"In family questions, inasmuch as men were understood to be so strongly motivated by property, an older wisdom tried to attach concern for the family to that motive: the man was allowed and encouraged to regard his family as his property, so he would care for the former as he would instinctively care for the latter.
This was effective, although it obviously had disadvantages from the point of view of justice. When wives and children come to the husband and father and say, "We are not your property; we are ends in ourselves and demand to be treated as such," the anonymous observer cannot help being impressed.
But the difficulty comes when wives and children further demand that the man continue to care for them as before, just when they are giving an example of caring for themselves. They object to the father's flawed motive and ask that it be miraculously replaced by a pure one, of which they wish to make use for their own ends. The father will almost inevitably constrict his quest for property, cease being a father and become a mere man again, rather than turning into a providential God, as others ask him to be.
What is so intolerable about the Republic, as Plato shows, is the demand that men give up their land, their money, their wives, their children, for the sake of the public good, their concern for which had previously been buttressed by these lower attachments. The hope is to have a happy city made up entirely of unhappy men. Similar demands are made today in an age of slack morality and self-indulgence. Plato taught that, however laudable justice may be, one cannot expect prodigies of virtue from ordinary people. Better a real city tainted by selfish motives than one that cannot exist, except in speech, and that promotes real tyranny."
Allan Bloom "The Closing of the American Mind" (1987)
Agreed, but the delivery system guiding young people to received wisdom has broken down. One young person said she didn't want a religious wedding even though she grew up Catholic because of the sex scandals. I pointed out every institution and profession has scandals. Unfortunately, the emotional commitment to institutions and to some sort of authority is gone. Now we have ignorant children making life changing decisions based on specious, fanciful and self indulgent ideas. I think maybe there might something being re-created, as evidenced by the popularity of Jordan Peterson, but I find it hard to believe YouTube is going to replace religion, and authority in families.
Instead of accepting a horrible situation causing clear damage, perhaps help the pendulum to swing back to traditional, conservative ideals, which, as per all of the science (not a God thing) actually DOES make people happy.
" First, people don’t need persuading. Most survey evidence says that marriage is still the ideal for most people in terms of raising children. Second, the American working class does not seem to me to be very receptive mood for lectures from liberal elites about how they should be living their lives."
I think people dont need persuading about the ideal, but they do need persuading in terms of changing there priorities. I'd also note that I don't think any elites working class folks listen to are promoting marriage. I am blessed to come from and be related to folks who strongly value marriage, but outside of the Catholic church and ex-prez Obama, I cannot think of a single institution or public figure I like or respect who has made an affirmative pitch for marriage.
Part of the reason for folks not wanting to listen to liberal elites is because they do not practice what they preach, but at least this is something I'd imagine most elites are consistent on in terms of there actual lives.
I read these debates and wonder where my kids fall, statistically-speaking. Their dad and I have been divorced since 2010. Our kids did not grow up (the whole time) in a household w both biological parents. They DID consistently, always, still have 2 involved biological parents. (Plus they also now have step parents who play important roles as well). Do survey & statisticians count them as children who grew up with 2 involved parents? Or as children of a "broken" or "not intact" family? These differences don't really matter to me or my kids -- we're all doing fine -- but they matter for research and policy discussions.
Also relevant: "Intact" family does not equal "healthy" family and, in my opinion, should be retired and replaced. There is no magic to living in a house w a biological father and biological mother if there is abuse, for instance, but the research and policy discussions tend to assume that "intact" families are best. That is not always the case.
Your central theme is well argued. But I question your assumptions on a couple of points.
You stress that kids do better with engaged Dads, but imply that where Dads aren't engaged it's because they choose to be "deadbeat Dads". I've worked in the area & found deadbeats to be vanishingly rare. Rather, the impediments to fathers' involvement are huge. I strongly agree with you that fathers have a moral obligation to be the best fathers that they can. But I'd add that, as a society, we owe it to the children to aid that process rather than fight it.
This point is particularly topical here in Australia because the government is currently moving to create new hurdles for fathers' involvement after divorce: https://bettinaarndt.substack.com/p/winner-takes-all
It *is* harder for men to be good dads when they are unmarried. Part of what makes a dad a good dad is a kind of steadiness, which is undermined by not being able to make and keep a promise of fidelity.
