<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 40% of US Moms Unwed</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/07/40-of-us-moms-unwed.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/07/40-of-us-moms-unwed.html</link>
	<description>Overcoming Bias is economist Robin Hanson’s blog, on honesty, signaling, disagreement, forecasting, and the far future.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 19:46:22 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: samantha webb</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/07/40-of-us-moms-unwed.html#comment-432594</link>
		<dc:creator>samantha webb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 23:52:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=18970#comment-432594</guid>
		<description>as men you should not be able to hold yourselves to a higher standard because if you were able you would be pregnant all the time because sex is all yall think about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>as men you should not be able to hold yourselves to a higher standard because if you were able you would be pregnant all the time because sex is all yall think about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Overcoming Bias : Klyde the Barbarian</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/07/40-of-us-moms-unwed.html#comment-431584</link>
		<dc:creator>Overcoming Bias : Klyde the Barbarian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:02:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=18970#comment-431584</guid>
		<description>[...] Thus one of the main way rich societies spend their wealth is to make their genders more distinct, especially via more extremely male men.  Men in rich cultures today are probably more distinctively male than at any time in history.  This fits with what I said about the recent rise of unwed moms: [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Thus one of the main way rich societies spend their wealth is to make their genders more distinct, especially via more extremely male men.  Men in rich cultures today are probably more distinctively male than at any time in history.  This fits with what I said about the recent rise of unwed moms: [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mark</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/07/40-of-us-moms-unwed.html#comment-430361</link>
		<dc:creator>mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2009 06:26:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=18970#comment-430361</guid>
		<description>Single Mothers by Choice (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.singlemothersbychoice.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Single Mothers by Choice (<a href="http://www.singlemothersbychoice.com/" rel="nofollow">here</a>).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mark</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/07/40-of-us-moms-unwed.html#comment-430358</link>
		<dc:creator>mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2009 04:43:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=18970#comment-430358</guid>
		<description>Any man who knows anything about family law would not be at all surprised by this.

The State is the &lt;em&gt;de facto&lt;/em&gt; father to these children, hitting up some chump for child support and throwing him in jail if hedoesn&#039;t pay.

The chump could be totally unrelated to the child (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ajc.com/news/man-jailed-for-child-91830.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;) or a male teenager that was molested by an older woman, who can gain custody of a child and collect child support from her victim (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.supportguidelines.com/articles/art199903.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; for a broader background).

Oh, and if you don&#039;t pay your alimony or if you are believed to be hiding money for alimony, you can be sentenced to years in prison by a family court judge without the benefit of a jury trial, rules of evidence, or the right to confront your accuser (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09192/983301-454.stm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;).

Not a surprise that the situation has turned to where it has.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Any man who knows anything about family law would not be at all surprised by this.</p>
<p>The State is the <em>de facto</em> father to these children, hitting up some chump for child support and throwing him in jail if hedoesn&#8217;t pay.</p>
<p>The chump could be totally unrelated to the child (see <a href="http://www.ajc.com/news/man-jailed-for-child-91830.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>) or a male teenager that was molested by an older woman, who can gain custody of a child and collect child support from her victim (see <a href="http://www.supportguidelines.com/articles/art199903.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> for a broader background).</p>
<p>Oh, and if you don&#8217;t pay your alimony or if you are believed to be hiding money for alimony, you can be sentenced to years in prison by a family court judge without the benefit of a jury trial, rules of evidence, or the right to confront your accuser (see <a href="http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09192/983301-454.stm" rel="nofollow">here</a>).</p>
<p>Not a surprise that the situation has turned to where it has.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Master Dogen</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/07/40-of-us-moms-unwed.html#comment-430254</link>
		<dc:creator>Master Dogen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 20:56:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=18970#comment-430254</guid>
		<description>Oh, please. I&#039;m using that word in the general sense. Do you honestly think that&#039;s the kind of thing I am talking about? Or are you just seizing on that word to make a cute little unthinking joke?

There &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; such a thing as power dynamics in relationships. The fact that bringing this up from a male perspective instantly makes people think of cracking whips and &quot;creepiness&quot; shows how completely unacceptable it has become for men to assert their masculinity in certain circles.

I find the complete unwillingness to engage with anything approaching intellectual honesty rather disheartening. My response would be &quot;Some *snarky dudes* read economics blogs.&quot;

My argument is simple and actually rather tangential to Robin&#039;s point (which I make clear in the original post, if you take time to read it). It is this: Some men assume that to keep a relationship going, they must constantly tiptoe around on eggshells lest they disturb the queen bee; and that it doesn&#039;t have to be this way. And that many, many (in my experience &lt;em&gt;most&lt;/em&gt;) women and men are far happier in relationships where the power dynamic runs the other way, at least some of the time. 

