By confronting the critical role that family makeup plays in shaping children’s lives and futures, Kearney offers a critical assessment of what a decline in marriage means for an economy and a society—and what we must do to change course.
237 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 18, 2023
171 people are currently reading
2,896 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 137 reviews
September 19, 2023
The word “important” is overused in describing books. Part of why overusing it is a problem is that it diminishes the power it carries when it is truly merited. And Melissa Kearney’s The Two-Parent Privilege truly deserves to be called important.
Economists' discussions of poverty have largely shied away from “cultural” issues like marriage because of the fear of falling into cultural judgments, the belief that they are entirely a consequence of economic outcomes not a cause of them, and a worry that we do not have any solutions to them. All three of these have some truth to them. Nevertheless I have always been a bit guilty that my own writing, reading, and policy work has been on conventional poverty issues like tax-and-transfer programs and ways to facilitate and encourage work while avoiding culture entirely.
Enter Kearney with a thoughtful, non-judgmental account of the undesirable consequences of the decline in children’t being raised by married couples—much of it based on her previous scholarly research as well as the research of others (including a number of sociologists, which is nice to see in a book by an economist). She documents this trend which is particularly pronounced for lower-income families, rebuts a number of ways of explaining it away (e.g., there is not much cohabitation without marriage and the little there is tends to be relatively unstable), establishes its importance for outcomes for children and the channels by which it is important, and discusses a number of the causes as well. For good measure there is also a discussion of declining birthrates. And woven throughout is a set of policy conclusions from specific programs (e.g., fatherhood programs and what they need to do to improve) to a broader plea that we should all be taking marriage more seriously.
The story is a complicated one because the decline in marriage is partly caused by economic developments (most notably the decline in earnings for men) but also causes them. Moreover her earlier research found that when men got more opportunities from fracking it did not lead to more marriage so the economic relationships may not work in reverse and there may be persistence in a new set of norms. Moreover the programs that deal with these issues are complicated too, with mixed success and nothing particularly huge. The result is not a magic bullet solution to the problem Kearney so ably documents so much as a plea for all of us to care more about it—a process that holds out the hope of developing more solutions in the future.
Economists' discussions of poverty have largely shied away from “cultural” issues like marriage because of the fear of falling into cultural judgments, the belief that they are entirely a consequence of economic outcomes not a cause of them, and a worry that we do not have any solutions to them. All three of these have some truth to them. Nevertheless I have always been a bit guilty that my own writing, reading, and policy work has been on conventional poverty issues like tax-and-transfer programs and ways to facilitate and encourage work while avoiding culture entirely.
Enter Kearney with a thoughtful, non-judgmental account of the undesirable consequences of the decline in children’t being raised by married couples—much of it based on her previous scholarly research as well as the research of others (including a number of sociologists, which is nice to see in a book by an economist). She documents this trend which is particularly pronounced for lower-income families, rebuts a number of ways of explaining it away (e.g., there is not much cohabitation without marriage and the little there is tends to be relatively unstable), establishes its importance for outcomes for children and the channels by which it is important, and discusses a number of the causes as well. For good measure there is also a discussion of declining birthrates. And woven throughout is a set of policy conclusions from specific programs (e.g., fatherhood programs and what they need to do to improve) to a broader plea that we should all be taking marriage more seriously.
The story is a complicated one because the decline in marriage is partly caused by economic developments (most notably the decline in earnings for men) but also causes them. Moreover her earlier research found that when men got more opportunities from fracking it did not lead to more marriage so the economic relationships may not work in reverse and there may be persistence in a new set of norms. Moreover the programs that deal with these issues are complicated too, with mixed success and nothing particularly huge. The result is not a magic bullet solution to the problem Kearney so ably documents so much as a plea for all of us to care more about it—a process that holds out the hope of developing more solutions in the future.
March 16, 2024
I was a bit wary of this book going into it, but my worries were quickly assuaged. The author doesn’t slam single mothers, nor does she advocate for a return to nuclear families with traditional gender roles (she herself is a working mom with a PhD). Rather, this book is a thoroughly researched economic exploration of the unique privileges experienced by children in families with two married parents, and the way this perpetuates class stratification across generations. The most interesting part for me was the part about how norms in specific regions or social groups affect whether parents have kids inside or outside of marriage. I’m not a parent, so I have no horse in this race, but I thought this was a super interesting read!
October 17, 2023
Not all childhoods are equal. The data shows that children from single-parent households are statistically less likely to succeed in almost every area of life (it doesn’t mean they won’t).
Published in 2023, the book offers the newest research on the matter. Although mainly focused on the USA, the findings can apply to all the countries with similar trends in family structures.
When we talk about a drop in marriages, we often say that it is because people are focusing more on careers. However, research shows the opposite—the more educated and career-driven you are, the more likely you are to marry. The marriage rates keep dropping the most among the uneducated and the poor.
Overall, the author carefully crafts her arguments not to mix causation with correlation. She also seems politically neutral in her approach. However, her writing is extremely dry and overly focused on numbers—it feels like reading a long research paper.
Here are a few facts from the book that are worth quoting:
1. “In 2019, almost half of all babies in the US were born to unmarried mothers. This figure represents a dramatic increase since 1960, when only 5% of births were to unmarried mothers.”
2. “US Census statistics reveal that families headed by a single mother were five times more likely to live in poverty than families headed by a married couple; families headed by a single father were nearly twice as likely to live in poverty.”
3. “But by and large there is a consistent trend in which children growing up in mother-only households are at a relative disadvantage compared to children growing up in two-parent households, even despite all the parenting help that unpartnered mothers might get from nonresident fathers, other relatives, and government and community programs, among other sources.”
4. “The decrease in men’s earnings relative to women’s earnings has also led to a reduction in marriage. The standard model of marriage in the economics literature posits that as female wages rise relative to male wages, there will be a reduction in marriage because the returns to marriage are lower.¹⁵ This means that women have less to gain by entering into a marriage contract. It follows, then, that an increase in women’s relative wages will lead to a reduction in marriage and an increase in divorce because the female “outside option” has improved.¹⁶”
5. “Another largescale study finds that adolescents who experienced their mother marrying a stepfather after parental divorce had worse behavioral outcomes and more negative feelings than adolescents whose biological parents remained continuously married.²¹”
Published in 2023, the book offers the newest research on the matter. Although mainly focused on the USA, the findings can apply to all the countries with similar trends in family structures.
