I agree, the article puts really heavy emphasis on the nuclear family which I find questionable.
Long term cohabitation is dismissed because it is not marriage.
The idea that historically people (especially women) where UNHAPPILY stuck together because of societal norms is dismissed.
Attributing the cause of the decline of marriage and all the negative effects to the pill strikes me a especially strange. The alternative of forcing people into a family they didn't want because of an unexpected pregnancy doesn't seem better for people's mental well-being.
While they are brought up, the article seems to downplay the decline of the community institutions like the church as you mention. It also seems to downplay economic forces like 24 hour work culture and stagnating wages.
I think there's some truth and good ideas in the article, but I find some of the choices strange.
Long term cohabitation is dismissed because it is not marriage.
The idea that historically people (especially women) where UNHAPPILY stuck together because of societal norms is dismissed.
Attributing the cause of the decline of marriage and all the negative effects to the pill strikes me a especially strange. The alternative of forcing people into a family they didn't want because of an unexpected pregnancy doesn't seem better for people's mental well-being.
While they are brought up, the article seems to downplay the decline of the community institutions like the church as you mention. It also seems to downplay economic forces like 24 hour work culture and stagnating wages.
I think there's some truth and good ideas in the article, but I find some of the choices strange.