What do you think?
Rate this book
Family Unfriendly: A Critical Examination of Overparenting and Its Consequences
The bestselling author of Alienated America traveled the country asking families and experts the same why is parenting so much harder even though the kids are less happy than than a generation ago?
Parenting seems harder these days, and Millennials and Generation Z don’t seem up for it. Why? It’s easy to blame cost or selfishness, but kids have long been an economic drag, and adults have always been selfish. The question What’s changed? The answer is culture. Our culture is less friendly to parenting that it used to be, and should be.
When we were kids, no one was watching us every moment. That was a good it meant our parents felt confident in the society around us.
That was the past. Today, the mode of parenting is about hypercontrol. Kids must constantly be cosseted, entertained, trained, scheduled, and catechized as little activists and influencers. Timothy P. Carney argues that we need to lighten up and return to the virtues of old-fashioned parenting. We need to give kids space to both fail and succeed, to have adventures and gain unexpected knowledge and enjoy unscheduled time.
This means escaping the travel-team trap, abandoning helicopter parenting, strengthening communities, changing the workplace, and ultimately restoring the belief that humans—adults, kids, and babies—are good.
It’s no wonder birth rates have dropped, and that our kids are suffering unprecedented anxiety and depression. Our culture sets unreasonable standards for parents, diminishes the value of family, and makes us feel bad for existing.
Drawing on rigorous research—both as a reporter and as a dad of six—Carney demonstrates why modern parenting is so misguided. The high standards set for modern American parenting are unrealistic and setting parents—and our kids—up to fail.
Parenting seems harder these days, and Millennials and Generation Z don’t seem up for it. Why? It’s easy to blame cost or selfishness, but kids have long been an economic drag, and adults have always been selfish. The question What’s changed? The answer is culture. Our culture is less friendly to parenting that it used to be, and should be.
When we were kids, no one was watching us every moment. That was a good it meant our parents felt confident in the society around us.
That was the past. Today, the mode of parenting is about hypercontrol. Kids must constantly be cosseted, entertained, trained, scheduled, and catechized as little activists and influencers. Timothy P. Carney argues that we need to lighten up and return to the virtues of old-fashioned parenting. We need to give kids space to both fail and succeed, to have adventures and gain unexpected knowledge and enjoy unscheduled time.
This means escaping the travel-team trap, abandoning helicopter parenting, strengthening communities, changing the workplace, and ultimately restoring the belief that humans—adults, kids, and babies—are good.
It’s no wonder birth rates have dropped, and that our kids are suffering unprecedented anxiety and depression. Our culture sets unreasonable standards for parents, diminishes the value of family, and makes us feel bad for existing.
Drawing on rigorous research—both as a reporter and as a dad of six—Carney demonstrates why modern parenting is so misguided. The high standards set for modern American parenting are unrealistic and setting parents—and our kids—up to fail.
363 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 19, 2024
140 people are currently reading
2483 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 154 reviews
April 3, 2024
Let’s make one thing very clear this is not a parenting book in any way. To me, this book is is a lengthy rant about how today’s women are choosing not to have babies. It comes across as fear mongering that the human population is going to extinct because today’s women have more options than they ever did before.
As background, the author is a very religious. white privileged, male living in the suburbs with a stay at home wife of six kids.
His arguments initially seemed sound. Yes this country is not family friendly. City streets are not designed for children to go out and explore independently, there are no more third places, kid-friendly hang out spots. That’s why you see so many tweens hanging out at Ulta now, but as the book went on, it became increasingly obvious that his entire goal with this book is to say that more women need to stop taking birth control, to stop having choices in their lives and to be stay at home moms and have more babies.
His arguments went around in circles. In one of his early chapters he talked at length at how businesses can be more family friendly to be a better environment so that families can feel like they can balance work and home life. Later in the book, he talks at length about companies with family, friendly policies, and how they are ineffective and therefore one parent, the mother, should stay home with the child and that should be status quo for every single family.
Here is a list of all the things that he DID NOT discuss:
1. Race, racial inequality, racism, racial violence perpetrated by the police on significant populations.
2. Gun violence and school shootings. The fact that today’s child-bearing adults grew up through an onslaught of mass shootings would be a major deterrent to wanting to put future generations through the same psychological traumas.