"Perhaps it’s better to think of a man’s vows not as a shackle but as an anchor, an anchor that attaches him to something solid so he does not drift off into callow dissolution. [...] The proper use of vows of fidelity is to bind oneself to particular loves: committing to love another person not only with a general charitable disposition but with the specificity of deliberately weaving your lives together. We are finite beings, and there are infinite things in the universe worthy of affection, attention, and care. Instead of trying to embrace, say, every woman in the world (the approach of Zeus and other mythical men on the make), the husband embraces the world in the person of one woman."
So, we let women behave badly and once again clean up the mess. Good message. Because, of course, women cant be expected to be accountable, or responsible ;)
Having sex without protection without being married and planning for being responsible to raise a child. Women with high body counts leading to reduced ability to pair bond, (not an opinion, read the science) and creating a reputation that would dissuade any quality man from committing.
When you say "we let women behave" badly, I think you mean society tolerates it. However, there is a growing chorus articulating what quality men expect. As long as women can hit the bad boy and settle down with the beta provider, they'll have no incentive to change. We need to tell young men what they should expect in terms of a high quality woman. If enough young men express their desire for women with low body counts, then women will change in order to secure commitment with a high quality man.
I don’t know if Reeves is right or wrong in stating that programs to encourage marriage don’t work. But, I think there is an important difference between creating programs to encourage marriage and society actively doing things to discourage it. Example, perhaps feminist institutions and academics shouldn’t get a pass on labeling marriage as patriarchal or oppressive to women or from actively encouraging women to believe they would be happier without a husband.
Fascinating to see how many arguing against spilled milk - fatherhood is fast on its way to being an institution independent of marriage. That is a statistical fact. The proverbial cow has left the barn. Is it ideal? No. Traditional? No. Are two parent households better? Almost always. Have we found a reliable way to promote marriage in a democracy? No. So what do we do in a less than ideal situation? We encourage & support men in positive parental engagement anyway. Not for them but for their kids. Stigmatizing unmarried Dad’s doesn’t make them get married it just makes them less engaged with their kids.
This is woke wishful thinking. Family structure and process is fundamental in determining the behavioral outcomes of children, especially boys. The data on chronic juvenile delinquency is especially striking: boys from two-parent biological parents are much less likely to be involved in serious, especially violent, delinquency. Goes back to basic sociology and the findings of Emile Durkheim. Two sets of eyes and ears (two parents) have more control over children. Family structure is also becoming a key variable in a huge class divide: married couples much more likely to have stable lives and high earnings compared to those who are not. Finally, unmarried men live shorter lives than married men. Like the juvenile justice system, the healthcare system relies on "family care" much more than people realize.
>> Dads have a moral obligation to care for their kids. <<
So do women, who has absolute control over human reproduction, have any responsibility to choose dads willing and able to care for the offspring?
Do women have a moral obligation to make place for the weaker parent role? The role as father *is* weaker and thus needs more backing and societal support.
I appreciate the intention of the author, but I think the conclusion and analysis is incorrect.
If you want to make the case that marriage as a legal document via the state is necessary for cohabitating adults to raise their offspring, then fine.
What is not acceptable is coparenting by adults that do not cohabitate and do not provide a loving environment in which their children live as a family.
There are valid reasons for this happening, and no one should be shamed per se, but let us not delude ourselves as a culture into believing that “broken home” coparenting, however, cooperative it might be by the parents, is equitable to cohabitating families.
Honestly, I don't think this is the realism you say it is.
Morality has always been one of the weakest forces in human life. It is always context influenced and the context of reproduction varies greatly. That is why the religious try to create to same context for sex (marriage), so that the same moral form can be applied.
An effective relationship between a father and child grows not from morality but from the circumstances of the child's birth, locality, economic pressures on the parents, the attitude of new partners, the relationship with the mother, the circumstances and history of the father's own life, including his experience of being parented; to sum up, everything that has made the mother, the father and the child what they are. These pressures may pull in different directions. Leaving the locality for work may help with maintenance but damages the personal relationship. So really I don't know if this article helps. It suggests that good fatherhood is in the hands of the father but that may well not be the case. A better approach is to bring out the complexity. At least this promotes understanding and not a blame game.
Make marriage law actually fair to where women cannot financially hold men hostage.
