"This is actually not an irrational fear. Rates of autism have gone up a lot. I’m not saying that this should cause people from being afraid of having children, but I can see why it might have that effect."
I've read that, too, that autism rates have risen a lot, especially in places like Silicon Valley, where brainy nerds who might themselves already be a bit onto the spectrum marry one another and have even brainier kids. But while diagnoses have risen, has the rate of severe autism actually changed that much?
Not that I mean to make light of the sacrifices parents make to care for severely autistic kids, well into adulthood. In my church growing up, we had an elderly couple with a daughter, either autistic (the term was not in popular use in the 1970s) or something similar. They spent a great deal of their time taking care of her, it was certainly a tremendous burden, what seemed like a life sentence, for them.
Anyway, around the time I finished high school, if I recall correctly, the daughter, now into her early 40s, had a medical problem. That was being treated, but there was some sort of complication, and then she was gone.
Suddenly, the burden was lifted. After all those years, her parents were finally freed to live their own lives. And then they got divorced.
"Biology. While most STEM professions remain male dominated, 10 years ago biology became a 50/50 male/female split. By 2022, 62% of biology majors were women. Biology is now often considered the “easiest” of the STEM majors."
While discussions on how to manipulate grading to give girls an advantage over boys have been going on for decades, this more recent paper discusses how to give women an advantage over men in college biology courses even if they are less academically inclined:
Basically non-exam assessments are less academic than exams but require greater conscientiousness and compliance. Girls in these biology classes tend to be slightly less academically inclined than the boys, this shows up in exams. The advice is to ramp up non-exam assessments to an absurd level to give girls the advantage. Basically boys are expected to be willing participants in courses designed to disadvantage them.
BTW, the papers basic argument that girls are disadvantaged by exams has been disproven around the world, particularly in the UK and Europe.
I will also guarantee you that the authors of this article have no interest whatsoever in making fields where assessments play more to female strengths more accessible to males.
The podcast about why men are not attending (fleeing) college was priceless. Men do not follow women - unless they are neutered. A similar situation is in the church. I believe the reason God calls men to be pastors, elders and deacons beyond the fact that Eve was deceived and Adam purposely disobeyed is that when men are not actively engaged in running the church women step in to fill the void. Men then see church and religion as superfluous and unnecessary. What follows are churches that stray into apostasy (see almost all mainstream Protestant churches) which are largely made up of women.
What is now happening in the military is leading us down the same path.
I didn't love the WSJ piece because my impression is the kidulting people are largely people who just want to live in places like NYC and LA and won't accept that the cost associated with maximizing their lifestyles there - trendy neighborhood, eating out a lot, etc. - just is simply too much for most people to get ahead, and certainly far too much to have a family and retain some of that. I am sympathetic insofar as I too lived in a big East Coast city for quite awhile because that lifestyle/location was appealing - but I still managed to meet my wife, get married, buy a house, and have our first kid while there and those were things I wanted for myself and always did...however, once all those things happened, it became clear it was going to be very hard to stay as well as expand our family. So we left, and that was the end of that phase of my life and you have to be adult enough to understand that's what has to happen.
There is probably a bit of influence from social media that has people chasing a certain lifestyle more than when I was in my 20s or early 30s - that didn't exist at all so the only opportunity I had to broadcast just how awesome my existence was only came through calling friends and family, whereas today you can blast it out to the planet via Instagram or whatever. My image of myself was basically in my head, not something I actively maintained online for consumption of as many people as I could reach.
I don't have any confidence in the MAGA movement's to turn the tide that's been building for over a century. The leftists have dominated society to such an extent that hardly anyone now even believes that America was great. They've rewritten our history and emptied our libraries of classical books. Their education establishment has nearly made reading extinct. The media/entertainment industry has become a deluge of immorality and lies that is hard to resist. Movies and TV shows are more akin to pornography than to reality. Church services resemble 1960s and 70s rock concerts. There are hardly any traditional families anywhere. Marriages are more like revolving door temporary sexual transactions than committed relationships. Children are as quickly outsourced to government nannies as possible and for longer periods, well into their twenties.