3. Domestic violence.
4. Postpartum depression.
5. The mental physical and emotional toll pregnancy takes on the female body. Add to that the stats on miscarriages, or ectopic pregnancies, or surrogacies.
6. Health insurance and medical care. (Or the lack there of)
7. LGBTQ relationships. (ALL relationships or discussion of relationships are between men & women in this book. ALL)
8. The rising rates of infertility in men & women. A recent Pew study indicated that 1 in 6 people has fertility issues. That’s a huge percentage!
9. Developmental and other disabilities and the lack of resources to help parents find the care they need for their family.
As background, the author is a very religious. white privileged, male living in the suburbs with a stay at home wife of six kids.
His arguments initially seemed sound. Yes this country is not family friendly. City streets are not designed for children to go out and explore independently, there are no more third places, kid-friendly hang out spots. That’s why you see so many tweens hanging out at Ulta now, but as the book went on, it became increasingly obvious that his entire goal with this book is to say that more women need to stop taking birth control, to stop having choices in their lives and to be stay at home moms and have more babies.
His arguments went around in circles. In one of his early chapters he talked at length at how businesses can be more family friendly to be a better environment so that families can feel like they can balance work and home life. Later in the book, he talks at length about companies with family, friendly policies, and how they are ineffective and therefore one parent, the mother, should stay home with the child and that should be status quo for every single family.
Here is a list of all the things that he DID NOT discuss:
1. Race, racial inequality, racism, racial violence perpetrated by the police on significant populations.
2. Gun violence and school shootings. The fact that today’s child-bearing adults grew up through an onslaught of mass shootings would be a major deterrent to wanting to put future generations through the same psychological traumas.
3. Domestic violence.
4. Postpartum depression.
5. The mental physical and emotional toll pregnancy takes on the female body. Add to that the stats on miscarriages, or ectopic pregnancies, or surrogacies.
6. Health insurance and medical care. (Or the lack there of)
7. LGBTQ relationships. (ALL relationships or discussion of relationships are between men & women in this book. ALL)
8. The rising rates of infertility in men & women. A recent Pew study indicated that 1 in 6 people has fertility issues. That’s a huge percentage!
9. Developmental and other disabilities and the lack of resources to help parents find the care they need for their family.
June 4, 2024
I’m not the target audience for this book: I was a dyed-in-the-wool childfree by choice woman who then in my late thirties considered being a “one and done” parent; then a parent of two after hearing Dr. Jordan Peterson’s talk about how raising two kids is easier than one. However, this change of heart may stem from a medical diagnosis. My perspective is altered knowing that I can’t have a healthy pregnancy even if I wanted to. However, I can be an ally and helpful community member to families who are taking on the important task of raising children and I read this book for advice on how I can help.
I agree with Mr. Carney on many points. Parenting is hard no matter what. I agree with him that parenting with help from other family members, neighbors, other moms and dads, and community members make for more well-rounded individuals. My next door neighbors have three children under 10 years of age. I’ve witnessed from talking with them and living next door to them that their family and church friends are a great asset to their kids’ development. Their middle son and our great nephew are one month apart in age and when we have our little guy I invite their kids over for a playdate if they are at home.
Carney has some pie-in-sky ideals about government and workplace policy changes that could help our larger families but I don’t see those kind of grand changes happening in our country any time soon. Changing tax laws and suggesting employers grant stipends for example to encourage people to have more kids does not seem feasible.
I think for me the most interesting parts of the book were the data about the generational differences in family planning between Generation X (my generation), Millennials, and Gen Z. The birth rate is trending downward in the United States. Carney argues that people considering having kids should not fear the future (economy, climate change) or think that the world is doomed and therefore it’s better to not burden young humans with the problems we are experiencing now nor in the foreseeable future. I’m not fully convinced of his argument—I think there are legitimate concerns that couples should discuss regarding these broader issues.
I appreciated Mr. Carney sharing his Catholic faith in the text but some readers may not care for his measured religious gestures.
His wife Katie sounds like a rock star—parenting six kids, deftly managing their household; and in her spare time looking for opportunities to help others via babysitting, making meals, chauffeuring, etc. I was exhausted just reading about all of the work and activities she does. I wish I could be more like her!