When we talk about a drop in marriages, we often say that it is because people are focusing more on careers. However, research shows the opposite—the more educated and career-driven you are, the more likely you are to marry. The marriage rates keep dropping the most among the uneducated and the poor.
Overall, the author carefully crafts her arguments not to mix causation with correlation. She also seems politically neutral in her approach. However, her writing is extremely dry and overly focused on numbers—it feels like reading a long research paper.
Here are a few facts from the book that are worth quoting:
1. “In 2019, almost half of all babies in the US were born to unmarried mothers. This figure represents a dramatic increase since 1960, when only 5% of births were to unmarried mothers.”
2. “US Census statistics reveal that families headed by a single mother were five times more likely to live in poverty than families headed by a married couple; families headed by a single father were nearly twice as likely to live in poverty.”
3. “But by and large there is a consistent trend in which children growing up in mother-only households are at a relative disadvantage compared to children growing up in two-parent households, even despite all the parenting help that unpartnered mothers might get from nonresident fathers, other relatives, and government and community programs, among other sources.”
4. “The decrease in men’s earnings relative to women’s earnings has also led to a reduction in marriage. The standard model of marriage in the economics literature posits that as female wages rise relative to male wages, there will be a reduction in marriage because the returns to marriage are lower.¹⁵ This means that women have less to gain by entering into a marriage contract. It follows, then, that an increase in women’s relative wages will lead to a reduction in marriage and an increase in divorce because the female “outside option” has improved.¹⁶”
5. “Another largescale study finds that adolescents who experienced their mother marrying a stepfather after parental divorce had worse behavioral outcomes and more negative feelings than adolescents whose biological parents remained continuously married.²¹”
July 2, 2024
A terrific synthesis of the advantages of being raised by married parents, the causes of the rise in single-parent households and how America has become the single-parent capital of the world. "The Two-Parent Privilege" is a careful, methodical and non-judgmental analysis of decades of research into parenting, and what the cultural shifts away from marriage have meant for children and eventually, adults.
According to Kearney, single-parenthood has been rising for decades largely as a result of cultural shifts in attitudes towards marriage and the decline of male marriageability. Consequentially, this has exacerbated economic inequality and reduced social mobility. According to her, an absence of male parents in particular hurts young boys, who are particularly vulnerable to absent dads. This - like several positions in this book - strikes me as somewhat obvious, although as an academic Kearney buttresses these claims with cogent statistical analyses.
Surprisingly, single-parenthood isn't rising because of divorce, but rather because many mothers are choosing to never marry. I was very surprised to learn that about HALF of American children born in 2019 are born to unwed mothers. Kearney makes an important observation on this phenomenon - Never-married fathers are less likely to remain involved with their children than divorced ones, likely because they've moved to other relationships. Worryingly, this means raising the children will become the sole responsibility of a single-parent. Critically, Kearney assiduously emphasizes that this is largely happening amongst the less-affluent troughs of American society, and spends a non-trivial amount of time defending her case that single-parenthood is not just the cause of poverty, but also entrenches it.
I am not an economist, but candidly I think this must have been a challenging book to write. While the conclusions struck me as obvious, as an academic the arguments must nonetheless be grounded in statistics, and Kearney's claim that single-parenthood compounds poverty appears to my eyes as well-established. Simultaneously, I can imagine this is also very difficult to an ostensibly left-leaning Professor in that she risks considerable ostracization from amongst her ivory tower colleagues.
According to Kearney, single-parenthood has been rising for decades largely as a result of cultural shifts in attitudes towards marriage and the decline of male marriageability. Consequentially, this has exacerbated economic inequality and reduced social mobility. According to her, an absence of male parents in particular hurts young boys, who are particularly vulnerable to absent dads. This - like several positions in this book - strikes me as somewhat obvious, although as an academic Kearney buttresses these claims with cogent statistical analyses.
Surprisingly, single-parenthood isn't rising because of divorce, but rather because many mothers are choosing to never marry. I was very surprised to learn that about HALF of American children born in 2019 are born to unwed mothers. Kearney makes an important observation on this phenomenon - Never-married fathers are less likely to remain involved with their children than divorced ones, likely because they've moved to other relationships. Worryingly, this means raising the children will become the sole responsibility of a single-parent. Critically, Kearney assiduously emphasizes that this is largely happening amongst the less-affluent troughs of American society, and spends a non-trivial amount of time defending her case that single-parenthood is not just the cause of poverty, but also entrenches it.
I am not an economist, but candidly I think this must have been a challenging book to write. While the conclusions struck me as obvious, as an academic the arguments must nonetheless be grounded in statistics, and Kearney's claim that single-parenthood compounds poverty appears to my eyes as well-established. Simultaneously, I can imagine this is also very difficult to an ostensibly left-leaning Professor in that she risks considerable ostracization from amongst her ivory tower colleagues.
January 21, 2025
4.5 - this book is going to take me a minute to process. I think the argument in this book is important when it comes to thinking about what’s “best” for children, especially because everyone seems to have their own idea on what that is.
This problem is so complicated and feels insurmountable in America… so while I really enjoyed learning about this and will think about it as I vote, have kids, and interact with programs that support families, it’s slightly disheartening to think about how much effort and change would need to happen to make a lasting change.
But! One encouraging thing from the end of the book is her mentioning that even the smallest efforts can start making changes for kids and they matter.
This problem is so complicated and feels insurmountable in America… so while I really enjoyed learning about this and will think about it as I vote, have kids, and interact with programs that support families, it’s slightly disheartening to think about how much effort and change would need to happen to make a lasting change.
But! One encouraging thing from the end of the book is her mentioning that even the smallest efforts can start making changes for kids and they matter.
November 22, 2023
I didn't finish reading this because it was so heavy statistically. She also kept saying the same thing, that kids who have two parents go on to have better jobs and more stable lives. Which is not to say a child raised in a single parent home cannot achieve those things just that it is harder.
I heard her on a podcast talking about her book and thought just listening to the podcast was good enough for me.
I heard her on a podcast talking about her book and thought just listening to the podcast was good enough for me.