Stop taking the blackpill and touch grass. And I'm not saying that to be a jerk, I'm saying that if you spend a lot of time on the Internet you're going to get a skewed view of how things are, because the people who are on the Internet are disproportionately dysfunctional.
Maybe I live in a bubble, but most of the people I know are in stable, married, traditional relationships, they're raising their own children, and the church services aren't concerts of any kind, much less rock ones.
Thanks for highlighting that piece on reviving ELCA churches. I strongly agree with your points about evangelicals not giving the issue of central spaces enough attention, something I have had a lot of conversations about locally.
But I wonder about this:
>My impression is that in denominations like the Lutheran ELCA church that ordain women, female clergy tend to get the less prestigious jobs.
Not saying you're wrong, but it would be surprising to me if ELCA was able to systematically discriminate against female clergy on purpose, even for rational, revenue-maximizing reasons. If the Mainlines were rationally concerned about revenue, they would stop digging the hole they're in and pivot at least somewhat rightward theologically. And wouldn't the discrimination in itself be a scandal? Couldn't female clergy organize and get the "bigoted" bishops fired who insist on relegating them to the worst spots?
Though I'm sure there's some self-selecting that takes place. A certain kind of person prefers pastoring a moribund church in NYC or SF over a relatively healthy church in a conservative suburb, and it wouldn't surprise me if that kind of person is more likely to be female.
1. Regarding religiosity and attitudes towards adultery, I think the trend often goes the other way--people move away from religion as they try to justify libertine sexual attitudes, rather than developing more libertine sexual attitudes as they become less religious.
2. Part of the problem with the numbers cited in the WSJ article is that A. I'm not at all convinced that the government's inflation numbers reflect the reality on the ground, partially due to the fact that B. housing prices are insane right now, especially for people who are trying to get started. I'm about to close on a thousand square foot condo about twenty minutes from downtown in a major Texas metropolitan area, and I'm looking at paying close to $2,000 a month, albeit with some utilities and flood insurance paid for. (Also: that's with a 20k down payment on a $150k sales price.)
Further, this whole "30-somethings need to temper their expectations" schtick isn't complete nonsense, but the fact is that starter homes aren't to be found for love nor money once you get out of the backcountry--and while a lot of times it's easy to find a job there if you're thirtysomething, good luck finding a spouse.
“[W]hile a lot of times it's easy to find a job there if you're thirtysomething, good luck finding a spouse.”
Agreed! I moved to a region with a good job market, but in a decade here I’ve never heard a local (or fellow transplant) say anything positive about dating and marriage prospects. On the other hand, in that decade I’ve paid off my (small) student loans, bought a house at a low rate that has highly appreciated in value, and two late-model vehicles. I’m 32 years old for reference.
Yep, same here. If I'd stayed where I moved in my mid-twenties I'd probably have less than a $100k left on a low-interest rate house that I could sell for between $230k and $250k--and would be resigning myself to permanent bachelorhood.
Not sure how old you are, but it seems like the present housing affordability crisis is more of an issue for Gen Z than Millennials (other than, I suppose, the youngest Millennials). I'm a Millennial who was relatively late to home ownership but still have my 3% 30-year mortgage locked in on what is my second house, after making a tidy profit on my first house.
Of course, the longer the housing crisis goes on, the more it means that today's 20-somethings will have even more trouble moving out of mom and dad's house than today's 30-somethings did.
I just turned thirty two, and for various career- and life-related reasons I had to ditch my thirty year 2.75% mortgage right when interest rates spiked. Made a tidy profit on it, at least.
The WSJ article has the same vibe as the “millennials are killing the diamond industry” article. Let’s find a few outliers and dance around the fact that the economy is tanked and that “we” have made it harder than ever to get ahead, get married, etc. Nobody is really holding out for mansions and a jet setting lifestyle, it’s just a scramble to find basic economic stability. As long as money printing, taxes, regulations, and infinity migrants drive down wages it’s going to be a grind.
"This is actually not an irrational fear. Rates of autism have gone up a lot. I’m not saying that this should cause people from being afraid of having children, but I can see why it might have that effect."
