We also spend a lot of money on home care for the elderly, which enables them to live independent lives in their own houses and apartments, rather than with relatives or in institutional care. This means that we have a lot of 'single' people who aren't rejecting marriage so much as being not of an age where looking for a marriage partner is a priority. It makes these sorts of comparisons hard for the researcher.
How has the proportion of [single] unpaired men and women changed over the past say 50 to 100 years?
The most persuasive [to me] explanation for a society's decline in total fertility has been delayed marriage. In the western world there has been a progressive delay in age at first marriage from about mid 20s to early 30s since about the '80s and '90s with the reduced female fertility window seemingly resulting in smaller final family size (apparent since say 2010). Though this doesn't fit my experience.
You are suggesting the delay could be in part due to loss of social coercion towards marriage and a decline in the appeal of reproductive partnerships as a viable social institution.
This is interesting. Have you written on or linked to other drivers of the unexpected global declines in TFR we have seen over the past decade or 2?
Seems I can't edit my comment. I went back to look at the post. It seems "The big shift is not childless couples, but the rise of singles. Single adult households have shot up by 20% from 2013 to 2023." So it seems factors reducing TFR are piling one on top of another.
I have had this discussion with the author before: sweden has always had many single housholds also because old people live alone. Students dont share apartments as in UK or Germany. This was also the case when Sweden had one of Europes highest birthrates. I believe the trend but the availability of rental apartments explain Swedens demography
This line jumped out to me: "The shift reflects shifting pathways to status and social inclusion."
Anecdotally, this feels like a huge factor among educated urban elites. There is almost no status conveyed by being married, or having kids, etc. In many cases, you lose status by forming a stable family. I doubt most people are overtly thinking about that all the time, but that line really captures what I've seen first hand
Your own data points otherwise. Gender Egalitarianism rose and Fertility dropped.
Which is not an affirmation that it is a clear causal factor, however, CLEARLY, "equality" doesn't fuel fertility. To go just by the correlation shown, it might indicate the precise opposite.
"As cultural coercion fades, women increasingly seek relationships based on love, respect and affection. But in some communities, there’s a real shortage in supply. Women too may struggle to entice."
The rise in 'singles' is certainly cultural but I doubt that it is due to a decline in coercion or enticement [to pair up], at least in my western society. I'm a father of 4 (2 male, 2 female) kids in their 20's all of them unpaired and not 'romantically' involved with anyone. I see the yearning in them but rather than coercion it seems there has been a loss of mechanisms facilitating matching with a partner. Mind you, I did not pair up with my future wife until we were both well into our 30's so I dare say there is some inherited influence on behaviour there.
While "relationship-formation (is) increasingly dependent on charm, affection and enjoyment" may be true, it is still a tertiary concern to most women, coming in behind status and physical attractiveness.
I've noted you a) didn't ask the good doctor for evidence, and b) are asking for evidence for something highly subjective. Nevertheless, I asked Grok:
"When examining the factors influencing female mate choice, research and empirical evidence, combined with cultural insights, suggest several key aspects:"
(science / culture commentary for all list items omitted for brevity)
Is there something about expectations? I feel like many people enter the dating scene with a bag of expectations, a large checklist where each criterion is eliminatory. They compare their lives to an ideal image based on social media and dating apps. Everyone wants to date the top 0.01% who possess every single quality with no shortcomings, yet these people rarely marry or have children because they have too many options from social media and dating apps. The remaining 99.99% at least check one anti-box and become unqualified.
Happiness in relationships never truly comes because the fulfillment that could lead to a life with children and commitment is always overshadowed by what you could have. Being happy is not about having a lot; in some way, it's about having enough. Modern societies thrive on highlighting our shortcomings, turning every interaction into a reminder of what we supposedly lack.
To me it seems like that many yearn for an ideal and are actually not willing to put in the work and the self growth that a relationship requires as it develops. It pushes us to change and the change might be what we can afford and actually is necessary for the couple to have their relationship survive. The book “Secrets of a Passionate Marriage” by David Schnarch has been a fascinating read that I really recommend.
Your short video is the most happy and upbeat thing i have seen promoting gender equality .
Why don't most feminists use the Alice approach (here are the differences that exist, here is why, here are the things that have reduced these differences, here are the things that havent worked) and instead try to villify and shame men for not getting what they want ?
In Sweden, the _average_ age of people leaving their parental home is 17.5 years.
see https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/products-eurostat-news/-/edn-20210812-1
We also spend a lot of money on home care for the elderly, which enables them to live independent lives in their own houses and apartments, rather than with relatives or in institutional care. This means that we have a lot of 'single' people who aren't rejecting marriage so much as being not of an age where looking for a marriage partner is a priority. It makes these sorts of comparisons hard for the researcher.
