> How do they undermine the norm? They don't do this on purpose they are also just humans.
I read a book [1] that argued the upper middle class follows very traditional values (two-parent families, marrying before having children, having at least one adult working 40 hours a week) but doesn't really advocate for those traditional values.
People in the upper middle class will praise the bravery of single mothers and say there's nothing to be ashamed of - but when it comes time to have children of their own, rarely choose that for themselves.
It's not entirely hypocritical, of course; just because I think gays have nothing to be ashamed of, doesn't mean I have to become gay myself!
Changing the meaning of words (i.e, reducing stigma) never works. It's a practice used by authoritarians to get what they want fast because it's cheap and relatively easy.
I'm curious what the GP was told that makes them think the alternative to endorsing single motherhood is worse. The alternative to reducing stigma would be fixing the underlying issues that cause the stigma...in this case the lack of ability for a single parent to provide. We have plenty of resources to fix this, but they're disproportionately distributed in favor of those at the top. Funny enough, both the left and right at the top have solutions different than what I described. The left wants to destigmatize, and the right wants to shame (another cheap and relatively easy tactic used by authoritarians).
There is a stigma in pushing stable values. In a very real sense, it’s created by a media environment that eschews non-progressive (it’s not liberal - at least in the USA) family structures.
Let’s face it, Homer Simpson is the face of traditional American family structures.
> Homer Simpson is the face of traditional American family structures.
The life available to Homer Simpson included a skilled job that he could obtain without a college degree (and also while being an idiot). He was able to purchase a four bedroom home in the community he grew up in and provide for his wife and three children on that one income.
That was the norm, now it's practically gone. The lack of accessible economic opportunity, housing, and childcare are major barriers to having kids. If the same opportunities were available to my generation as they were to Homer Simpson's, this article wouldn't exist.
No one I know is delaying or avoiding a family because "the media" didn't show them how to start a "non-prgressive" one.
I don’t think you should blindly trust everything you see on TV. I doubt being able to afford a 4 bedroom while working in a low skilled job was ever the norm (even without being an idiot).
In any case Homer was an engineer in a nuclear power plant, while he was probably quite underpaid, his income should had still been relatively decent.
When I was in my twenties, I thought having a family before you were in your thirties meant you were kinda dumb. That’s what people who didn’t have ambitions did.
Fast forward to now and it is one of my very few regrets. I have three kids, but wish I would have started in my twenties and prioritized family more.
When I was in my twenties, the homer Simpsons of the world were idiots. In my thirties, they were the ones who got it right.
It makes sense upper middle class wouldn't advocate for traditional values. They instead put up barriers to join the upper middle class. The book "Dream Hoarders" captures this well (restrictive zoning, parents helping finding internships, etc) [0]. If the playbook was available to everyone, then it would make maintaining your own position in the hierarchy all the more difficult. One thing the upper middle class fears the most is losing their position in society: the class provides solid income, but it isn't enough wealth to prevent being wiped out by a health incident or a bad investment.
I'm paraphrasing, but Charlie Munger [1] recently said that our economic system depends on agony to get ahead.
> what makes capitalism work is the fact that if you’re an able-bodied young person and you refuse to work, you suffer a fair amount of agony. It’s because of that agony that the whole economic system work.
Most people follow the conservative values, being "normal" is easiest. Its a matter of tolerance to other ideas or situation.
Some either utterly rejects things that don't conform, or just wish to hide and shame them.
Other people feel tolerance to differences is a good idea. And some people go full circle and want to shame anyone who doesn't completely identifies with the different ideas.
I read a book [1] that argued the upper middle class follows very traditional values (two-parent families, marrying before having children, having at least one adult working 40 hours a week) but doesn't really advocate for those traditional values.
People in the upper middle class will praise the bravery of single mothers and say there's nothing to be ashamed of - but when it comes time to have children of their own, rarely choose that for themselves.
It's not entirely hypocritical, of course; just because I think gays have nothing to be ashamed of, doesn't mean I have to become gay myself!
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coming_Apart_(book)