In the New York Times, on February 9, 2023, journalist Michal Liebowitz draws a fascinating parallel between the mutual identification of twins and that of spouses. After briefly recollecting her youthful impatience for adult couples who used the royal “we” – we liked that show; we love that restaurant – Liebowitz explains how her husband’s relationship with his twin brother taught her to accept a certain level of boundary porosity in her marriage. Contrasting the idea of the “pure relationship” with a “past vision of romance,” Liebowitz concludes that “surrendering one’s ‘I’ for the sake of the ‘we'” is the best antidote to the sickness of modern individualism.

A poll released on Wednesday (1/25/2023) by Pew Research Center found that 90% of parents “prioritize financial stability and job satisfaction” over marriage and family for their children. While not so surprising itself, it’s the finding that 30% of mothers and fathers responded that being a parent is the most important part of their identity, while 57% said that it’s one of the most important parts of their identity which makes one scratch their head. Why is it, as Time Magazine notes, that parents, who ostensibly feel parenthood is the most meaningful aspect of their lives, would rank other goods like financial stability and job satisfaction as more important for their children?

Anyone who has planned a wedding over the past decade knows how expensive it is. Between rising inflation, ever-expanding guest lists, family pressure, and a wedding industry which preys on social media perfectionism, cost-conscious couples are choosing to cohabitate, despite evidence that marriage confers greater financial benefits over time. While many couples believe that getting married before settling into a career, buying a car, or buying a house will set them back financially, it’s statistically more likely that not getting married will adversely affect their earning power and overall stability. Even more important than accepting marriage as a calculated risk with future financial benefits is welcoming the commitment that marriage brings. Weddings should not be an impediment to this, but an ushering-in of a unique, lifelong commitment between in which two learn to become one in light of their wedding vows, with the help of family and friends.

The U.S. Senate invoked cloture on the Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA), split 62-37, with 60 votes needed to end the filibuster and pass the bill. RFMA is set to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed by Congress in 1996, which defined marriage on the federal level as the union of man and woman and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages conferred by other states – though parts of DOMA had been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges, resulting in the requirement of all states to recognize same-sex marriage. If RFMA passes, as it is likely to do given yesterday’s Senate vote, states will be compelled to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states even if the Supreme Court were to overturn Obergefell and restore states’ authority to refuse marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Read on to learn how the bill’s passage could affect individuals and families.

Capita, a think tank dedicated to the flourishing of families and young children in particular, has written recently on what to expect from Gen Z as they become parents in light of contemporary sociocultural realities. In a presentation geared toward institutions and businesses titled “Are You Gen Z Ready?,” CEO Joe Waters and Openfields Senior Consultant Meghan Chaney anticipate how common characteristics of Gen Z (social justice-oriented digital natives) will inform their future consumption and expectations. Given Capita’s primary objective is to equip institutions to respond to the needs of parents and children, they also speak to how burgeoning demographic shifts will significantly alter the level of social support, available resources, and political clout Gen Z parents can bring to the table over the next twenty years.

It is not good for us to be alone, a small study in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry found among a group of 100 older adults. Measuring how one’s social life influences one’s sense of purpose in life, the researchers asked participants to rate their social interactions three times per day. At the end of each day, they were to evaluate how these interactions contributed to a sense of purpose. Expectedly, the experience of more positive interactions during the day made participants feel a greater sense of purpose by nightfall. The leader of the study, Gabrielle Pfund, noted that while most sense-of-purpose research focuses on a person’s overall orientation toward purpose or non-purpose, her team found that “everyone [experienced] fluctuations relative to their own averages.” Based on previous research, the study team believes that daily positive social interactions enhancing one’s “sense of purpose” provide cognitive and physical health benefits for older adults.

Many are expressing their fear and anger following the decision to reverse Roe v. Wade. University students have been particularly vocal about their distrust of the Supreme Court, their anger at institutions for upholding “patriarchy,” and their worries about the fate of same-sex marriage and contraception. The reactions shared through op-eds and open letters point to a very valid fear on the part of young people that the reversal of Roe v. Wade will not just spell the end of a right to abortion, but also stifle women’s engagement in public life. Some reactions, however, have taken a performative turn – red capes and white bonnets in the style of the dystopian novel The Handmaid’s Tale, red paint splashed across women’s lower halves to represent their allegiance to abortion, verbal violence as well as physical hurled at anyone supportive of the decision. Though we’ve seen tactics like these employed by “woke” factions before, the extremity of these reactions warrant a closer look. 

The New York Times’ Elaine Blair recently lauded a children’s sex education trilogy written by Cory Silverberg, a sex educator and the owner of a “sex-positive sex shop” in Toronto, Canada. Silverberg, the son of a sex therapist who self-identifies as a “queer person” and uses “they” pronouns, claims he is “skeptical” of sex positivity. “For some people sex is great, for some people it’s terrible, for some people it means nothing…I want to phrase things in a way that leaves all those possibilities open.” Though Silverberg professes that he does not want to contribute to any “normative pressures” surrounding sex, it’s hard to imagine that he could do so even if he tried. But if the new normative pressure is precisely to lack of behavioral norms for the sake of inclusion, this spells disaster for children, who need clear and simple boundaries to thrive. At stake is not only the health of their future selves, friendships, and courtships, but the lives of future generations adrift in moral confusion.