October 1, 2024
More interested in the idea than the execution. While I don’t disagree with the premise, there wasn’t enough on fully non-financial (direct or indirect) benefits of a two-parent household to find it interesting. Primary reasoning (which, btw, I fully agree with) is that two-parent households have more resources (most proveably, money), and more money is pretty heavily associated with better outcomes (of the type she is focused on: educational achievement, socioeconomic standing, health, etc).
She spends a lot of time saying “More money enables more [X], and more [X] leads to better outcomes.” If you already have a decent background in how economics leads to all those X’s, and also have a decent background of why those X’s lead to better outcomes (again, of the type she’s measuring), then once you accept that 2 parents will probably have higher income potential than just 1 (which you should accept very quickly), there’s not a lot more that needs to be said. But that’s basically the first 50-60% of the book.
Second half is better—gets more into non-financial contributors to outcomes, like time involved in kids activities, reading to kids, emotional availability, etc. Still obvious that 2>1 in terms of being able to provide those things, but more novel to me than the financial side. And agree with her emphasis that household structure isn’t talked about or admitted enough as a really relevant contributor to child outcomes.
3.5/5
She spends a lot of time saying “More money enables more [X], and more [X] leads to better outcomes.” If you already have a decent background in how economics leads to all those X’s, and also have a decent background of why those X’s lead to better outcomes (again, of the type she’s measuring), then once you accept that 2 parents will probably have higher income potential than just 1 (which you should accept very quickly), there’s not a lot more that needs to be said. But that’s basically the first 50-60% of the book.
Second half is better—gets more into non-financial contributors to outcomes, like time involved in kids activities, reading to kids, emotional availability, etc. Still obvious that 2>1 in terms of being able to provide those things, but more novel to me than the financial side. And agree with her emphasis that household structure isn’t talked about or admitted enough as a really relevant contributor to child outcomes.
3.5/5
October 29, 2024
Kearney may be an excellent economist, and she has valuable things to say, but the quality of writing in this particular book was disappointing. I could tell that she was trying to be engaging, but fell utterly flat with her dry prose, making it torturous to push through.
The short version: Children do better when they grow up in households with a married mother and father. That's really all you need to take away from this book. If you want the statistics and research studies, flip to her references section in the back.
The short version: Children do better when they grow up in households with a married mother and father. That's really all you need to take away from this book. If you want the statistics and research studies, flip to her references section in the back.
May 23, 2024
For being much different content than I expected I was a big fan of this one. And for once the research/stats didnt feel suffocating
February 13, 2025
TL/DR:
"OK, so I don't want to be judgey, and I definitely want to recognize that all families are different in their own unique thing and that's a wonderful and beautiful thing. I'm totally not judging single mothers. And I'm definitely not a conservative! Hah! Who, me? Nononono. I'm a liberal! Like you! I just want to say that, well, maybe, you know, it might be worth considering that there's possibly overwhelming empirical evidence for the claim that children do best with two parents in a committed, married relationship. I'm sorry. Did that sound mean? I'm sorry..."
"OK, so I don't want to be judgey, and I definitely want to recognize that all families are different in their own unique thing and that's a wonderful and beautiful thing. I'm totally not judging single mothers. And I'm definitely not a conservative! Hah! Who, me? Nononono. I'm a liberal! Like you! I just want to say that, well, maybe, you know, it might be worth considering that there's possibly overwhelming empirical evidence for the claim that children do best with two parents in a committed, married relationship. I'm sorry. Did that sound mean? I'm sorry..."
October 11, 2024
Melissa S. Kearney has an important thesis: kids growing up in single-parent households face many economic disadvantages, and marriage rates are on the decline, especially among the less-educated. Intuitively, married parents generally have more time, money, and emotional bandwidth to devote to their offspring. Unfortunately, human interest gets a bit lost in the weeds here; there were so many charts that seemed to show almost the exact same statistical analysis that my eyes glazed over. I wish Kearney had partnered with an ethnographer to tell more stories about the patterns shown by the data. As such, I found myself thinking this could have been a scientific article instead of a book. I really appreciate her scholarship (and her bravery in reporting on a somewhat sensitive subject), just wish this was more readable!
April 26, 2024
"Children's outcome in life are profoundly shaped by their family and home experiences. Children who have the benefit of two parents in their home tend to have more highly resourced, enriching, stable childhoods, and they consequently do better in school and have fewer behavioral challenges. These children go on to complete more years of education, earn more in the workforce, and have a greater likelihood of being married."
This was an interesting study of the plummeting marriage rates in the U.S. and the profoundly negative effects on children.
What was missing was any discussion on the role of religious observance on marriage or out-of-wedlock births.
2024 A book of my choice
This was an interesting study of the plummeting marriage rates in the U.S. and the profoundly negative effects on children.
What was missing was any discussion on the role of religious observance on marriage or out-of-wedlock births.
2024 A book of my choice
April 17, 2024
lol i want to write about this
1) i don’t think most of the stories actually happened to her
2) she uses real economic data to make suggestions based on vibes
1) i don’t think most of the stories actually happened to her
2) she uses real economic data to make suggestions based on vibes
January 9, 2024
I’m glad I read you, I’ll think about you for a long time, but I’m not sure I’ll retain that much from you
September 14, 2023
Accurate description of the sad state of this country.
December 10, 2023
This is a seven-star book or more in a five-star world. I heard the author interviewed by Bari Weiss earlier this week, and I knew I had to read the book.
Essentially, and I'm being extremely broad-brush here, the book points out that marriage and two-parent families remain the best solution for troubled young Americans and for society.
What's great about this is she sticks to what she knows. In her interview, she referred to the culture wars as "intractable," and they do seem to be that. She avoided dealing with any religious or spiritual aspects of the issue. She brilliantly focused on what she knew, and that made the book excellent. Her years as an economist who studies household economics come to life in vibrant ways in this book.
I want to go over it again in braille this time to just ferret out her numbers and digest them better. But her research fascinated me, and it will you as well if you read this.