Maybe my mommy panging’s are a little pie-in-the-sky. I enjoyed this topic and am inspired in new ways to reach out and help families (large and small) who are raising kiddos.
I agree with Mr. Carney on many points. Parenting is hard no matter what. I agree with him that parenting with help from other family members, neighbors, other moms and dads, and community members make for more well-rounded individuals. My next door neighbors have three children under 10 years of age. I’ve witnessed from talking with them and living next door to them that their family and church friends are a great asset to their kids’ development. Their middle son and our great nephew are one month apart in age and when we have our little guy I invite their kids over for a playdate if they are at home.
Carney has some pie-in-sky ideals about government and workplace policy changes that could help our larger families but I don’t see those kind of grand changes happening in our country any time soon. Changing tax laws and suggesting employers grant stipends for example to encourage people to have more kids does not seem feasible.
I think for me the most interesting parts of the book were the data about the generational differences in family planning between Generation X (my generation), Millennials, and Gen Z. The birth rate is trending downward in the United States. Carney argues that people considering having kids should not fear the future (economy, climate change) or think that the world is doomed and therefore it’s better to not burden young humans with the problems we are experiencing now nor in the foreseeable future. I’m not fully convinced of his argument—I think there are legitimate concerns that couples should discuss regarding these broader issues.
I appreciated Mr. Carney sharing his Catholic faith in the text but some readers may not care for his measured religious gestures.
His wife Katie sounds like a rock star—parenting six kids, deftly managing their household; and in her spare time looking for opportunities to help others via babysitting, making meals, chauffeuring, etc. I was exhausted just reading about all of the work and activities she does. I wish I could be more like her!
Maybe my mommy panging’s are a little pie-in-the-sky. I enjoyed this topic and am inspired in new ways to reach out and help families (large and small) who are raising kiddos.
May 13, 2024
I was introduced to Carney’s work by an episode of the podcast “Just Asking Questions” prior to the book’s release. As a new parent, I was obviously interested in the topic.
“Family Unfriendly” dives into the aspects of modern culture that makes parenting hard, from obscure government policies, city planning, and the expectations we put on ourselves. After discussing the parts of modern life that make parenting seem impossible, Carney tells his story of how we got to the current moment. Mixed in with all of this are interviews, statistics, and analysis that explore fertility rates and parenthood across different western cultures.
Fundamental to the book are the studies that suggest that women are not having any many kids as they want. This book focuses on mitigating the issues stopping families from reaching their ideal size due to things outside of their control (government policies, cultural pressure).
While there were elements of Carney’s analysis and proposals I disagreed with, I felt that he has overall captured the moment in parenting. New parents are expected to do and be everything: seeking perfection for themselves and their kids, all with less community support than any previous generation. The messaging in today’s culture is that anything else is failure. Carney was able to make his case without falling into old tropes of parenthood and gender stereotypes, but rather presented a thoughtful analysis on the culture around parenting.
I would highly recommend this book.
“Family Unfriendly” dives into the aspects of modern culture that makes parenting hard, from obscure government policies, city planning, and the expectations we put on ourselves. After discussing the parts of modern life that make parenting seem impossible, Carney tells his story of how we got to the current moment. Mixed in with all of this are interviews, statistics, and analysis that explore fertility rates and parenthood across different western cultures.
Fundamental to the book are the studies that suggest that women are not having any many kids as they want. This book focuses on mitigating the issues stopping families from reaching their ideal size due to things outside of their control (government policies, cultural pressure).
While there were elements of Carney’s analysis and proposals I disagreed with, I felt that he has overall captured the moment in parenting. New parents are expected to do and be everything: seeking perfection for themselves and their kids, all with less community support than any previous generation. The messaging in today’s culture is that anything else is failure. Carney was able to make his case without falling into old tropes of parenthood and gender stereotypes, but rather presented a thoughtful analysis on the culture around parenting.
I would highly recommend this book.
dnf
March 31, 2024DNF about halfway through. I liked the beginning and found myself nodding along when he talks about things like a car-reliant society, the obsession with elite youth sports, lack of parental leave in the US, the difficulty of "free ranging" children, etc.
