I've been on a campaign to tell girls to marry young and then have a career later. My Mom made a million dollars in real estate after my youngest brother was in school full time. I'm 75 and still working. Children first career later!
That's where America went off the rails, starting in the 60's. Seems self-evident to me. Particularly in the black communities. It's virtually a perfect plot on a graph between broken families and broken lives in relation to divorce (or lack of a present father)
But of course it's verboten to mention because it would expose that leftist policy failures are directly responsible for the destruction of families they claim they care about. Democrats have created an entire class of people who are dependent on the government. It also is a way for them to establish a oppressor/oppressed grievance mentality just to get votes.
Also men would be wise to remember that nobody, and I mean nobody, is going to take better care of your kids than the mother.
Have you ever read 'Losing Ground' (1984) by Charles Murray? From wiki: 'Murray's main thesis is that social welfare programs, as they have historically been implemented in the United States, tend to increase poverty rather than decrease it because they create incentives rewarding short-sighted behavior not conducive to escaping poverty in the long term.'
The hysterics the book prompted on the Left foreshadowed some of the crazier DEI tantrums of more recent years. The big takeaway is, there's a kernel of truth to the idea that whites systematically victimized people of color. But it was well-meaning white liberals in the 1960 who did that - not white slaveowners a century earlier.
a great step forward would be to pay decent wages to the men, like it used to be when I was a kid. These 'welfare' systems (even unemployment pay) make things worse indeed. and if one parent makes more than enough for the family, the other parent should be discouraged to go out to work. a program was once started in Belgium where the stay at home parent (usually the mom) would be paid somewhere near a mimimum unemployment wage. big protest of course. unpayable - impossible. later on, calculating properly, the govt confessed it would have been cheaper than all the 'help' programs (and kids would have been raised properly).
I am originally from Belgium and when I was growing up in the 60s, hardly any of the mothers worked. Those that did stopped when kids came. That is how it should be. Women should have children at a young age - most Down Syndrome children are born to older mothers, not to mention lots that have a very hard time conceiving and need 'medical help'.
Totally agree! Thank You, Yuri! Parents knows the best who is fitting to their child to build a future together! But of course the match making should never be a force! The children have the last word. This all could be done in an environment of kind neighbourhood, churches and common believes. And that is almost all gone. We must build back GOD's people societies.
Part of the puzzle. I am in favor of an all of the above approach. Yes to this. Yes to eliminating financial barriers. Yes to free range childhood. Yes to de-coupling from college and cities and all the toxicity that goes with them. Yes to traditional religion. Yes to MAHA.
Yuri, I COMPLETELY agree with you. I have made successful matches before, and have often said that if the author thing doesn't work out, I would happily be a Yenta (Jewish matchmaker). And when I can, I encourage women to start families young—the career will always be there and isn't as satisfying as raising healthy kids who are a blessing to those around them.
while in marriage therapy with my ex, the therapist told us he knew several very happy arranged marriages. I know first hand several couples who dated for years, but still were very unhappy. My first husband first befriended my father, but obviously, that did not help to keep us going LOL
Oh man, great speech YB. Your "3 subversive anti-natal memes" are spot on.
I totally agree that getting married young and starting a family first makes way more sense. A friend from Guatemala City did just that: starting a family while in college, has three kids, and is now focusing on her career while raising everyone up. I get the impression she envies the American childless careerist woman however, which is kind of sad but goes to show how shiny that false lure of prestige and power is. Even when someone has the most meaningful work achieved, the elusive "brass ring" of accolade bullshit is still irresistible. She's trying to catch up to her single peers, but I've told her there's nothing to prove and she's actually way ahead; deep down I think she gets it. Everyone is so drunk on meaningless career quests though, it's nuts.
Having lived in Utah for two years (2018-2020), that's more of the norm there but there's an underlying problem of what you might call "juvenescence" (no doubt part of the greater neutering subversive force that the globalists and leftists have vectorized through media and consumer brands) that delays especially boys from taking the reins of adulthood.