Great point! So the other relevant data point is rise in singles over time
How has the proportion of [single] unpaired men and women changed over the past say 50 to 100 years?
The most persuasive [to me] explanation for a society's decline in total fertility has been delayed marriage. In the western world there has been a progressive delay in age at first marriage from about mid 20s to early 30s since about the '80s and '90s with the reduced female fertility window seemingly resulting in smaller final family size (apparent since say 2010). Though this doesn't fit my experience.
You are suggesting the delay could be in part due to loss of social coercion towards marriage and a decline in the appeal of reproductive partnerships as a viable social institution.
This is interesting. Have you written on or linked to other drivers of the unexpected global declines in TFR we have seen over the past decade or 2?
Seems I can't edit my comment. I went back to look at the post. It seems "The big shift is not childless couples, but the rise of singles. Single adult households have shot up by 20% from 2013 to 2023." So it seems factors reducing TFR are piling one on top of another.
I have had this discussion with the author before: sweden has always had many single housholds also because old people live alone. Students dont share apartments as in UK or Germany. This was also the case when Sweden had one of Europes highest birthrates. I believe the trend but the availability of rental apartments explain Swedens demography
This line jumped out to me: "The shift reflects shifting pathways to status and social inclusion."
Anecdotally, this feels like a huge factor among educated urban elites. There is almost no status conveyed by being married, or having kids, etc. In many cases, you lose status by forming a stable family. I doubt most people are overtly thinking about that all the time, but that line really captures what I've seen first hand
"Future fertility may depend on [...] equality."
Your own data points otherwise. Gender Egalitarianism rose and Fertility dropped.
Which is not an affirmation that it is a clear causal factor, however, CLEARLY, "equality" doesn't fuel fertility. To go just by the correlation shown, it might indicate the precise opposite.
Correct. The more equality, the less fertility.
Because countries enter in the double income trap: nobody can stay at home to raise kids, because they payment has been divided by 2.
"As cultural coercion fades, women increasingly seek relationships based on love, respect and affection. But in some communities, there’s a real shortage in supply. Women too may struggle to entice."
The rise in 'singles' is certainly cultural but I doubt that it is due to a decline in coercion or enticement [to pair up], at least in my western society. I'm a father of 4 (2 male, 2 female) kids in their 20's all of them unpaired and not 'romantically' involved with anyone. I see the yearning in them but rather than coercion it seems there has been a loss of mechanisms facilitating matching with a partner. Mind you, I did not pair up with my future wife until we were both well into our 30's so I dare say there is some inherited influence on behaviour there.
Being single until one’s thirties, is to me honestly such a miss out on many life pleasures and sounds depressing.
I agree. I wasn't actually single through the decade prior to forming our marriage relationship, though my wife was.
While "relationship-formation (is) increasingly dependent on charm, affection and enjoyment" may be true, it is still a tertiary concern to most women, coming in behind status and physical attractiveness.
Evidence?
I've noted you a) didn't ask the good doctor for evidence, and b) are asking for evidence for something highly subjective. Nevertheless, I asked Grok:
"When examining the factors influencing female mate choice, research and empirical evidence, combined with cultural insights, suggest several key aspects:"
(science / culture commentary for all list items omitted for brevity)
1) Physical Attractiveness
2) Socioeconomic Status and Resources
3) Personality and Behavioral Traits
4) Age and Maturity
5) Social Status and Dominance
6) Health and Fitness
7) Compatibility and Shared Values
Is there something about expectations? I feel like many people enter the dating scene with a bag of expectations, a large checklist where each criterion is eliminatory. They compare their lives to an ideal image based on social media and dating apps. Everyone wants to date the top 0.01% who possess every single quality with no shortcomings, yet these people rarely marry or have children because they have too many options from social media and dating apps. The remaining 99.99% at least check one anti-box and become unqualified.
Happiness in relationships never truly comes because the fulfillment that could lead to a life with children and commitment is always overshadowed by what you could have. Being happy is not about having a lot; in some way, it's about having enough. Modern societies thrive on highlighting our shortcomings, turning every interaction into a reminder of what we supposedly lack.
Nice post btw.
To me it seems like that many yearn for an ideal and are actually not willing to put in the work and the self growth that a relationship requires as it develops. It pushes us to change and the change might be what we can afford and actually is necessary for the couple to have their relationship survive. The book “Secrets of a Passionate Marriage” by David Schnarch has been a fascinating read that I really recommend.
Your short video is the most happy and upbeat thing i have seen promoting gender equality .
Why don't most feminists use the Alice approach (here are the differences that exist, here is why, here are the things that have reduced these differences, here are the things that havent worked) and instead try to villify and shame men for not getting what they want ?
So there would be a space for education? Learning about how to relate to modern day male/female