But the tone shifts about halfway through to a more religious viewpoint.
Let's just start with this: It is not women's responsibility to repopulate the earth.
I have two children, but I completely understand why people would choose not to have them. Parenthood isn't easy or cheap. People who birth children do not magically become wonderful parents. Not everyone is up for parenthood, and that is absolutely okay.
Despite the author's attempts to convince me that the "baby bust" is a bad thing, the earth is entirely TOO CROWDED with too many humans. It is not sustainable. I see the "baby bust" as a great thing. Perhaps our poor, beleaguered earth can breathe for awhile.
I was hoping to see more discussion of the real reasons people aren't having children:
--it's incredibly expensive
--healthcare in the US is a disaster
--as a Texas-certified teacher, I can tell you from 18 years of experience in US public and international private schools that education in the US is a disaster
--daycare is expensive and often poor-quality
--the burden of childcare and keeping the house still falls largely on women
--pregnancy and labor/childbirth are very hard on women's bodies. It can cause significant physical and mental health problems, not to mention the death of the mother.
--postpartum depression
--paid parental leave is not guaranteed, and is frequently not offered at all
--violence - from school shootings to war, today's kids are not inheriting a nice place to live
He also has zero discussion of LGBT families, Black families, Latine families, Asian families, indigenous families, or any of the discrimination they encounter while trying to raise healthy, happy children.
Not sure about that statement? Read Broken by Jessica Pryce, and you'll see a few examples of institutional racism as it pertains to families of color.
And poverty! Poverty is a huge part of the problem! How can people feed children when they can barely afford to feed themselves?
This book starts out with some compelling arguments. It lost me at the religious argument and the lack of discussion of multiple important and valid reasons why people today are choosing not to have children. These reasons go far beyond elite youth sports and cars.
But the tone shifts about halfway through to a more religious viewpoint.
Let's just start with this: It is not women's responsibility to repopulate the earth.
I have two children, but I completely understand why people would choose not to have them. Parenthood isn't easy or cheap. People who birth children do not magically become wonderful parents. Not everyone is up for parenthood, and that is absolutely okay.
Despite the author's attempts to convince me that the "baby bust" is a bad thing, the earth is entirely TOO CROWDED with too many humans. It is not sustainable. I see the "baby bust" as a great thing. Perhaps our poor, beleaguered earth can breathe for awhile.
I was hoping to see more discussion of the real reasons people aren't having children:
--it's incredibly expensive
--healthcare in the US is a disaster
--as a Texas-certified teacher, I can tell you from 18 years of experience in US public and international private schools that education in the US is a disaster
--daycare is expensive and often poor-quality
--the burden of childcare and keeping the house still falls largely on women
--pregnancy and labor/childbirth are very hard on women's bodies. It can cause significant physical and mental health problems, not to mention the death of the mother.
--postpartum depression
--paid parental leave is not guaranteed, and is frequently not offered at all
--violence - from school shootings to war, today's kids are not inheriting a nice place to live
He also has zero discussion of LGBT families, Black families, Latine families, Asian families, indigenous families, or any of the discrimination they encounter while trying to raise healthy, happy children.
Not sure about that statement? Read Broken by Jessica Pryce, and you'll see a few examples of institutional racism as it pertains to families of color.
And poverty! Poverty is a huge part of the problem! How can people feed children when they can barely afford to feed themselves?
This book starts out with some compelling arguments. It lost me at the religious argument and the lack of discussion of multiple important and valid reasons why people today are choosing not to have children. These reasons go far beyond elite youth sports and cars.
April 25, 2024
One of the best books I've read this year. If you enjoyed Bryan Caplan's _Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids_, or Lenore Skenazy's _Free Range Kids_, you'll find a lot to like in this book as well. But Carney goes well beyond a mere rearticulation of the arguments made in those books.
Timothy Carney sets out a powerful argument that American culture and institutions are failing our families. We're not having as many kids as we should have - or need to have, if we care about our future. And the reason we're not having them is that we've simply made it too hard on ourselves. Our culture promotes a version of helicopter parenting that requires parents to be constantly involved in their children's lives, protecting them from unreal dangers and wasting too much time doing everything we can to give them an "edge" in a competition for material success that actually undermines their long-term emotional well-being. Meanwhile, our cities are designed in a way that makes raising kids hard, and our culture of "workism" means that parenting often takes a backseat to spending more time at the office.