American marriages just aren't happening in the way they did in 1980 and farther back. The percentage of kids living in single-parent homes has risen sharply since 1980, and fewer Americans with high-school degrees or less are marrying. The numbers are down among college graduates, but not by nearly as much. There's a fascinating chapter here on the importance of dads and the extreme difficulties boys face who grow up with a dad who is largely absent or not there at all. She looks at why this is happening. It's worth your time to read that chapter if you only superficially skim other parts. I don't recommend treating this book that way if you can help it. There's too much here to keep you thinking and exploring to do superficial scans of this. My explanations of it have been totally inadequate and far clumsier than she deserves. But if the state of the American family troubles you for whatever reason, this is a good book to carefully wend your way through. And what the heck! You may as well search the podcast sphere for that interview. Weiss does her usual excellent job of asking searching and fair questions, and Kearney's responses are concise and easily understood. I snagged this from Bookshare about five minutes into that interview.
Essentially, and I'm being extremely broad-brush here, the book points out that marriage and two-parent families remain the best solution for troubled young Americans and for society.
What's great about this is she sticks to what she knows. In her interview, she referred to the culture wars as "intractable," and they do seem to be that. She avoided dealing with any religious or spiritual aspects of the issue. She brilliantly focused on what she knew, and that made the book excellent. Her years as an economist who studies household economics come to life in vibrant ways in this book.
I want to go over it again in braille this time to just ferret out her numbers and digest them better. But her research fascinated me, and it will you as well if you read this.
American marriages just aren't happening in the way they did in 1980 and farther back. The percentage of kids living in single-parent homes has risen sharply since 1980, and fewer Americans with high-school degrees or less are marrying. The numbers are down among college graduates, but not by nearly as much. There's a fascinating chapter here on the importance of dads and the extreme difficulties boys face who grow up with a dad who is largely absent or not there at all. She looks at why this is happening. It's worth your time to read that chapter if you only superficially skim other parts. I don't recommend treating this book that way if you can help it. There's too much here to keep you thinking and exploring to do superficial scans of this. My explanations of it have been totally inadequate and far clumsier than she deserves. But if the state of the American family troubles you for whatever reason, this is a good book to carefully wend your way through. And what the heck! You may as well search the podcast sphere for that interview. Weiss does her usual excellent job of asking searching and fair questions, and Kearney's responses are concise and easily understood. I snagged this from Bookshare about five minutes into that interview.
January 31, 2024
4.5 stars
Very important. The author is very clear about what is supported by data and what is not. She also bends completely backward to make clear throughout the book that her findings should not be taken as a reason to bludgeon people. In the first 1% of the book: "It is reasonable to argue, for example, that a household with two parents has a greater capacity to provide financial and nonfinancial resources to a child than a one-parent household does. To argue this is not to judge, blame, or diminish households with a single parent; it is simply to acknowledge that (1) kids require a lot of work and a lot of resources, and (2) having two parents in the household generally means having more resources to devote to the task of raising a family. What I am doing is arguing, through an appeal to data and rigorous studies, that two parents tend to be able to provide their children with more resource advantages than one parent alone. And furthermore, that a two-parent family is increasingly becoming yet another privilege associated with more highly resourced groups in society."
Some fascinating tidbits I learned:
The increase in single-parent households has been driven by non-college educated parents, meaning that the people that benefit the most from getting married are the ones not doing so as much.
The trend is also NOT a case where we're becoming more like the Europeans (where committed adults live together and raise their children without getting formally married).
It's NOT being caused by teen pregnancies, which are at an all-time low.
The data suggest that people not getting married has been driven by a decrease in the economic attractiveness of non-college educated men. There were some fascinating studies done on manufacturing towns before and after jobs were shipped to China or automated, and it was clear that one of the results of this subsequent lack of stable jobs was a decline in marriage in those areas.
Very important. The author is very clear about what is supported by data and what is not. She also bends completely backward to make clear throughout the book that her findings should not be taken as a reason to bludgeon people. In the first 1% of the book: "It is reasonable to argue, for example, that a household with two parents has a greater capacity to provide financial and nonfinancial resources to a child than a one-parent household does. To argue this is not to judge, blame, or diminish households with a single parent; it is simply to acknowledge that (1) kids require a lot of work and a lot of resources, and (2) having two parents in the household generally means having more resources to devote to the task of raising a family. What I am doing is arguing, through an appeal to data and rigorous studies, that two parents tend to be able to provide their children with more resource advantages than one parent alone. And furthermore, that a two-parent family is increasingly becoming yet another privilege associated with more highly resourced groups in society."
Some fascinating tidbits I learned:
The increase in single-parent households has been driven by non-college educated parents, meaning that the people that benefit the most from getting married are the ones not doing so as much.
The trend is also NOT a case where we're becoming more like the Europeans (where committed adults live together and raise their children without getting formally married).
It's NOT being caused by teen pregnancies, which are at an all-time low.
The data suggest that people not getting married has been driven by a decrease in the economic attractiveness of non-college educated men. There were some fascinating studies done on manufacturing towns before and after jobs were shipped to China or automated, and it was clear that one of the results of this subsequent lack of stable jobs was a decline in marriage in those areas.
March 26, 2024
This book can be more or less summed up in a few sentences. Namely, the data overwhelmingly show that children fare better in households with two parents. Apart from that, however, the author practically twists herself into pretzels with disclaimers that she doesn't disfavor the patchwork of family formations that have become normalized in recent decades. Instead, the chapters unfold like a tapdance with precision to come right up to the line without actually crossing it. The author does not wish to offend, even though her research clearly demonstrates that single-parent households have been devastating to American society.
While the author's conclusions seem a bit like common sense, they are not accepted in fashionable circles as she herself points out. Cocktail parties and academic seminars in places like Washington and New York -- the usual suspects -- frown upon such hard cold truths even if the party participants will acknowledge off the record that they recognize and agree with the research. Such benevolence.
On one hand, I applaud the author for laying out her findings that boys in particular, but also girls, fare far better with both parents in the home; on the other hand, the author clearly seeks to avoid the wrath of cultural elites who don't want to hear it. She claims the data don't show that mothers and fathers are necessary (not many studies about that, turns out), but then spends a whole chapter saying boys need fathers. In other words, there are inconsistencies throughout, although I think the harm is negligible in light of the overarching findings of the book.
While the author's conclusions seem a bit like common sense, they are not accepted in fashionable circles as she herself points out. Cocktail parties and academic seminars in places like Washington and New York -- the usual suspects -- frown upon such hard cold truths even if the party participants will acknowledge off the record that they recognize and agree with the research. Such benevolence.