Said simpler, if Americans are to meaningfully marry in their 20s, young men need to become independent and professionally competent by their mid-teens, something that was common in previous early-modern centuries. Homeschooled boys often are nowadays, or those who had exceptional guidance from their parents (namely to avoid the mediocrity that comes from state-sponsored institutionalization). We're a long ways from this prerequisite here in the US at the moment however as many families no longer have marketable cultural inheritances to pass off to boys: no farm, no trade, no family owned business with existing customers or clients. There's an evolutionary reason why dowries persisted for millennia – real assets are required for family building. But as a society we've been living beyond our means and depending on artificial debt-growth (i.e. the Keynesian bundle of monetary fallacies) and virtual economies (i.e. bullshit jobs) arguably since the 1930s but certainly post-WWII. And here comes AI, which won't make this problem any easier.
Regardless, I applaud any millennials who have had kids and are able to function in this insane totalitarian world, holding down a job or whatever it takes to keep a roof over their head and the wolves at the door. What I don't understand are the millennials who somehow own a house and are married but don't have kids – they have no excuse, what are they thinking? I suspect it's a mix of obsessing over self-actualization (as if they were still single; "mutual singletons") and I think it was Matt Taibbi who tweeted about this (pre-Elon-X), my paraphrasing: "Imagine not having kids because you've convinced each other that climate change says no." Hilarious but probably common – it's like the inverse of an arranged marriage: they've allowed propaganda to decide for them.
Excellent talk… I agree, consensual arranged marriages have great potential.
It really puts the father in a precarious leadership position in that he has to be prayerful and set on following the scriptures for his family…. Sorely lacking in the feminized church world.
I love this idea. My sons have grown up in the worst possible environment to date women. They are....conservative! I know it's shocking. My youngest is in his mid-20's, has 2 Master's degrees and has started 2 businesses. However, he's surrounded by AWFL women. He's currently talking to someone from Ireland. That's how bad it is. You have to go out of the country to even find a person, 😆
As a Japanese woman, I of course have known many older people who had arranged marriages, some that worked out beautifully. That said, I’m not sure that would work in America, but more because among my relatives with arranged marriages, it was about two single people wanting to be in a relationship that they saw as part of the natural state of the world, so they could raise a family, go on walks together, maybe have a couple of adventures over the years, grow old together. I suspect arranged marriages in America would turn into each set of parents wanting to make sure their kid got the best deal. I say that because I see it in so many parents I know — this constant hard-eyed evaluation of whether their kid’s new boyfriend or girlfriend or even their next first date is with a person who is “good enough” or whether their kid could “do much better.” It’s a very different mindset from “We believe in happy couples who last forever, let’s try to set something up.”
One more statement. Had my kids when I was probably too young. 16 and 18. However, I graduated high school, got a Bachelor's, my kids never went to a babysitter other than my mom when I was in college (I commuted) and I never even used my degree because I wanted to stay with them. I did. Married to same person all my life. Still love him. Kids are responsible, happy, productive citizens. They were adults when I was 36. Still plenty of time for a career if you want one.
Not even reading the whole article because I’m too busy with my corporate drudgery but I can say I support a return to arranged marriage. Parents, especially fathers of daughters (me) know the pitfalls awaiting their children when they enter the modern dating pool (whatever that is). Currently dealing with an 18 year old HS senior who has bi-weekly drama with a guy she decided to date. It’s a full time job keeping her from making huge mistakes.
I agree with everything you said. The only problem for me was my immediate and extended family were (and still are) such stupid, unaware idiots that I knew from a young age the I didn't want to perpetuate the idiocy.
That's a huge oversimplification, but it is what it is.
I've been on a campaign to tell girls to marry young and then have a career later. My Mom made a million dollars in real estate after my youngest brother was in school full time. I'm 75 and still working. Children first career later!
Ding. Ding. Ding.