If you care about the future of families - which is to say, if you care about the future of *humanity* - then _Family Unfriendly_ is an absolute must-read. A thoughtful, passionate, and often quite profound book that will challenge the assumptions of liberals and conservatives alike. Very highly recommended!
Timothy Carney sets out a powerful argument that American culture and institutions are failing our families. We're not having as many kids as we should have - or need to have, if we care about our future. And the reason we're not having them is that we've simply made it too hard on ourselves. Our culture promotes a version of helicopter parenting that requires parents to be constantly involved in their children's lives, protecting them from unreal dangers and wasting too much time doing everything we can to give them an "edge" in a competition for material success that actually undermines their long-term emotional well-being. Meanwhile, our cities are designed in a way that makes raising kids hard, and our culture of "workism" means that parenting often takes a backseat to spending more time at the office.
If you care about the future of families - which is to say, if you care about the future of *humanity* - then _Family Unfriendly_ is an absolute must-read. A thoughtful, passionate, and often quite profound book that will challenge the assumptions of liberals and conservatives alike. Very highly recommended!
December 23, 2024
As they say, full review here:
https://lifeconsidered.substack.com/p...
https://lifeconsidered.substack.com/p...
April 10, 2024
Overall, a thought-provoking, well-researched read. It's refreshing to hear a conservative voice consider policies that aim to help families, especially mothers, thrive. I appreciate his acknowledgment that the cost of parenting is not just in dollars, but also in time and support. I found his diagnosis of the problems with contemporary dating culture quite sharp and accurate. I also applaud him when he says that men "need to be better," to be more supportive of women, and to prioritize family over work. I agree that productivity culture and workism is a major part of the problems he identifies.
However, sometimes he comes across as a guy pontificating to friends at a bar, making sweeping generalizations, downplaying real concerns in a dismissive way, and in so doing, perhaps unintentionally alienating portions of his audience. It's kind of funny that, although he advocates against helicopter parenting, insisting that parents' jobs aren't to make the world completely safe for their children, he does in fact argue that we should build more communal safe spaces where children can roam freely, subject to the watchful gaze of multiple people within the community. I get where he's coming from with that, and certainly, there are parents who go overboard with safety, but he seems unaware of the often terrifying reality that parents of special needs children face. Urging parents to "los[e] your kids from time to time" may sound generally harmless to some, but it's a very real nightmare to special needs parents. I just didn't like the dismissive tone and un-nuanced take.
I also object to the use of the term "full-time mother" (a term used at least once in the book, referring to a mother who does not work for pay). (I listened to the audiobook, so I'm not sure if it was his term or someone he quoted, to be fair.) Listen, all mothers are full-time mothers, and sometimes a mother mothers by providing for her children via working a job that requires her to be outside the immediate proximity of said children. So let's retire that term, "full-time mother." Also, he is too quick to dismiss women's concerns about the difficulty of trying to return to the workforce after stepping out to raise children. His focus on the upper-middle class makes a number of his statements out of touch with the daily experiences of middle-class and poor families.
Finally, while I think intergenerational living is a beautiful thing, he gets a little too idealistic in his proposal that that would solve the very real childcare crisis (which is again something he downplays offhand--it is so expensive, dude! And many of us can't afford to stay at home if we wanted to!). Carney suggests at one point that intergenerational support, vis a vis grandparents and aunts caring for children, would allow families to pursue careers and avoid the sometimes prohibitive cost of childcare. In theory, it sounds like a lovely idea. I myself am grateful that my grandparents and aunts (and uncles) were able to care for me when I wasn't at daycare or school. However, I caution against using family as a bandaid for a major problem--that is the rising cost of quality childcare. In his enthusiasm to identify solutions for parents, he neglected to consider the impact such a proposal would have on those caregivers (who in his book seemed to be primarily women: stay-at-home moms and aunts, specifically). Asking family to provide care is not a bad thing, and caregiving is noble in itself. But in seeking a solution to a family problem, don't create more family problems. He doesn't seem to realize how that model could exploit other members of the family--because yes, single women, aunts, grandparents are also human beings and members of a family and worthy of reciprocal care, and should be reimbursed for their services, whether monetarily or in some other form. Family members should not be used for another's gain, but mutually supported. Why not pay them? And why not pay the stay at home moms, too? Why not pay all caregivers? I wanted him to go further.