I've read that, too, that autism rates have risen a lot, especially in places like Silicon Valley, where brainy nerds who might themselves already be a bit onto the spectrum marry one another and have even brainier kids. But while diagnoses have risen, has the rate of severe autism actually changed that much?
Not that I mean to make light of the sacrifices parents make to care for severely autistic kids, well into adulthood. In my church growing up, we had an elderly couple with a daughter, either autistic (the term was not in popular use in the 1970s) or something similar. They spent a great deal of their time taking care of her, it was certainly a tremendous burden, what seemed like a life sentence, for them.
Anyway, around the time I finished high school, if I recall correctly, the daughter, now into her early 40s, had a medical problem. That was being treated, but there was some sort of complication, and then she was gone.
Suddenly, the burden was lifted. After all those years, her parents were finally freed to live their own lives. And then they got divorced.
There may be more people that are simply being diagnosed with autism, but rates of bona fide autism are up a lot.
A quote from the male college enrollment article:
"Biology. While most STEM professions remain male dominated, 10 years ago biology became a 50/50 male/female split. By 2022, 62% of biology majors were women. Biology is now often considered the “easiest” of the STEM majors."
While discussions on how to manipulate grading to give girls an advantage over boys have been going on for decades, this more recent paper discusses how to give women an advantage over men in college biology courses even if they are less academically inclined:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320514083_Exams_disadvantage_women_in_introductory_biology
Basically non-exam assessments are less academic than exams but require greater conscientiousness and compliance. Girls in these biology classes tend to be slightly less academically inclined than the boys, this shows up in exams. The advice is to ramp up non-exam assessments to an absurd level to give girls the advantage. Basically boys are expected to be willing participants in courses designed to disadvantage them.
BTW, the papers basic argument that girls are disadvantaged by exams has been disproven around the world, particularly in the UK and Europe.
I will also guarantee you that the authors of this article have no interest whatsoever in making fields where assessments play more to female strengths more accessible to males.
The podcast about why men are not attending (fleeing) college was priceless. Men do not follow women - unless they are neutered. A similar situation is in the church. I believe the reason God calls men to be pastors, elders and deacons beyond the fact that Eve was deceived and Adam purposely disobeyed is that when men are not actively engaged in running the church women step in to fill the void. Men then see church and religion as superfluous and unnecessary. What follows are churches that stray into apostasy (see almost all mainstream Protestant churches) which are largely made up of women.
What is now happening in the military is leading us down the same path.
I didn't love the WSJ piece because my impression is the kidulting people are largely people who just want to live in places like NYC and LA and won't accept that the cost associated with maximizing their lifestyles there - trendy neighborhood, eating out a lot, etc. - just is simply too much for most people to get ahead, and certainly far too much to have a family and retain some of that. I am sympathetic insofar as I too lived in a big East Coast city for quite awhile because that lifestyle/location was appealing - but I still managed to meet my wife, get married, buy a house, and have our first kid while there and those were things I wanted for myself and always did...however, once all those things happened, it became clear it was going to be very hard to stay as well as expand our family. So we left, and that was the end of that phase of my life and you have to be adult enough to understand that's what has to happen.
There is probably a bit of influence from social media that has people chasing a certain lifestyle more than when I was in my 20s or early 30s - that didn't exist at all so the only opportunity I had to broadcast just how awesome my existence was only came through calling friends and family, whereas today you can blast it out to the planet via Instagram or whatever. My image of myself was basically in my head, not something I actively maintained online for consumption of as many people as I could reach.
I don't have any confidence in the MAGA movement's to turn the tide that's been building for over a century. The leftists have dominated society to such an extent that hardly anyone now even believes that America was great. They've rewritten our history and emptied our libraries of classical books. Their education establishment has nearly made reading extinct. The media/entertainment industry has become a deluge of immorality and lies that is hard to resist. Movies and TV shows are more akin to pornography than to reality. Church services resemble 1960s and 70s rock concerts. There are hardly any traditional families anywhere. Marriages are more like revolving door temporary sexual transactions than committed relationships. Children are as quickly outsourced to government nannies as possible and for longer periods, well into their twenties.