My mother brow beat my dad for decades saying she would divorce him if he didn't buy her a new house, get the back yard done, get a new car, even though it was outside of the family budget, legitimately.
People should negotiate their own marriage laws.
This is why cohabitation agreements are better, you can divide the labor however you both want to.
Stop treating men like slaves.
Oh! And stop cutting up their penises, too!
Men don't even have rights over their cocks!
And the draft, what an insult.
Mutilate his genitals and reserve the right to force him into war!
America! Liberty and freedom!
Lol, what a joke.
We're not your slaves.
Women have more freedom and rights over their own vaginas, at least.
The court systems and society in general is misandrist.
Women can commit paternity fraud and men will still be forced to pay child support even after it is found out the child is not his!
Shouldn't women be treated as equal adults instead of using men in this gross way?
I'm not your human shaped ATM machine.
Personally, my finances are excellent, and I don't need or want anyone to have control over my investments/portfolio.
I'm open to a commitment ceremony with cohabitation agreement and an NDA, like many celebrities use.
Protect yourself, negotiate.
Mostly only very wealthy and successful men will do this because they've frankly earned it.
I recommend it to all.
Never get into a contract with someone that is financially rewarded for breaking it.
That is the stupidest move to make. No one conducts business this way, but people then conduct love this way? Foolishness.
I think there should be a consequence for committing paternity fraud. How about 18 years of paying the accused man a comparable amount of the child support?
In some countries the woman has to pay the man back everything that he paid her. I think this, and perhaps a fine of some amount on top of this for committing the fraud would be good.
I don't want to be too light or too severe.
But there should be some penalty.
Most child support goes to the state to reimburse welfare! And it earns interest if left unpaid, even while in jail if the man goes to jail for non payment of child support or for some other reason...then it is harder to find a job because of this...and some jobs charge youa fee for having to prepare the garnishment of the wage!
I used to work for the child support department in a county in California! It was terrible.
And Kanye West is paying like $200,000 a month to Kim in child support?
What a joke, what child needs that much? The state wants reimbursement so they mooch off of men, they use children as the excuse.
Also, a lot of this child support money is backdoor mommy support.
How these funds are spent are NOT tracked at all!
They should educate the youth in middle school, etc. About child support! But they don't.
Why? To gain more money! More customers!
My supervisors called them customers and said that our goal is to collect more and more child support, loema business!
Wouldn't that mean more broken families and children out of wedlock, I asked? Lol, I got silence.
They dont educate boys while young about child support laws about paternity fraud etc because they want them to get caught. It's usually lower income boys, too, they enslave them.
My supervisor said it's not in the budget to go out and teach kids about this.
I have recorded all training material and video recorded my supervisor telling me not to tell men to get paternity tests. I have proof.
This is a really tough issue and I thank you for bringing nuance to it.
My kids are in the minority that they are growing up/will grow up with their bio parents wed to each other.
There are many structural issues around marriage and I think that making being a parent easier and less of an economic catastrophy would help create better dad/child relationships.
But, conservative states are doing everything they can to make parenting MORE burdensome. They want it both ways. A 50s era (that never existed) and obedient women who do all the work at home while bearing children...and for all the services that women provide outside the house to also exist. It does not work that way.
That was a genuine question but hey, great interpersonal skills. I’m sure your substack will have wonderful success in persuading people to your point of view.
I think blue states (i.e., states controlled by Democrats) are more likely to favor mothers in custody disputes. That means men are less likely to have meaningful time with their kids. That's a huge disincentive for men to get married in those states.
"In family questions, inasmuch as men were understood to be so strongly motivated by property, an older wisdom tried to attach concern for the family to that motive: the man was allowed and encouraged to regard his family as his property, so he would care for the former as he would instinctively care for the latter.
This was effective, although it obviously had disadvantages from the point of view of justice. When wives and children come to the husband and father and say, "We are not your property; we are ends in ourselves and demand to be treated as such," the anonymous observer cannot help being impressed.
But the difficulty comes when wives and children further demand that the man continue to care for them as before, just when they are giving an example of caring for themselves. They object to the father's flawed motive and ask that it be miraculously replaced by a pure one, of which they wish to make use for their own ends. The father will almost inevitably constrict his quest for property, cease being a father and become a mere man again, rather than turning into a providential God, as others ask him to be.