But getting to this point takes many men out of their comfort zone, and so they daren&#039;t try, or they try in a very half-assed way that indeed comes across as creepy or just bizarre.

Robin&#039;s careful editing of my words (notice there are &lt;em&gt;four&lt;/em&gt; ellipses) is done for dramatic effect, I can only assume. And he never responded to my objection above about how he totally mischaracterized my argument.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh, please. I&#8217;m using that word in the general sense. Do you honestly think that&#8217;s the kind of thing I am talking about? Or are you just seizing on that word to make a cute little unthinking joke?</p>
<p>There <em>is</em> such a thing as power dynamics in relationships. The fact that bringing this up from a male perspective instantly makes people think of cracking whips and &#8220;creepiness&#8221; shows how completely unacceptable it has become for men to assert their masculinity in certain circles.</p>
<p>I find the complete unwillingness to engage with anything approaching intellectual honesty rather disheartening. My response would be &#8220;Some *snarky dudes* read economics blogs.&#8221;</p>
<p>My argument is simple and actually rather tangential to Robin&#8217;s point (which I make clear in the original post, if you take time to read it). It is this: Some men assume that to keep a relationship going, they must constantly tiptoe around on eggshells lest they disturb the queen bee; and that it doesn&#8217;t have to be this way. And that many, many (in my experience <em>most</em>) women and men are far happier in relationships where the power dynamic runs the other way, at least some of the time. </p>
<p>But getting to this point takes many men out of their comfort zone, and so they daren&#8217;t try, or they try in a very half-assed way that indeed comes across as creepy or just bizarre.</p>
<p>Robin&#8217;s careful editing of my words (notice there are <em>four</em> ellipses) is done for dramatic effect, I can only assume. And he never responded to my objection above about how he totally mischaracterized my argument.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amanda</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/07/40-of-us-moms-unwed.html#comment-430232</link>
		<dc:creator>Amanda</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 04:35:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=18970#comment-430232</guid>
		<description>.....You said it....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8230;..You said it&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JustMyTwoCents</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/07/40-of-us-moms-unwed.html#comment-430166</link>
		<dc:creator>JustMyTwoCents</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:03:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=18970#comment-430166</guid>
		<description>Psychohistorian says: I would be very surprised to find that there are women who actually find a man for the purpose of getting knocked up and then actively dismiss him from their lives once this has happened, as opposed to trying to keep him around and failing.

I am dating a woman right now who wants to get pregnant and had went to a bluegrass festival to get pregnant and then raise the child herself. She also had a best friend offer her significant other as a source of sperm if she wanted a child. She didn&#039;t, she says, because she felt her financial situation wouldn&#039;t allow it. She doesn&#039;t have a problem with the idea at all. 

She also approached me with a similar proposition, that I would be a minority stake parent with little say or responsibility in the parenting but contribute financially. 

She is a graduate degree holder, teaches at a university, and nearing forty years of age. This is not quite what Psychohistorian said, an &quot;active dismissal&quot; but it is decently close. I offer this anecdote for whatever value it might hold.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Psychohistorian says: I would be very surprised to find that there are women who actually find a man for the purpose of getting knocked up and then actively dismiss him from their lives once this has happened, as opposed to trying to keep him around and failing.</p>
<p>I am dating a woman right now who wants to get pregnant and had went to a bluegrass festival to get pregnant and then raise the child herself. She also had a best friend offer her significant other as a source of sperm if she wanted a child. She didn&#8217;t, she says, because she felt her financial situation wouldn&#8217;t allow it. She doesn&#8217;t have a problem with the idea at all. </p>
<p>She also approached me with a similar proposition, that I would be a minority stake parent with little say or responsibility in the parenting but contribute financially. </p>
<p>She is a graduate degree holder, teaches at a university, and nearing forty years of age. This is not quite what Psychohistorian said, an &#8220;active dismissal&#8221; but it is decently close. I offer this anecdote for whatever value it might hold.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: perianwyr</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/07/40-of-us-moms-unwed.html#comment-430163</link>
		<dc:creator>perianwyr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:58:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=18970#comment-430163</guid>
		<description>Some *creepy dudes* read economics blogs.

