1. We should expect that the rise of companionate marriage as a cultural ideal would increase assortativeness. In a companionate marriage, you want your partner to be someone you can understand, sympathize with, bond over shared experience and outlook with: to use the cliche, a best friend as well as a lover. And everybody finds it easier to befriend, understand, etc those of similar social class, education, and income.
2. Legalizing work is important not just to raise male earnings but to raise the number of dimensions on which men can display distinctive achievement. It's that sense of distinctive achievement which gives men the ego-stroking (if you want to be uncharitable) or secure dignity (to be more charitable) that helps us be better partners. I can think of several successful female-breadwinner marriages in my social circle where the male partner's dignity and status comes from some not particularly highly paid skill: she's an engineer or manager or similar and he's an outstanding carpenter/handyman, or musician, or artist, or cook, or some such. And the fewer bureaucratic barriers there are to making gigs of *some* sort out of those kinds of endeavors, the more ways men will have to "do something excellent in her presence," in the immortal words of the Tao of Steve.
Completely agree! At this point in my life, I am no longer excluding men who make less money than me for partnership because I no longer feel that’s necessary to achieve my other goals in life. But a man needs a sense of purpose. He needs to be making the world better in some way. I need it for myself and I think it’s a healthier way to live.
I hate so much how willing we are to believe that the post war period was the naturalest of times. It was such a bizarre time frame, but we act like God created woman out of Dwight D Eisenhower's rib and put her in the living room with some stilletos and a vacuum cleaner.
Parenthood tends to sort this out somewhat. You have a shared purpose, and you're not thinking about yourself first, you're thinking about what's best for the kids. Unless the dad's a toxic mess or there's some logistical reason, there needs to be two parents raising children. Ideally there should be far more adults than this, but that's another long one.
I make less money than my wife, but I go extra hard in dad duties, and that's what's most important. Except for the school music concert the other day; that was bad.
Even at perfect assortment, a relative rise in female status will very likely come at a marriage penalty because of greater male variability, inescapable differences in sexual strategies (differential parental investment - Trivers), and the largely zero-sum nature of status games.
If we believe that the effects of marriage are prosocial, individually beneficial (as opposed to just selection effects) and critical to population rejuvenation/maintenance, then policy efforts should arguably be concerned about raising male status if natural changes to the political economy advantage female status acquisition.
Generally, I don't think policy is a good lever to effectuate things like mechanisms of status acquisition and signaling. So things will just continue how they are until there is some sort of reckoning depending on if various groups of men or women become too unhappy with the state of affairs.
Two things:
1. We should expect that the rise of companionate marriage as a cultural ideal would increase assortativeness. In a companionate marriage, you want your partner to be someone you can understand, sympathize with, bond over shared experience and outlook with: to use the cliche, a best friend as well as a lover. And everybody finds it easier to befriend, understand, etc those of similar social class, education, and income.
2. Legalizing work is important not just to raise male earnings but to raise the number of dimensions on which men can display distinctive achievement. It's that sense of distinctive achievement which gives men the ego-stroking (if you want to be uncharitable) or secure dignity (to be more charitable) that helps us be better partners. I can think of several successful female-breadwinner marriages in my social circle where the male partner's dignity and status comes from some not particularly highly paid skill: she's an engineer or manager or similar and he's an outstanding carpenter/handyman, or musician, or artist, or cook, or some such. And the fewer bureaucratic barriers there are to making gigs of *some* sort out of those kinds of endeavors, the more ways men will have to "do something excellent in her presence," in the immortal words of the Tao of Steve.
Completely agree! At this point in my life, I am no longer excluding men who make less money than me for partnership because I no longer feel that’s necessary to achieve my other goals in life. But a man needs a sense of purpose. He needs to be making the world better in some way. I need it for myself and I think it’s a healthier way to live.
I hate so much how willing we are to believe that the post war period was the naturalest of times. It was such a bizarre time frame, but we act like God created woman out of Dwight D Eisenhower's rib and put her in the living room with some stilletos and a vacuum cleaner.
Lolll
Parenthood tends to sort this out somewhat. You have a shared purpose, and you're not thinking about yourself first, you're thinking about what's best for the kids. Unless the dad's a toxic mess or there's some logistical reason, there needs to be two parents raising children. Ideally there should be far more adults than this, but that's another long one.
I make less money than my wife, but I go extra hard in dad duties, and that's what's most important. Except for the school music concert the other day; that was bad.
When is your book coming out?
Starting to write in September 🥰
NYT today
https://open.spotify.com/episode/3CAwNCCLNztD38bopvFa5h?si=JlfaRWZrQFKb89myBbwicA
Ty!
Even at perfect assortment, a relative rise in female status will very likely come at a marriage penalty because of greater male variability, inescapable differences in sexual strategies (differential parental investment - Trivers), and the largely zero-sum nature of status games.
If we believe that the effects of marriage are prosocial, individually beneficial (as opposed to just selection effects) and critical to population rejuvenation/maintenance, then policy efforts should arguably be concerned about raising male status if natural changes to the political economy advantage female status acquisition.
Generally, I don't think policy is a good lever to effectuate things like mechanisms of status acquisition and signaling. So things will just continue how they are until there is some sort of reckoning depending on if various groups of men or women become too unhappy with the state of affairs.