Stop taking the blackpill and touch grass. And I'm not saying that to be a jerk, I'm saying that if you spend a lot of time on the Internet you're going to get a skewed view of how things are, because the people who are on the Internet are disproportionately dysfunctional.
Maybe I live in a bubble, but most of the people I know are in stable, married, traditional relationships, they're raising their own children, and the church services aren't concerts of any kind, much less rock ones.
Thanks for highlighting that piece on reviving ELCA churches. I strongly agree with your points about evangelicals not giving the issue of central spaces enough attention, something I have had a lot of conversations about locally.
But I wonder about this:
>My impression is that in denominations like the Lutheran ELCA church that ordain women, female clergy tend to get the less prestigious jobs.
Not saying you're wrong, but it would be surprising to me if ELCA was able to systematically discriminate against female clergy on purpose, even for rational, revenue-maximizing reasons. If the Mainlines were rationally concerned about revenue, they would stop digging the hole they're in and pivot at least somewhat rightward theologically. And wouldn't the discrimination in itself be a scandal? Couldn't female clergy organize and get the "bigoted" bishops fired who insist on relegating them to the worst spots?
Though I'm sure there's some self-selecting that takes place. A certain kind of person prefers pastoring a moribund church in NYC or SF over a relatively healthy church in a conservative suburb, and it wouldn't surprise me if that kind of person is more likely to be female.
A couple of thoughts here:
1. Regarding religiosity and attitudes towards adultery, I think the trend often goes the other way--people move away from religion as they try to justify libertine sexual attitudes, rather than developing more libertine sexual attitudes as they become less religious.
2. Part of the problem with the numbers cited in the WSJ article is that A. I'm not at all convinced that the government's inflation numbers reflect the reality on the ground, partially due to the fact that B. housing prices are insane right now, especially for people who are trying to get started. I'm about to close on a thousand square foot condo about twenty minutes from downtown in a major Texas metropolitan area, and I'm looking at paying close to $2,000 a month, albeit with some utilities and flood insurance paid for. (Also: that's with a 20k down payment on a $150k sales price.)
Further, this whole "30-somethings need to temper their expectations" schtick isn't complete nonsense, but the fact is that starter homes aren't to be found for love nor money once you get out of the backcountry--and while a lot of times it's easy to find a job there if you're thirtysomething, good luck finding a spouse.
“[W]hile a lot of times it's easy to find a job there if you're thirtysomething, good luck finding a spouse.”
Agreed! I moved to a region with a good job market, but in a decade here I’ve never heard a local (or fellow transplant) say anything positive about dating and marriage prospects. On the other hand, in that decade I’ve paid off my (small) student loans, bought a house at a low rate that has highly appreciated in value, and two late-model vehicles. I’m 32 years old for reference.
Yep, same here. If I'd stayed where I moved in my mid-twenties I'd probably have less than a $100k left on a low-interest rate house that I could sell for between $230k and $250k--and would be resigning myself to permanent bachelorhood.
Not sure how old you are, but it seems like the present housing affordability crisis is more of an issue for Gen Z than Millennials (other than, I suppose, the youngest Millennials). I'm a Millennial who was relatively late to home ownership but still have my 3% 30-year mortgage locked in on what is my second house, after making a tidy profit on my first house.
Of course, the longer the housing crisis goes on, the more it means that today's 20-somethings will have even more trouble moving out of mom and dad's house than today's 30-somethings did.
It is in some areas, but in the great cities of California and the Northeast it goes back to Gen X.
I just turned thirty two, and for various career- and life-related reasons I had to ditch my thirty year 2.75% mortgage right when interest rates spiked. Made a tidy profit on it, at least.
The WSJ article has the same vibe as the “millennials are killing the diamond industry” article. Let’s find a few outliers and dance around the fact that the economy is tanked and that “we” have made it harder than ever to get ahead, get married, etc. Nobody is really holding out for mansions and a jet setting lifestyle, it’s just a scramble to find basic economic stability. As long as money printing, taxes, regulations, and infinity migrants drive down wages it’s going to be a grind.