What is so intolerable about the Republic, as Plato shows, is the demand that men give up their land, their money, their wives, their children, for the sake of the public good, their concern for which had previously been buttressed by these lower attachments. The hope is to have a happy city made up entirely of unhappy men. Similar demands are made today in an age of slack morality and self-indulgence. Plato taught that, however laudable justice may be, one cannot expect prodigies of virtue from ordinary people. Better a real city tainted by selfish motives than one that cannot exist, except in speech, and that promotes real tyranny."
Allan Bloom "The Closing of the American Mind" (1987)
Agreed, but the delivery system guiding young people to received wisdom has broken down. One young person said she didn't want a religious wedding even though she grew up Catholic because of the sex scandals. I pointed out every institution and profession has scandals. Unfortunately, the emotional commitment to institutions and to some sort of authority is gone. Now we have ignorant children making life changing decisions based on specious, fanciful and self indulgent ideas. I think maybe there might something being re-created, as evidenced by the popularity of Jordan Peterson, but I find it hard to believe YouTube is going to replace religion, and authority in families.
Instead of accepting a horrible situation causing clear damage, perhaps help the pendulum to swing back to traditional, conservative ideals, which, as per all of the science (not a God thing) actually DOES make people happy.
" First, people don’t need persuading. Most survey evidence says that marriage is still the ideal for most people in terms of raising children. Second, the American working class does not seem to me to be very receptive mood for lectures from liberal elites about how they should be living their lives."
I think people dont need persuading about the ideal, but they do need persuading in terms of changing there priorities. I'd also note that I don't think any elites working class folks listen to are promoting marriage. I am blessed to come from and be related to folks who strongly value marriage, but outside of the Catholic church and ex-prez Obama, I cannot think of a single institution or public figure I like or respect who has made an affirmative pitch for marriage.
Part of the reason for folks not wanting to listen to liberal elites is because they do not practice what they preach, but at least this is something I'd imagine most elites are consistent on in terms of there actual lives.
I read these debates and wonder where my kids fall, statistically-speaking. Their dad and I have been divorced since 2010. Our kids did not grow up (the whole time) in a household w both biological parents. They DID consistently, always, still have 2 involved biological parents. (Plus they also now have step parents who play important roles as well). Do survey & statisticians count them as children who grew up with 2 involved parents? Or as children of a "broken" or "not intact" family? These differences don't really matter to me or my kids -- we're all doing fine -- but they matter for research and policy discussions.
Also relevant: "Intact" family does not equal "healthy" family and, in my opinion, should be retired and replaced. There is no magic to living in a house w a biological father and biological mother if there is abuse, for instance, but the research and policy discussions tend to assume that "intact" families are best. That is not always the case.
Your central theme is well argued. But I question your assumptions on a couple of points.
You stress that kids do better with engaged Dads, but imply that where Dads aren't engaged it's because they choose to be "deadbeat Dads". I've worked in the area & found deadbeats to be vanishingly rare. Rather, the impediments to fathers' involvement are huge. I strongly agree with you that fathers have a moral obligation to be the best fathers that they can. But I'd add that, as a society, we owe it to the children to aid that process rather than fight it.
This point is particularly topical here in Australia because the government is currently moving to create new hurdles for fathers' involvement after divorce: https://bettinaarndt.substack.com/p/winner-takes-all
It *is* harder for men to be good dads when they are unmarried. Part of what makes a dad a good dad is a kind of steadiness, which is undermined by not being able to make and keep a promise of fidelity.
My husband wrote for Plough on this theme: https://www.plough.com/en/topics/culture/holidays/fathers-day/men-of-fidelity
"Perhaps it’s better to think of a man’s vows not as a shackle but as an anchor, an anchor that attaches him to something solid so he does not drift off into callow dissolution. [...] The proper use of vows of fidelity is to bind oneself to particular loves: committing to love another person not only with a general charitable disposition but with the specificity of deliberately weaving your lives together. We are finite beings, and there are infinite things in the universe worthy of affection, attention, and care. Instead of trying to embrace, say, every woman in the world (the approach of Zeus and other mythical men on the make), the husband embraces the world in the person of one woman."
So, we let women behave badly and once again clean up the mess. Good message. Because, of course, women cant be expected to be accountable, or responsible ;)
Just curious, what do you mean when you say we let women "behave badly"?