&lt;blockquote&gt;This, of course, is the constant position of a supplicant. &lt;/blockquote&gt;

YOU HAVE COME TO A WORLD CALLED GOR *whipcrack*</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Some *creepy dudes* read economics blogs.</p>
<blockquote><p>This, of course, is the constant position of a supplicant. </p></blockquote>
<p>YOU HAVE COME TO A WORLD CALLED GOR *whipcrack*</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Recent Reading: Aggression, Retaliation, Memories, Stories, Attraction, Identity, Social Norms, Neural Avalanches &#171; Beyond Rivalry</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/07/40-of-us-moms-unwed.html#comment-430160</link>
		<dc:creator>Recent Reading: Aggression, Retaliation, Memories, Stories, Attraction, Identity, Social Norms, Neural Avalanches &#171; Beyond Rivalry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:43:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=18970#comment-430160</guid>
		<description>[...] Another one from Overcoming Bias: 40% of U.S. Moms Unwed. What&#8217;s interesting here isn&#8217;t the mere statistic (whose validity and expression is [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Another one from Overcoming Bias: 40% of U.S. Moms Unwed. What&#8217;s interesting here isn&#8217;t the mere statistic (whose validity and expression is [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ba feed &#187; America vs. Japan: Where Is It Better for Kids?, by Bryan Caplan</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/07/40-of-us-moms-unwed.html#comment-430135</link>
		<dc:creator>ba feed &#187; America vs. Japan: Where Is It Better for Kids?, by Bryan Caplan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:49:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=18970#comment-430135</guid>
		<description>[...] America vs. Japan: Where Is It Better for Kids?, by Bryan Caplan  In the U.S., 40% of babies are now born out of wedlock.&#160; In Japan, only 2% are.&#160; Clearly, then, it&#039;s better to be a baby in Japan than America, right?&#160; For all my skepticism about nurture effects, I&#039;m tempted to agree.&#160; I wouldn&#039;t want my kids to grow up without two married parents, even if their childhood memories were the only measurable long-run effect.Nevertheless, I have no doubt that the lives of kids born out of wedlock are worth living.&#160; It might be nicer to grow up in a traditional family, but can you imagine someone saying, &quot;My parents weren&#039;t married, &#039;twould be better never to have been born&quot;?Now consider: The U.S. has a much higher total fertility rate than Japan.&#160; The U.S. is roughly at replacement: 2.1 kids per woman.&#160;&#160; Japan, in contrast, is way down at 1.3.&#160; This means, amazingly, that American and Japanese moms give birth to almost exactly the same average number of in-wedlock babies: 1.26 versus 1.27.&#160; The difference: American moms then go on to have an additional .84 babies out of wedlock, versus only .03 for Japanese moms.In what sense, then, are kids better off in Japan than the U.S.?&#160; Arithmetically speaking, Japan&#039;s accomplishment isn&#039;t to give more babies a traditional, two-parent home.&#160; Its &quot;accomplishment,&quot; rather, is simply not having babies any other way.&#160; If the U.S. became like Japan, it wouldn&#039;t mean that all the kids now born out of wedlock had two married parents to raise them.&#160; It would mean, rather, than the kids now born out of wedlock wouldn&#039;t exist at all.I hope my sons will eventually marry and give me grandchildren.&#160; Still, I would much rather they have children out of wedlock than remain childless.&#160; (And yes, I&#039;d feel the same way if I had daughters).&#160; Why not look at countries the same way?HT: Robin [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] America vs. Japan: Where Is It Better for Kids?, by Bryan Caplan  In the U.S., 40% of babies are now born out of wedlock.&nbsp; In Japan, only 2% are.&nbsp; Clearly, then, it&#8217;s better to be a baby in Japan than America, right?&nbsp; For all my skepticism about nurture effects, I&#8217;m tempted to agree.&nbsp; I wouldn&#8217;t want my kids to grow up without two married parents, even if their childhood memories were the only measurable long-run effect.Nevertheless, I have no doubt that the lives of kids born out of wedlock are worth living.&nbsp; It might be nicer to grow up in a traditional family, but can you imagine someone saying, &#8220;My parents weren&#8217;t married, &#8216;twould be better never to have been born&#8221;?Now consider: The U.S. has a much higher total fertility rate than Japan.&nbsp; The U.S. is roughly at replacement: 2.1 kids per woman.&nbsp;&nbsp; Japan, in contrast, is way down at 1.3.&nbsp; This means, amazingly, that American and Japanese moms give birth to almost exactly the same average number of in-wedlock babies: 1.26 versus 1.27.&nbsp; The difference: American moms then go on to have an additional .84 babies out of wedlock, versus only .03 for Japanese moms.In what sense, then, are kids better off in Japan than the U.S.?&nbsp; Arithmetically speaking, Japan&#8217;s accomplishment isn&#8217;t to give more babies a traditional, two-parent home.&nbsp; Its &#8220;accomplishment,&#8221; rather, is simply not having babies any other way.&nbsp; If the U.S. became like Japan, it wouldn&#8217;t mean that all the kids now born out of wedlock had two married parents to raise them.&nbsp; It would mean, rather, than the kids now born out of wedlock wouldn&#8217;t exist at all.I hope my sons will eventually marry and give me grandchildren.&nbsp; Still, I would much rather they have children out of wedlock than remain childless.&nbsp; (And yes, I&#8217;d feel the same way if I had daughters).&nbsp; Why not look at countries the same way?HT: Robin [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
