Ş. Pelin Akyol and Naci H. Mocan write,
We leverage a Turkish education reform which went into effect in 1997. For political reasons, the reform was implemented very quickly and rather unexpectedly, and it increased the mandatory years of education from 5 to 8 years.
. . .In many societies around the world, the practice of consanguineous marriage is part of the fabric of culture. Nevertheless, our results reveal that the propensity to approve this practice and the propensity to be actually in a consanguineous marriage are malleable and that these tendencies are influenced by women’s educational attainment.
Study shows that recent reforms increasing female education in Turkey somewhat reduce the already low tendency for consanguineous marriage in that country, long the most highly secularized in the Middle East, thanks to Ataturk’s reforms of over 100 years ago. The study will be welcomed by progressive educationists, but I wouldn’t bet that cousin marriage in the Middle East is going away anytime soon.
Correction: Ataturk’s reforms were not quite 100 years ago; they were 1921 – 1924.
On the other hand, 30 percent of Gen Z women in the USA are claiming to be sexually uninterested in men.
Rod Dreher observes “What’s behind this is primarily cultural. We have become an anti-natalist society. And further, we have become a society that no longer values the natural family. We see everywhere disintegration. “
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/no-families-no-children-no-future-lgbt-30-percent-carle-c-zimmerman/
Maybe trade offs are involved in some of these little social engineering maneuvers.
The author misunderstands LGBT. The B stands for bisexual. We’re quite a few girls that claimed to be bi back when I was an undergrad, so many that they were referred to as BUGs, bi until graduation. Most only dated men, but wanted show willing to signal openmindedness or get more attention.
I’d be willing to bet that in 10-20 years far fewer than 30% of those women will be without children. Now, married and to what gender? That’s a good question. There seems to be an ever growing number of single mothers, so there is apparently a fair bit of interest in men, if only short lived.
Hah, hadn’t read the update. That Young lady’s experience now matches to mine from 20 odd years ago. Probably more prominent now with the religion that persecutes heretics running the asylum.
Arnold, the last sentence of the paper’s abstract say:
“These results indicate that educational attainment can alter behaviors and attitudes which may be rooted in culture.”
Reading https://solana.substack.com/p/extract-or-die
I remembered the sentence and I wonder in which schools and colleges some people learned the idiocies that altered their behavior and attitudes.
I know SF quite well, and I know how terrible some local people (including some of my relatives) are, but why and how so many idiots are involved in the city’s policymaking and management. They may be the worst among the rotten and corrupt democrats in the U.S. but most, perhaps all, attended college voluntarily. I also know Montgomery County, Md, quite well, and despite how bad their schools are (last February, I visited friends in Bethesda and Rockville and they confirmed how much schools have deteriorated in the past 25 years) I understand that local policymakers and managers have not fallen that low.
Anyway, remember what Obama said about doing business. Now his younger comrades call it “extraction”.
Much left-wing thinking seems peevishly hostile to family formation.
On the other hand, globalism, free trade and urbanization also eviscerate extended families and even nuclear families.
Free markets in agriculture result in gigantic economies of scale, and wipe out the family farmer.
Free markets do not cater to culture, family formation, neighborhoods, nations.
The US and other OECD countries should be putting far more gov’t subsidies into nuclear families of married couples who are parents of their own kids. As gov’t policy, with cash / tax credits for married couples with kids.
Even for those who don’t “need” it. Of which there are far too few.
There’s a general gov’t support problem in helping “those who need it” rather than helping “those most helpful to the country”. Of course, the latter is full of pork possibilities for every special interest.
The US society should understand that 2.1 is the right fertility number for US “sustainability”. We’re way under that now, like almost all OECD countries, tho immigration helps up the number for the US more than other countries.
Mor subsidies to more married folk with kids until we achieve 2.1. That’s the goal and the limit.
Especially feasible right now with low inflation (normal), and the ability to print money that mostly goes into rich-asset inflation like stocks and expensive Real Estate.