On one hand, I applaud the author for laying out her findings that boys in particular, but also girls, fare far better with both parents in the home; on the other hand, the author clearly seeks to avoid the wrath of cultural elites who don't want to hear it. She claims the data don't show that mothers and fathers are necessary (not many studies about that, turns out), but then spends a whole chapter saying boys need fathers. In other words, there are inconsistencies throughout, although I think the harm is negligible in light of the overarching findings of the book.
September 27, 2023
Well researched and fairly well argued. The author deserves credit for presenting a thorough analysis of the economic data available. However, throughout the book, dry data is used almost as a cudgel - because the text is dispassionate and focused on hard numbers, there is little engagement with the broader questions of marriage in a modern, increasingly class-stratified society. This book is a good starting place for the conversation, but it would be a shame to let it replace more status-quo critical accounts like The Whiteness of Wealth by Dorothy Brown. I also felt like Melissa Kearney based this book on the “simple math” of two parents = more resources, but never explored other forms of “simple math” like compounding generational advantages and disadvantages in wealth accumulation, our elder care crisis and the 4-2-1 pyramid, or even the relationship between the number of children and total allocation of parental resources. The focus was so narrowly on marriage that it felt defensive when it didn’t need to be.
April 2, 2024
Good information but overly acadmic and repetative - I felt like this would have been better and more impactful as a lengthy magazine/journal article. These types of books pack a lot more punch when actual stories are weaved in among the dry statistics and studies - more like what is done with Evicted, Nickel and Dimed, Janesville, etc. The basic premise will stay with me, as will the one (incomplete) story of the author's discussion with her cab driver, the rest will quickly fade.
December 14, 2023
Reasonable descriptive work on how married people are privileged, summary of previous economics research, and misguided / superficial policy pronouncements about promoting marriage. Full review to come.
August 22, 2024
This one has been on my list since it came out.
Things I liked:
-Kearney is quite good at keeping a neutral tone. She addresses a lot of hard topics and really works hard at giving grace to the people and situations involved.
-The graphs were a good idea.
-There was some good new information in the chapter about boys.
-Some of her solutions were different than I had seen before.
Things that could have been different:
-My copy was digital, so it may be different in other editions, but the graphs would have been better with color.
-A few of her statements were logically unsound. I'm not sure if that was purposefully done to avoid offense or if that is indicative of my own personal bias. And some of her dissection of data could have been clearer.
-90% of the information is pretty available, and sometimes more accessible, in other locations. Perhaps it's because it's a pet topic of mine, but it doesn't really seem to add much that is new. The point of any publication, particularly nonfiction, should be add something new to the conversation.
I still rated it higher---mostly because she does demonstrate a level of compassion that is rare in books that address this topic.
Things I liked:
-Kearney is quite good at keeping a neutral tone. She addresses a lot of hard topics and really works hard at giving grace to the people and situations involved.
-The graphs were a good idea.
-There was some good new information in the chapter about boys.
-Some of her solutions were different than I had seen before.
Things that could have been different:
-My copy was digital, so it may be different in other editions, but the graphs would have been better with color.
-A few of her statements were logically unsound. I'm not sure if that was purposefully done to avoid offense or if that is indicative of my own personal bias. And some of her dissection of data could have been clearer.
-90% of the information is pretty available, and sometimes more accessible, in other locations. Perhaps it's because it's a pet topic of mine, but it doesn't really seem to add much that is new. The point of any publication, particularly nonfiction, should be add something new to the conversation.
I still rated it higher---mostly because she does demonstrate a level of compassion that is rare in books that address this topic.
October 26, 2023
In this incredibly brave and well-reasoned work the author, an economist, exposes the falsehood of the myth that children do well in any parental situation and calls for a return to the ideal of a two parent family, preferably in marriage. She shows that children, especially boys, are disadvantaged and damaged by living with one parent, usually a single mother, simply because (as one chapter is titled "2 > 1". Admitting that the wealthy can probably buy their way out of these shortfalls, she focuses on the role marriage plays for the poor and middle class, the very groups where marriage is most endangered. She also presents causes why many men are not in a position to bring much to a marriage, calls for remediation of problems like low wages for those with limited education and those who have been imprisoned. Finally, she insists that providing resources for impoverished children is somehting we can and must afford.
June 13, 2024
This book has a lot of information to digest & that's why I'm happy that I have a hard copy version of this book to reference at later dates given that I listened to this as an audiobook.
I like the angle this book took on how having two parents in the home is better than not for various different reasons but does an excellent job to give us real data & facts on why that is true. It's not a book to judge or ridicule someone's family dynamic but to explain with hard evidence why having both parents in a home with their children just makes more sense than other options.
I'm glad I listened to this book as it gave me an overall view of the point it was trying to make, but then I'm also able to use the hard copy to look at the charts & diagrams.
I like the angle this book took on how having two parents in the home is better than not for various different reasons but does an excellent job to give us real data & facts on why that is true. It's not a book to judge or ridicule someone's family dynamic but to explain with hard evidence why having both parents in a home with their children just makes more sense than other options.
I'm glad I listened to this book as it gave me an overall view of the point it was trying to make, but then I'm also able to use the hard copy to look at the charts & diagrams.
January 13, 2024
I liked this—a wonky, rigorous, and very carefully presented review of the economic impact of American marriage and parenting trends. The author’s desire to carefully navigate around controversy and avoid being accused of being a social conservative is palpable and constant. There’s a lot of hedging in here that can make the text pretty dry. But still feels like a good treatment of an important under-explored topic that is kind of hard to talk about in polite fancy circles, and I learned a lot.
August 14, 2024
Thought I might be annoyed by this book but it quickly made it clear that it wouldn’t be a book full of toxic rhetoric. Some of the ways they described boys vs girls weren’t my fave (I recall a mention of how boys “mature more slowly” as opposed to acknowledging how they’re socialized). But otherwise a really informative book about the data.
May 3, 2024
Interesting read. Lists lots of studies and statistics and analyzes them. It did not bash single parent homes and reads like a thesis.