Having sex without protection without being married and planning for being responsible to raise a child. Women with high body counts leading to reduced ability to pair bond, (not an opinion, read the science) and creating a reputation that would dissuade any quality man from committing.
When you say "we let women behave" badly, I think you mean society tolerates it. However, there is a growing chorus articulating what quality men expect. As long as women can hit the bad boy and settle down with the beta provider, they'll have no incentive to change. We need to tell young men what they should expect in terms of a high quality woman. If enough young men express their desire for women with low body counts, then women will change in order to secure commitment with a high quality man.
I don’t know if Reeves is right or wrong in stating that programs to encourage marriage don’t work. But, I think there is an important difference between creating programs to encourage marriage and society actively doing things to discourage it. Example, perhaps feminist institutions and academics shouldn’t get a pass on labeling marriage as patriarchal or oppressive to women or from actively encouraging women to believe they would be happier without a husband.
Fascinating to see how many arguing against spilled milk - fatherhood is fast on its way to being an institution independent of marriage. That is a statistical fact. The proverbial cow has left the barn. Is it ideal? No. Traditional? No. Are two parent households better? Almost always. Have we found a reliable way to promote marriage in a democracy? No. So what do we do in a less than ideal situation? We encourage & support men in positive parental engagement anyway. Not for them but for their kids. Stigmatizing unmarried Dad’s doesn’t make them get married it just makes them less engaged with their kids.
This is woke wishful thinking. Family structure and process is fundamental in determining the behavioral outcomes of children, especially boys. The data on chronic juvenile delinquency is especially striking: boys from two-parent biological parents are much less likely to be involved in serious, especially violent, delinquency. Goes back to basic sociology and the findings of Emile Durkheim. Two sets of eyes and ears (two parents) have more control over children. Family structure is also becoming a key variable in a huge class divide: married couples much more likely to have stable lives and high earnings compared to those who are not. Finally, unmarried men live shorter lives than married men. Like the juvenile justice system, the healthcare system relies on "family care" much more than people realize.
>> Dads have a moral obligation to care for their kids. <<
So do women, who has absolute control over human reproduction, have any responsibility to choose dads willing and able to care for the offspring?
Do women have a moral obligation to make place for the weaker parent role? The role as father *is* weaker and thus needs more backing and societal support.
I appreciate the intention of the author, but I think the conclusion and analysis is incorrect.
If you want to make the case that marriage as a legal document via the state is necessary for cohabitating adults to raise their offspring, then fine.
What is not acceptable is coparenting by adults that do not cohabitate and do not provide a loving environment in which their children live as a family.
There are valid reasons for this happening, and no one should be shamed per se, but let us not delude ourselves as a culture into believing that “broken home” coparenting, however, cooperative it might be by the parents, is equitable to cohabitating families.
Honestly, I don't think this is the realism you say it is.
Morality has always been one of the weakest forces in human life. It is always context influenced and the context of reproduction varies greatly. That is why the religious try to create to same context for sex (marriage), so that the same moral form can be applied.
An effective relationship between a father and child grows not from morality but from the circumstances of the child's birth, locality, economic pressures on the parents, the attitude of new partners, the relationship with the mother, the circumstances and history of the father's own life, including his experience of being parented; to sum up, everything that has made the mother, the father and the child what they are. These pressures may pull in different directions. Leaving the locality for work may help with maintenance but damages the personal relationship. So really I don't know if this article helps. It suggests that good fatherhood is in the hands of the father but that may well not be the case. A better approach is to bring out the complexity. At least this promotes understanding and not a blame game.
Make marriage law actually fair to where women cannot financially hold men hostage.
My mother brow beat my dad for decades saying she would divorce him if he didn't buy her a new house, get the back yard done, get a new car, even though it was outside of the family budget, legitimately.
People should negotiate their own marriage laws.
This is why cohabitation agreements are better, you can divide the labor however you both want to.
Stop treating men like slaves.
Oh! And stop cutting up their penises, too!
Men don't even have rights over their cocks!
And the draft, what an insult.
Mutilate his genitals and reserve the right to force him into war!
America! Liberty and freedom!
Lol, what a joke.
We're not your slaves.
Women have more freedom and rights over their own vaginas, at least.
The court systems and society in general is misandrist.
Women can commit paternity fraud and men will still be forced to pay child support even after it is found out the child is not his!
