[dietsche]

This argument is non sequitor. If wealth inequality was the problem, couples would be forced by economics to work together to bring in more together than they could separately and to share resources like housing to reduce costs.

[lapcat]

From the article:

> many women don't marry the father of their child not because they reject the concept of marriage, but because they do not see him as a reliable source of economic security or stability.

If you think of marriage as purely a business partnership, would you go into business with someone who is unreliable?

It's better to be a sole proprietorship than have your entire business brought down by a bad partner, where both partners are liable for the bad partner's actions and decisions.

[em-bee]

the partnership started the moment they decided to have a child. so why even have a child with someone who is unreliable?

[angmarsbane]

Because women have a limited window to have children and have to work with the options available. A woman can’t put off kids indefinitely waiting for partners to stabilize financially, emotionally etc.

[em-bee]

that window is at least 20 years wide. if it's not possible to find a reliable partner in that time then the world is in a very sorry state.

i accept that it can be difficult, and that people can be blinded by love but if i already know that a person is unreliable enough that i don't want to marry them, then why have a child from them?

[lapcat]

> the partnership started the moment they decided to have a child.

Assuming they "decided".

> so why even have a child with someone who is unreliable?

Because you want a child? Sperm donor.

[FrustratedMonky]

You think this isn't happening?

The problem is now even dual incomes are not enough. So when squeezed, guess what, people get stressed and start crumbling.

[actionfromafar]

Yes, if people are perfectly spherical economic machines.