May 21, 2024
This book is fascinating. It’s very dense and research heavy, which was hard to follow on the audio version. If you want a cliff notes version, listen to some podcast interviews with the author.
September 22, 2024
I read this following Rob Henderson talking about Melissa Kearney’s scholarship in a podcast earlier in the year. The core thesis of this book is that stable marriage creates a premium for the children that grow up in those marriages, which has long term social, emotional, financial, and physical value for those children. Henderson wrote ‘Troubled’ about his experience in the US foster system. Kearney shows the opposite of this and the benefits of long term marriage and the costs to society of not supporting this ideal. This is a wonkish book designed to inform effective policy, rather than an advice book designed to build stronger marriages.
Chapter one provides and introduction and explanation of the structure of the book. Chapter two, show that children of college educated mothers are likely to grow up with two parents in the home and those parents are less likely to divorce (AKA – completing a four year University degree may be a good proxy for relational stability). Daughters of mothers who have not had a four year College Education are more likely to become unmarried or never married mothers themselves, leading to being on the wrong side of wealth inequity within those families. Virtue spirals in action over generations.
She shows how wealthy families can afford to give children more money, time, and attention than less wealthy families. The conclusion is this leads to better outcomes for the children of wealthy people. I suspect Kearney misses a point around educational attainment and wealth success. Nassim Taleb believes that wealthy people are able to afford more education, not that education builds wealth. Thus, higher education is a symptom not a cause of wealth. I suspect there is something in this. Kerri and I both have such degree’s (multiple in fact) and neither of our parents did. Our children are well on the way to being able to afford and attain such degrees (if they choose). Did our degrees create that, or our ability to complete degrees? We are an example of Kearney’s thesis.
Chapter five investigates the decline in ‘marriagable men’ and Kearney show’s that when men’s income declines, marriage declines (p 60). The earning capacity of ‘non College Educated’ (poor) men has declined in my lifetime with the loss of well paid blue collar manufacturing jobs. For example “US regions affected by more use of robots to do work subsequently experienced a decrease in new marriages and an increase in the share of births to unmarried women” (p 61). She shows that ‘non College Educated’ (poor) do not bring resources into a relationship. “This raises the question – is it really the case that close to 40% of births in the US are to men who would not bring any positive resources (on net) into the home? It is likely to be true that roughly 70% of births to non-college educated mothers are fathered by men with no positive resources to contribute to a family environment? If the answer to these questions is even close to yes, then that does not suggest single parenthood is not a social problem.
Rather, it implies that the social problem extends far beyond the issue of how children are being raised, to the issue of why so many men are not fit to be marriage partners or engaged fathers” (p 50). Ouch, to the men who are not ‘marriagable’. Kearney calls on you to lift yourself and become worthy of marriage.
Kearney observes “a shrinking of the pool of marrriageable black men seems a likely explanation for at least some of the increase in out of wedlock births and single parent households among blacks” (p 55). I think we could draw this conclusion wider to encompass men in general (and do not know why Kearney does not – Does the evidence not support this?). She states “women do not generally avoid marriage because they reject the institution or concept of marriage. Rather, many appear to have a higher bar for a potential spouse than their partners – and the fathers of their children – have met” (p 56). Men are not meeting the standards of women on the marriage market, rather than women are choosing to remain unmarried. Women do not want to be in the situation where they have to support a child and a partner and need men to contribute more that they take. Kearney states “an increase in women’s relative wages will lead to a reduction in marriage and an increase in divorce because the female ‘outside option’ has improved. Women, economic theory, will be more likely to forgo marriage when the amount of money they can make on their own is higher” (p 64). This was supported by the work of Baumeister in ‘What is Good About Men?’ Kearney concludes “a decline in ‘marriageable men’ causally leads to lower rates of marriage” (p 63). She suggests we need to encourage men to become ‘marriagable men’.
Kearney then looks at the cost of the loss of a Fathers to children. She give evidence of behavioral and mental health issues of children without a father in the home. “Boys misbehaved more than girls, and that gap was greater among the children of single mothers than among children in two parent home” (p 95). She then adds “externalizing problems among fifth graders was nearly twice as large for children raised by single mothers compared to children raised in a family with their two biological parents” (p 95). Kearney acknowledges “Parenting is hard. It is stressful. Single mothers are generally under more stress than those who parent with a committed spouse or partner” (p 97). If we are seeking the best outcomes for children we need need to include fathers as equal partners in families.
Kearney gave evidence that “having Black dads in the neighborhood is good for the upward mobility prospects of Black boys” (p 99) adding “having a larger share of Black dads present in neighborhood family homes is associated with better lifetime outcomes for Black boys and smaller racial gaps in outcomes” (p 108). Again, I suspect this could be expanded beyond ‘Black’ to men in general. It is good for children to have fathers within their community, even if they are not their own. Children need male role models, especially those without a father in the home.
Kearney found that Fathering programs that encourage Father’s towards parental engagement are limited by gatekeeping mothers who deny father’s access to their children and actively work to alienate children from Fathers, “some of the fathers in the programs had highly conflicted or disengaged relationships with their children’s mothers, and in some cases that mothers would serve as ‘gatekeepers,’ restricting a father’s access to his child” (p 103). Police have better things to do than enforcing family court orders, resulting in lax enforcement of court orders giving Father’s rights to access being ignored and leading to loss the of interaction with childrens Fathers. I noted in my own observations of separated families, anecdotally, it was the mothers who restricted access to children and became most bitter about former partners. This supports Kearney’s observations. She added that “US social policy was aimed almost exclusively at helping single mothers and children, with haphazard efforts to hold fathers responsible for paying child support and essentially no commitment to helping dads address whatever barriers they face in their lives” (p 108). We need to do more from a legal and policy perspective to include fathers. A healthy society needs both men and women doing well. We are best when we work together.
Kearney then addresses the declining birth rates in the US. “The recent drop in births reflects a decline in pregnancies, not a rise in abortions. The decline in the US birth rate has not been driven by any one subpopulation of women – Teen births in particular have plummeted” (p 109). She adds “the dramatic reduction in teen childbearing since the early 1990’s seems to reflect widespread changes in teenagers’ attitudes about risky sexual behaviors and the possibility, and perceived perils, of becoming a young parent” (p 115). She believes the MTV show ‘Sixteen and Pregnant’ which showed the difficulties of pregnancy and motherhood was a factor in this. Another explanation for falling teenage birth rates is that teenagers are having less sex than their parents and grandparents did at the same age. Young men find the outlets in ‘Play Station and Pornography’ easier than the complexity of relationships with increasingly high expectations of young woman. This has lead to increasing tournament mating strategies, where a smaller number of men having an increased share of mating opportunities (aka – men who look good on Tinder). This is not a good outcome for the majority of men or women, but here we are.