That's where America went off the rails, starting in the 60's. Seems self-evident to me. Particularly in the black communities. It's virtually a perfect plot on a graph between broken families and broken lives in relation to divorce (or lack of a present father)
But of course it's verboten to mention because it would expose that leftist policy failures are directly responsible for the destruction of families they claim they care about. Democrats have created an entire class of people who are dependent on the government. It also is a way for them to establish a oppressor/oppressed grievance mentality just to get votes.
Also men would be wise to remember that nobody, and I mean nobody, is going to take better care of your kids than the mother.
Have you ever read 'Losing Ground' (1984) by Charles Murray? From wiki: 'Murray's main thesis is that social welfare programs, as they have historically been implemented in the United States, tend to increase poverty rather than decrease it because they create incentives rewarding short-sighted behavior not conducive to escaping poverty in the long term.'
The hysterics the book prompted on the Left foreshadowed some of the crazier DEI tantrums of more recent years. The big takeaway is, there's a kernel of truth to the idea that whites systematically victimized people of color. But it was well-meaning white liberals in the 1960 who did that - not white slaveowners a century earlier.
a great step forward would be to pay decent wages to the men, like it used to be when I was a kid. These 'welfare' systems (even unemployment pay) make things worse indeed. and if one parent makes more than enough for the family, the other parent should be discouraged to go out to work. a program was once started in Belgium where the stay at home parent (usually the mom) would be paid somewhere near a mimimum unemployment wage. big protest of course. unpayable - impossible. later on, calculating properly, the govt confessed it would have been cheaper than all the 'help' programs (and kids would have been raised properly).
No. But I'll check it out
We went commie after WW2.
I am originally from Belgium and when I was growing up in the 60s, hardly any of the mothers worked. Those that did stopped when kids came. That is how it should be. Women should have children at a young age - most Down Syndrome children are born to older mothers, not to mention lots that have a very hard time conceiving and need 'medical help'.
Totally agree! Thank You, Yuri! Parents knows the best who is fitting to their child to build a future together! But of course the match making should never be a force! The children have the last word. This all could be done in an environment of kind neighbourhood, churches and common believes. And that is almost all gone. We must build back GOD's people societies.
Part of the puzzle. I am in favor of an all of the above approach. Yes to this. Yes to eliminating financial barriers. Yes to free range childhood. Yes to de-coupling from college and cities and all the toxicity that goes with them. Yes to traditional religion. Yes to MAHA.
Yuri, I COMPLETELY agree with you. I have made successful matches before, and have often said that if the author thing doesn't work out, I would happily be a Yenta (Jewish matchmaker). And when I can, I encourage women to start families young—the career will always be there and isn't as satisfying as raising healthy kids who are a blessing to those around them.
I thought a yenta was a woman who gossiped and talked too much with the other yentas?
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/5694282/jewish/What-Does-Yenta-Mean.htm
I absolutely love this!
Your description of desperate Asian elders at meet markets brought tears to my eyes.
I am saddened by the vanishing populations of Japan and South Korea (11 grandkids per 100 grandparents!)
I am working to instill a desire for marriage and multiple children in my daughter.
while in marriage therapy with my ex, the therapist told us he knew several very happy arranged marriages. I know first hand several couples who dated for years, but still were very unhappy. My first husband first befriended my father, but obviously, that did not help to keep us going LOL
Oh man, great speech YB. Your "3 subversive anti-natal memes" are spot on.
I totally agree that getting married young and starting a family first makes way more sense. A friend from Guatemala City did just that: starting a family while in college, has three kids, and is now focusing on her career while raising everyone up. I get the impression she envies the American childless careerist woman however, which is kind of sad but goes to show how shiny that false lure of prestige and power is. Even when someone has the most meaningful work achieved, the elusive "brass ring" of accolade bullshit is still irresistible. She's trying to catch up to her single peers, but I've told her there's nothing to prove and she's actually way ahead; deep down I think she gets it. Everyone is so drunk on meaningless career quests though, it's nuts.
Having lived in Utah for two years (2018-2020), that's more of the norm there but there's an underlying problem of what you might call "juvenescence" (no doubt part of the greater neutering subversive force that the globalists and leftists have vectorized through media and consumer brands) that delays especially boys from taking the reins of adulthood.
