Family Inequality

Here's a rebuttal article as well, to bring nuance to the conversation: My rejection of the National Marriage Project’s “Before ‘I Do'”: https://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/my-rejection-of-the-… I'd be interested if there has been follow up research since.

Same author, more recent post [1] I really like the way that he expanded on this theory and talks about the authority that universities have accumulated and the effect that it is having on students. For more on this topic, I really recommend an article, Campus Protesters Aren’t Reliving the 1960s -- (Yesterday’s student activists wanted to be treated like adults. Today’s want to be treated like children.) [2] [1]: https://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2015/11/09/university-paternali… [2]: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/12/campus-protests-1960s-2…

This has been my question as well, and few people want to consider it. The best data I've been able to find on actual gender split over that period only goes through 1996 [1] - just when the dotcom bubble was getting going. However, if you look at total CS degrees (look under "The third surge" in [2]) it at least seems pretty obvious what happened. Right around 1980 the number of CS degree students exploded, with men consistently outnumbering women about 2 to 1. Then around 1985 the absolute number gap started widening rapidly and never got better. We should definitely consider that women may have been discouraged from entering CS degree programs more than they were in the 70s, but at least in statistical terms, it seems like men just got more interested in the field for a variety of reasons and naturally came to massively outnumber the women interested in the field. Also see [3] since the new CS men had to come at the expense of other majors, and it's interesting to look at what they chose not to pursue (note: the stats are complicated by the fact that women represent an increasingly large overall percentage of college students over the same time period). Men seem to have declined as a % of graduates over the 80s-90s period most strongly in non-CS Engineering, physical sciences, and biology. This paints a really interesting picture since it's hard to argue a systemic push against women in science degrees when CS is pretty much the only one with an increasing gender…

As the co-author of "The New I Do: Reshaping Marriage for Skeptics, Realists and Rebels" (Seal Press, Sept. 28) I find the post and the following comments intriguing. Correlation is not causation, and sociologist Philip Cohen has done a fine job of pointing out the difference with similar findings reported by the National Marriage Project (http://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/my-rejection-of-the-n… I love what Scott Burson says, "Your marriage will be what you make it." Amen! A marriage license doesn't dictate how you set up your marriage. It doesn't require that the couples live together, have kids or not, be monogamous, etc. That is up to the couple to decide and in truth, we don't all marry for the same reasons. The license grants you more than 1,000 government perks (and why the government gives those out based on a person's love life is a curious thing) and marriage still matters to many of us, otherwise you wouldn't see the push by same-sex couples to be treated equally. Our book offers seven alt models that couples have already chosen to break free of the one-size-fits-all, until death-do-us-part traditional model, which doesn't work anymore. We no longer marry for the same reasons that marriage was created. Time for new models that set up couples for success by how they define success, not just longevity. Please check out what we're doing: http://sealpress.com/books/the-new-i-do/

Be aware that grouping things by the respondents "generation" is actually meaningless[1] and likely to make you combine several real processes into random "effects". Trying to explain these arbitrary aggregations with a single story is obviously fruitless and mostly a good way to make up nonsense arguments. [1] https://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2021/05/26/open-letter-to-the-p…

1. Conservative think-tank, there's a lot missing from their analysis - "women who married as virgins had the lowest divorce rates by far." - this could be explained by things like the coercive social situation they found themselves in. 2. That source seems of questionable quality - https://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/my-rejection-of-the-… 3 & 4 - seem irrelevant.

But that alone doesn’t explain the full gap. https://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2019/11/06/man-woman-couple-hei…

But let's not pretend that historians influence the policy makers as much as sociologists and economists do either. The damages when they are wrong are orders of magnitude bigger. They are assumed to be right, sometimes even without proof, until they are tragically proven wrong. And nobody lose their job anyway. Have you ever seen a sociologist lose the job because proposed something to a politician that resulted in lots of people having their life ruined? I never did, honestly. Have the last three more recent economic and social crisis been caused by historians mistakes? https://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2017/10/02/sociologys-culture-o…

I think it depends on the genre. Sci-Hub is hugely popular [0] among academics and the academic publishers allege that they are missing out on a lot of money because of it (Can't find the source now). [0] https://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2020/01/15/sci-hub-users-cost-a…

US divorce rates have declined since the 1980s. Depending on how you look at the numbers, 50% is still a reasonable estimate.[1] Researchers attribute the decline in divorces partly to people being more cautious about marriage. [1] https://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2016/06/08/life-table-says-divo…

It's well more than editorial bias in some cases, it's blatantly misleading. Whether it's due to laziness and needing something catchy to write about, incompetence because they really don't understand statistics, or malice trying to pander or push a narrative I can't say. Two recent examples. * https://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2017/03/09/more-bad-reporting-o… * https://twitter.com/StuartBuck1/status/847104688562548736

I'm not going to spend too much time on this because I'm getting the sense that your request for an explanation was disingenuous. But: actually misleading There's a difference between "imperfect metaphor" and "misleading". higher proportion of hard-mode players choosing Paladin over Necromancer You make it sound as if each woman has individually and arbitrarily chosen to earn less. That's not the way it works, and the fact that women are paid less within the same profession too is only one of the reasons. Related: http://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/alabama-matriarchy-de… the root cause is unkind treatment, depression and violent crime That's not what I said at all.

Take this example. Black people are 37.8% of the prison population[0] and 12.3% of the general population[1]. They also have 72% of babies being born out of wedlock[2], compared to 29% of white-non hispanic babies[2]. Both those factors correlate to higher probabilities of crime in the future[3] and higher incarceration rates[4] So they are ~3x overrepresented in the prison population. So no. Even if you drop race, black people will generally be more highly targeted by any sort of fair algorithm. There is no thing as a racist algorithm or racist data. There can be racist systems and policy causing this data to be generated and can be looked for and targeted by algorithms, but even without taking race into account, just dealing with the current algorithm, the software is accurate and doing its job. Most modern science was caused by people questioning the status quo and challenging political…