Kearney observes that “More kids are living with just their Mom because fewer adults are getting married, including those who have a child together” (p 118). She showed “In 2020, the likelihood that an infant lived in a household that met the official government threshold of poverty was 46% for those living with an unmarried mother, as compared to 6% for infants living in a married-couple household” (p 118). And that “the share of American children growing up with the benefit of two parents in their home is at a historic low: in 2019, nearly 40% of children did not live with married parents. Nearly 20% of American children lived with only their mother, with no second parent figure in the home” (p 120). Thus, we can see the degradation of what might be described as the nuclear family that was the norm when I was growing up. As a society in our efforts to accept ‘different choices’, we have lost sight of the ideal of the two parent family and our children are paying for it.
Kearney suggests “here are the things we should do to address the challenges I have laid out in this book:
+ Work to restore and foster a norm of two parent homes for children
+ Work to improve the economic position of men without college level education so they are more reliable marriage partners and fathers
+ Scale up government community programs that show promise in strengthening families and improving outcomes for parent and children from disadvantaged backgrounds
+ Have a stronger safety net for families, regardless of family structure
Here are some thing I do not think we should do:
- Accept a new reality where the two parent family is a thing of the past for less educated, lower income Americans
- Bemoan the economic independence of women
- Stigmatize single mothers or encourage unhealthy marriages
- Run unsuccessful government marriage programs
- Keep government assistance meager under the mistaken assumption that doing so will incentivizes more marriages and two parent families” (p 121).
In conclusion Kearney suggests “Bolstering the well being of children requires recognizing the role of fathers in children’s lives and boosting support to both mothers and fathers” (p 127). As Baumeister showed we need to have high expectations and rewards for becoming a ‘good man’. We need to do as much to encourage men, as we do for women, so we can have as many of our sons becoming ‘marriagable men’ as possible, who are available for our daughters to meet on the marriage market. We need to stop the ‘gender war’ and realise we work best together as a family unit. Part of this is having men who contribute more than they take and are encouraged and rewarded for doing so.
I have been concerned about the rise of the state. We expect too much from the state and too little of the citizenship. In my work I have recognized what a poor surrogate parent the state is. If you need to rely on the state, things have not gone well for you. Kearney concurs with this sentiment “Parents affect their children’s lives and shape their outcomes in ways that government cannot fully make up for. We should be clear eyed about this reality” (p 131). As a society and culture we need to reward and encourage functional families as an ideal for giving our children the best chance of reaching their potential. Having two parents should be a norm, not a privilege.
Kearney builds on the work of people who I have read this year such as: Rob Henderson, Roy Baumeister, and Brad Wilcox. We need to think about our society and culture and then act on our own lives. I support Melissa Kearney’s conclusions and hope that I am living to the ideals identified in this book with my own family and children. I am giving my children as much privilege as I think is good for them. Foremost amongst this is being a member of a stable two parent family.
Chapter one provides and introduction and explanation of the structure of the book. Chapter two, show that children of college educated mothers are likely to grow up with two parents in the home and those parents are less likely to divorce (AKA – completing a four year University degree may be a good proxy for relational stability). Daughters of mothers who have not had a four year College Education are more likely to become unmarried or never married mothers themselves, leading to being on the wrong side of wealth inequity within those families. Virtue spirals in action over generations.
She shows how wealthy families can afford to give children more money, time, and attention than less wealthy families. The conclusion is this leads to better outcomes for the children of wealthy people. I suspect Kearney misses a point around educational attainment and wealth success. Nassim Taleb believes that wealthy people are able to afford more education, not that education builds wealth. Thus, higher education is a symptom not a cause of wealth. I suspect there is something in this. Kerri and I both have such degree’s (multiple in fact) and neither of our parents did. Our children are well on the way to being able to afford and attain such degrees (if they choose). Did our degrees create that, or our ability to complete degrees? We are an example of Kearney’s thesis.
Chapter five investigates the decline in ‘marriagable men’ and Kearney show’s that when men’s income declines, marriage declines (p 60). The earning capacity of ‘non College Educated’ (poor) men has declined in my lifetime with the loss of well paid blue collar manufacturing jobs. For example “US regions affected by more use of robots to do work subsequently experienced a decrease in new marriages and an increase in the share of births to unmarried women” (p 61). She shows that ‘non College Educated’ (poor) do not bring resources into a relationship. “This raises the question – is it really the case that close to 40% of births in the US are to men who would not bring any positive resources (on net) into the home? It is likely to be true that roughly 70% of births to non-college educated mothers are fathered by men with no positive resources to contribute to a family environment? If the answer to these questions is even close to yes, then that does not suggest single parenthood is not a social problem.
Rather, it implies that the social problem extends far beyond the issue of how children are being raised, to the issue of why so many men are not fit to be marriage partners or engaged fathers” (p 50). Ouch, to the men who are not ‘marriagable’. Kearney calls on you to lift yourself and become worthy of marriage.
Kearney observes “a shrinking of the pool of marrriageable black men seems a likely explanation for at least some of the increase in out of wedlock births and single parent households among blacks” (p 55). I think we could draw this conclusion wider to encompass men in general (and do not know why Kearney does not – Does the evidence not support this?). She states “women do not generally avoid marriage because they reject the institution or concept of marriage. Rather, many appear to have a higher bar for a potential spouse than their partners – and the fathers of their children – have met” (p 56). Men are not meeting the standards of women on the marriage market, rather than women are choosing to remain unmarried. Women do not want to be in the situation where they have to support a child and a partner and need men to contribute more that they take. Kearney states “an increase in women’s relative wages will lead to a reduction in marriage and an increase in divorce because the female ‘outside option’ has improved. Women, economic theory, will be more likely to forgo marriage when the amount of money they can make on their own is higher” (p 64). This was supported by the work of Baumeister in ‘What is Good About Men?’ Kearney concludes “a decline in ‘marriageable men’ causally leads to lower rates of marriage” (p 63). She suggests we need to encourage men to become ‘marriagable men’.