Said simpler, if Americans are to meaningfully marry in their 20s, young men need to become independent and professionally competent by their mid-teens, something that was common in previous early-modern centuries. Homeschooled boys often are nowadays, or those who had exceptional guidance from their parents (namely to avoid the mediocrity that comes from state-sponsored institutionalization). We're a long ways from this prerequisite here in the US at the moment however as many families no longer have marketable cultural inheritances to pass off to boys: no farm, no trade, no family owned business with existing customers or clients. There's an evolutionary reason why dowries persisted for millennia – real assets are required for family building. But as a society we've been living beyond our means and depending on artificial debt-growth (i.e. the Keynesian bundle of monetary fallacies) and virtual economies (i.e. bullshit jobs) arguably since the 1930s but certainly post-WWII. And here comes AI, which won't make this problem any easier.
Regardless, I applaud any millennials who have had kids and are able to function in this insane totalitarian world, holding down a job or whatever it takes to keep a roof over their head and the wolves at the door. What I don't understand are the millennials who somehow own a house and are married but don't have kids – they have no excuse, what are they thinking? I suspect it's a mix of obsessing over self-actualization (as if they were still single; "mutual singletons") and I think it was Matt Taibbi who tweeted about this (pre-Elon-X), my paraphrasing: "Imagine not having kids because you've convinced each other that climate change says no." Hilarious but probably common – it's like the inverse of an arranged marriage: they've allowed propaganda to decide for them.
Excellent talk… I agree, consensual arranged marriages have great potential.
It really puts the father in a precarious leadership position in that he has to be prayerful and set on following the scriptures for his family…. Sorely lacking in the feminized church world.
I love this idea. My sons have grown up in the worst possible environment to date women. They are....conservative! I know it's shocking. My youngest is in his mid-20's, has 2 Master's degrees and has started 2 businesses. However, he's surrounded by AWFL women. He's currently talking to someone from Ireland. That's how bad it is. You have to go out of the country to even find a person, 😆
He is not the first to look to more traditional cultures for a wife. Lot of guy including two cousins of mine, married women from Latin America.
"The instinctual shall inherit the earth from the institutionalized."
Perfect
As a Japanese woman, I of course have known many older people who had arranged marriages, some that worked out beautifully. That said, I’m not sure that would work in America, but more because among my relatives with arranged marriages, it was about two single people wanting to be in a relationship that they saw as part of the natural state of the world, so they could raise a family, go on walks together, maybe have a couple of adventures over the years, grow old together. I suspect arranged marriages in America would turn into each set of parents wanting to make sure their kid got the best deal. I say that because I see it in so many parents I know — this constant hard-eyed evaluation of whether their kid’s new boyfriend or girlfriend or even their next first date is with a person who is “good enough” or whether their kid could “do much better.” It’s a very different mindset from “We believe in happy couples who last forever, let’s try to set something up.”
I joke about arranging a marriage with my daughter and her godparent's son. He's not even two yet so I may change my mind on that one.
Loved the talk.
Cheers
-AMP
One more statement. Had my kids when I was probably too young. 16 and 18. However, I graduated high school, got a Bachelor's, my kids never went to a babysitter other than my mom when I was in college (I commuted) and I never even used my degree because I wanted to stay with them. I did. Married to same person all my life. Still love him. Kids are responsible, happy, productive citizens. They were adults when I was 36. Still plenty of time for a career if you want one.
Not even reading the whole article because I’m too busy with my corporate drudgery but I can say I support a return to arranged marriage. Parents, especially fathers of daughters (me) know the pitfalls awaiting their children when they enter the modern dating pool (whatever that is). Currently dealing with an 18 year old HS senior who has bi-weekly drama with a guy she decided to date. It’s a full time job keeping her from making huge mistakes.
I agree with everything you said. The only problem for me was my immediate and extended family were (and still are) such stupid, unaware idiots that I knew from a young age the I didn't want to perpetuate the idiocy.
That's a huge oversimplification, but it is what it is.