Shouldn't women be treated as equal adults instead of using men in this gross way?
I'm not your human shaped ATM machine.
Personally, my finances are excellent, and I don't need or want anyone to have control over my investments/portfolio.
I'm open to a commitment ceremony with cohabitation agreement and an NDA, like many celebrities use.
Protect yourself, negotiate.
Mostly only very wealthy and successful men will do this because they've frankly earned it.
I recommend it to all.
Never get into a contract with someone that is financially rewarded for breaking it.
That is the stupidest move to make. No one conducts business this way, but people then conduct love this way? Foolishness.
Links below.
1. https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/
2. https://intactamerica.org/
3. https://www.foregen.org/
4. https://www.circumcisionisafraud.com/
5. https://kindredmedia.org/2023/02/adverse-childhood-experiences-dysfunctional-households-and-circumcision/
6. https://www.littleimages.org/circumcision-is-unchristian/
7. https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/9v6tqj/a_list_about_feminism_misandry_for_anyone_who/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
8. https://irenelyon.com/healing-trauma-freeresources/
9. https://irenelyon.com/
10. https://fiamengofile.substack.com/
11. https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGFFi6pRCnCdQTe1iG3Tw4Td9jvhY2w74
12. https://endtodv.org/
13. http://empathygap.uk/
14. https://gynocentrism.com/
15. https://avoiceformen.com/
16. https://ncfm.org/
17. http://timgoldich.com/
I think there should be a consequence for committing paternity fraud. How about 18 years of paying the accused man a comparable amount of the child support?
In some countries the woman has to pay the man back everything that he paid her. I think this, and perhaps a fine of some amount on top of this for committing the fraud would be good.
I don't want to be too light or too severe.
But there should be some penalty.
Most child support goes to the state to reimburse welfare! And it earns interest if left unpaid, even while in jail if the man goes to jail for non payment of child support or for some other reason...then it is harder to find a job because of this...and some jobs charge youa fee for having to prepare the garnishment of the wage!
I used to work for the child support department in a county in California! It was terrible.
And Kanye West is paying like $200,000 a month to Kim in child support?
What a joke, what child needs that much? The state wants reimbursement so they mooch off of men, they use children as the excuse.
Also, a lot of this child support money is backdoor mommy support.
How these funds are spent are NOT tracked at all!
They should educate the youth in middle school, etc. About child support! But they don't.
Why? To gain more money! More customers!
My supervisors called them customers and said that our goal is to collect more and more child support, loema business!
Wouldn't that mean more broken families and children out of wedlock, I asked? Lol, I got silence.
They dont educate boys while young about child support laws about paternity fraud etc because they want them to get caught. It's usually lower income boys, too, they enslave them.
My supervisor said it's not in the budget to go out and teach kids about this.
I have recorded all training material and video recorded my supervisor telling me not to tell men to get paternity tests. I have proof.
It's disgusting rubbish.
For more info I recommend this group:
https://womenagainstpaternityfraud.org/
Please excuse the typos, I bet there are a ton, as I hastily wrote this all out on smartphone. Apologies.
May The Wind Be At Your Back.
This is a really tough issue and I thank you for bringing nuance to it.
My kids are in the minority that they are growing up/will grow up with their bio parents wed to each other.
There are many structural issues around marriage and I think that making being a parent easier and less of an economic catastrophy would help create better dad/child relationships.
But, conservative states are doing everything they can to make parenting MORE burdensome. They want it both ways. A 50s era (that never existed) and obedient women who do all the work at home while bearing children...and for all the services that women provide outside the house to also exist. It does not work that way.
What are conservative states doing to make it more burdensome to parent?
LMGTFY
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=what+are+red+states+doing+to+make+it+harder+to+parent+
That was a genuine question but hey, great interpersonal skills. I’m sure your substack will have wonderful success in persuading people to your point of view.
It absolutely did not come across as a genuine question. It is progressivly more difficult to raise kids in red states because of the hostility to
- various kinds of family structures
- failure to expand ACA health insurance provisions
- abysmal tax structures that make the poor poorer
I could go on, but the point remains. Conservative states are actively hostile to familes, to parents and to children.
I think blue states (i.e., states controlled by Democrats) are more likely to favor mothers in custody disputes. That means men are less likely to have meaningful time with their kids. That's a huge disincentive for men to get married in those states.