Kearney then looks at the cost of the loss of a Fathers to children. She give evidence of behavioral and mental health issues of children without a father in the home. “Boys misbehaved more than girls, and that gap was greater among the children of single mothers than among children in two parent home” (p 95). She then adds “externalizing problems among fifth graders was nearly twice as large for children raised by single mothers compared to children raised in a family with their two biological parents” (p 95). Kearney acknowledges “Parenting is hard. It is stressful. Single mothers are generally under more stress than those who parent with a committed spouse or partner” (p 97). If we are seeking the best outcomes for children we need need to include fathers as equal partners in families.
Kearney gave evidence that “having Black dads in the neighborhood is good for the upward mobility prospects of Black boys” (p 99) adding “having a larger share of Black dads present in neighborhood family homes is associated with better lifetime outcomes for Black boys and smaller racial gaps in outcomes” (p 108). Again, I suspect this could be expanded beyond ‘Black’ to men in general. It is good for children to have fathers within their community, even if they are not their own. Children need male role models, especially those without a father in the home.
Kearney found that Fathering programs that encourage Father’s towards parental engagement are limited by gatekeeping mothers who deny father’s access to their children and actively work to alienate children from Fathers, “some of the fathers in the programs had highly conflicted or disengaged relationships with their children’s mothers, and in some cases that mothers would serve as ‘gatekeepers,’ restricting a father’s access to his child” (p 103). Police have better things to do than enforcing family court orders, resulting in lax enforcement of court orders giving Father’s rights to access being ignored and leading to loss the of interaction with childrens Fathers. I noted in my own observations of separated families, anecdotally, it was the mothers who restricted access to children and became most bitter about former partners. This supports Kearney’s observations. She added that “US social policy was aimed almost exclusively at helping single mothers and children, with haphazard efforts to hold fathers responsible for paying child support and essentially no commitment to helping dads address whatever barriers they face in their lives” (p 108). We need to do more from a legal and policy perspective to include fathers. A healthy society needs both men and women doing well. We are best when we work together.
Kearney then addresses the declining birth rates in the US. “The recent drop in births reflects a decline in pregnancies, not a rise in abortions. The decline in the US birth rate has not been driven by any one subpopulation of women – Teen births in particular have plummeted” (p 109). She adds “the dramatic reduction in teen childbearing since the early 1990’s seems to reflect widespread changes in teenagers’ attitudes about risky sexual behaviors and the possibility, and perceived perils, of becoming a young parent” (p 115). She believes the MTV show ‘Sixteen and Pregnant’ which showed the difficulties of pregnancy and motherhood was a factor in this. Another explanation for falling teenage birth rates is that teenagers are having less sex than their parents and grandparents did at the same age. Young men find the outlets in ‘Play Station and Pornography’ easier than the complexity of relationships with increasingly high expectations of young woman. This has lead to increasing tournament mating strategies, where a smaller number of men having an increased share of mating opportunities (aka – men who look good on Tinder). This is not a good outcome for the majority of men or women, but here we are.
Kearney observes that “More kids are living with just their Mom because fewer adults are getting married, including those who have a child together” (p 118). She showed “In 2020, the likelihood that an infant lived in a household that met the official government threshold of poverty was 46% for those living with an unmarried mother, as compared to 6% for infants living in a married-couple household” (p 118). And that “the share of American children growing up with the benefit of two parents in their home is at a historic low: in 2019, nearly 40% of children did not live with married parents. Nearly 20% of American children lived with only their mother, with no second parent figure in the home” (p 120). Thus, we can see the degradation of what might be described as the nuclear family that was the norm when I was growing up. As a society in our efforts to accept ‘different choices’, we have lost sight of the ideal of the two parent family and our children are paying for it.
Kearney suggests “here are the things we should do to address the challenges I have laid out in this book:
+ Work to restore and foster a norm of two parent homes for children
+ Work to improve the economic position of men without college level education so they are more reliable marriage partners and fathers
+ Scale up government community programs that show promise in strengthening families and improving outcomes for parent and children from disadvantaged backgrounds
+ Have a stronger safety net for families, regardless of family structure
Here are some thing I do not think we should do:
- Accept a new reality where the two parent family is a thing of the past for less educated, lower income Americans
- Bemoan the economic independence of women
- Stigmatize single mothers or encourage unhealthy marriages
- Run unsuccessful government marriage programs
- Keep government assistance meager under the mistaken assumption that doing so will incentivizes more marriages and two parent families” (p 121).
In conclusion Kearney suggests “Bolstering the well being of children requires recognizing the role of fathers in children’s lives and boosting support to both mothers and fathers” (p 127). As Baumeister showed we need to have high expectations and rewards for becoming a ‘good man’. We need to do as much to encourage men, as we do for women, so we can have as many of our sons becoming ‘marriagable men’ as possible, who are available for our daughters to meet on the marriage market. We need to stop the ‘gender war’ and realise we work best together as a family unit. Part of this is having men who contribute more than they take and are encouraged and rewarded for doing so.
I have been concerned about the rise of the state. We expect too much from the state and too little of the citizenship. In my work I have recognized what a poor surrogate parent the state is. If you need to rely on the state, things have not gone well for you. Kearney concurs with this sentiment “Parents affect their children’s lives and shape their outcomes in ways that government cannot fully make up for. We should be clear eyed about this reality” (p 131). As a society and culture we need to reward and encourage functional families as an ideal for giving our children the best chance of reaching their potential. Having two parents should be a norm, not a privilege.
Kearney builds on the work of people who I have read this year such as: Rob Henderson, Roy Baumeister, and Brad Wilcox. We need to think about our society and culture and then act on our own lives. I support Melissa Kearney’s conclusions and hope that I am living to the ideals identified in this book with my own family and children. I am giving my children as much privilege as I think is good for them. Foremost amongst this is being a member of a stable two parent family.
June 13, 2024
Four stars simply because I listened to the audio book and had trouble following the statistics without my eyes. This book was a thought-provoking look at marriage and family from an economic lens.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 137 reviews