Does life imitate art? Or does art imitate life? It’s a long-standing, unending debate.
If you’re a traditional, rural person, you see weird stuff on TV before real life, so you think life imitates art.
And if you’re an urban sophisticate, you see the new, weird, controversial stuff on the streets before it makes it to TV. So you believe art imitates life.
I assumed incorrectly that “Murphy Brown” was black, and it was a show about a single black mother. Murphy Brown as a woman’s name sounds much more like a black woman than white.
Anyone have any social or institutional solutions solution’s practical or fantastic, for this debacle?
Individual solutions don’t amount to crap for a social problem of entire generations.
Individualistic boomer/Gen X solutions/memes:
“Raise your kids right.”
“Get your sons into the trades.”
“Men should start businesses.”
Berate incels and snowflakes.
“Homeschool your kids.”
“Grow a beard and start doing 5/3/1 or Starting Strength!”
“Break your kids’ cellphones.”
“Limit screen time!”
“It’s a great time to be alive. There are so many loser men that just showing up to the job or date will make you successful.”
I suspect that if systemic solutions were mentioned, even one’s just involving social pressure, we won’t get anywhere anyway, because they would be “mean to women” (as mean as not inviting a woman to a Saturday night poker club).
Or like, “we just can’t” for no other reason than “we just can’t.”
I think about this a lot, and appreciate your insight.
I’d argue that it’s like a line of dominoes, or a zipper. Not a either/or option.
Art influences ideas (books, movies, politics, ambition, community,) ideas formed influence life, and life experiences of the new people create newer art, which repeats the cycle.
Government incentives for keeping the family unit whole?
Otherwise, no not really. I can bitch and moan about how shitty my generation and gen Z are, but in reality - it just lowers the bar for what is considered a top-tier man, so I’ll take the added SMV points by virtue of lowering the common denominator.
We’ll give a single mother money and housing regardless of her being not simply unemployed but unemployable, and give her more with each kid she has. These kids are statistically likely to follow in her footsteps if they are girls or become criminals or have some other poor outcome if boys.
It would seem to make sense to give some financial incentive to intact families so one parent can stay home because for many it’s not affordable. Of course, this would be seen as socialism by some politicians even though, unlike the single mother on welfare, we would get a return on that investment.
There was a point where a woman was not considered eligible for social security (let’s just assume SS is a good thing here, even though we know it’s not) if there was a man in the house… meaning the govt literally incentivised the splitting of the family unit.
I’d say that preventing dysfunctional “families” before they start would be more effective than trying to keep them together after the fact. The government has been successful at things like lowering teen pregnancy (the government isn’t the only factor here, but they did play a part).
There are no solutions that can be achieved via government policy. Only trade-offs. This is true for nearly everything.
A good start towards getting the ship pointed in a good direction is to acknowledge this and stop voting for anyone who claims they have a “solution”.
Right, which can be done by decentivising women from being single mothers.
Force the gatekeepers of sex to be more selective by increasing the cost of them having sex.
Why?
I asked for even fantastic ideas. There is no harm in going over ideas, then scrapping them because they’re unworkable. It’s just talk and thinking, and that is required for all innovation or human renewal.
Also, as said, social norms and pressures don’t need any government involvement.
Because solutions are a myth. Trade-offs are the reality we must all live and reckon with, if we are to have something resembling a functioning republic.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t better ideas with more favorable trade-offs. I believe that there are.
Bonus points for the Sowell quote. 
They do need government to stay out, though.
The problem occurs in doing so in a way that is humane to children. Some proposals I’ve heard are pretty callous to kids of poor single mothers.
I think an obvious thing to do is to make birth control for both men and women cheap and easy to access. This isn’t inhumane for the children that are born to single mothers. Unfortunately (IMO), some states seem to be going in the wrong direction on this.
One proposal I’ve heard is not providing welfare for unwed mothers, which in turn would put children of such mothers at risk. Plausibly, the reasoning is that if there is no such welfare, would-be poor mothers will think twice about who they screw.
Opposers of this state this wouldn’t keep such women from having irresponsible sex with irresponsible men, which implies such women have no agency… but like… still have agency. They never get around to which way it is. Some speak in a way that women cannot help themselves from having sex. But with that being the case, it’s still tyrannical for male family members to intervene with who associates with their daughters and sisters and surveil them.
Which is it men?
Whichever version of this the feminists deem is more profitable for women?
Did I answer it right?
Let anyone fuck whoever they want, in anyway they want, as many times as they want, as long as each party is able to consent, and have all forms of birth crontol otc. Women shouldn’t be punished for being humans with physical wants. Shit, I’m half on board that all men should have vasectomies then reverse them when they want kids.
Pregnancies and abortion rates both drop when access to contriceptives and actual sex ed happens, instead of this self-righteous bullshit where having a child is viewed as a threat, a consequence, and then a prison sentence.
Even though I am happily married, I think the unwed mother argumeent is bullshit. People are people, and marrage is made up anyway. The only reason it exists is because divorce is an economic issue.
Let people find what makes them happy and horney, you find the same for you, and keep yourself out of other peoples relationships and decisions. If your pervert god wants to watch, that’s on them.
I agree but we as a society have basically created reverse Darwinism. We reward stupidity which breeds children who follow suit. Survival of the fittest is essentially taxed while the opposite is given resources to spawn.