However, sometimes he comes across as a guy pontificating to friends at a bar, making sweeping generalizations, downplaying real concerns in a dismissive way, and in so doing, perhaps unintentionally alienating portions of his audience. It's kind of funny that, although he advocates against helicopter parenting, insisting that parents' jobs aren't to make the world completely safe for their children, he does in fact argue that we should build more communal safe spaces where children can roam freely, subject to the watchful gaze of multiple people within the community. I get where he's coming from with that, and certainly, there are parents who go overboard with safety, but he seems unaware of the often terrifying reality that parents of special needs children face. Urging parents to "los[e] your kids from time to time" may sound generally harmless to some, but it's a very real nightmare to special needs parents. I just didn't like the dismissive tone and un-nuanced take.
I also object to the use of the term "full-time mother" (a term used at least once in the book, referring to a mother who does not work for pay). (I listened to the audiobook, so I'm not sure if it was his term or someone he quoted, to be fair.) Listen, all mothers are full-time mothers, and sometimes a mother mothers by providing for her children via working a job that requires her to be outside the immediate proximity of said children. So let's retire that term, "full-time mother." Also, he is too quick to dismiss women's concerns about the difficulty of trying to return to the workforce after stepping out to raise children. His focus on the upper-middle class makes a number of his statements out of touch with the daily experiences of middle-class and poor families.
Finally, while I think intergenerational living is a beautiful thing, he gets a little too idealistic in his proposal that that would solve the very real childcare crisis (which is again something he downplays offhand--it is so expensive, dude! And many of us can't afford to stay at home if we wanted to!). Carney suggests at one point that intergenerational support, vis a vis grandparents and aunts caring for children, would allow families to pursue careers and avoid the sometimes prohibitive cost of childcare. In theory, it sounds like a lovely idea. I myself am grateful that my grandparents and aunts (and uncles) were able to care for me when I wasn't at daycare or school. However, I caution against using family as a bandaid for a major problem--that is the rising cost of quality childcare. In his enthusiasm to identify solutions for parents, he neglected to consider the impact such a proposal would have on those caregivers (who in his book seemed to be primarily women: stay-at-home moms and aunts, specifically). Asking family to provide care is not a bad thing, and caregiving is noble in itself. But in seeking a solution to a family problem, don't create more family problems. He doesn't seem to realize how that model could exploit other members of the family--because yes, single women, aunts, grandparents are also human beings and members of a family and worthy of reciprocal care, and should be reimbursed for their services, whether monetarily or in some other form. Family members should not be used for another's gain, but mutually supported. Why not pay them? And why not pay the stay at home moms, too? Why not pay all caregivers? I wanted him to go further.
November 1, 2024
I think it's a good practice to read opposing viewpoints, but to be honest I didn't realize this was a book by a conservative think tank employee when I picked it up at the library.
I was drawn in by the argument that over commitment to kids activities and car centric communities were making parenting harder. I was disappointed to find this isn't really a book about what makes parenting hard in the US as much as it is an investigation into falling birth rates. That investigation hinges on blaming "the culture" and walking a fine line between arguing local communities and churches need to subsidize families but that a welfare state surely wouldn't help.
Carney picks some interesting points but often fails to connect them leaving arguments feeling incomplete and at times disingenuous. For example he praises BYU for having a family forward culture that encourages marriage and child rearing during college. However, he also argues in a separate chapter that the student loan debt of millennials isn't actually the reason they aren't having kids. Both could be true, but it's worth mentioning BYU is heavily subsidized by the LDS church so these college kids don't have anywhere close to the debt of the average college student.
Carney also has a section blaming mom influencers for setting impossible parenting standards centered on consumption. He does not dig into the fact that a disproportionately large percentage of these mom influencers are Mormons whose family friendly culture he was just praising.
I was drawn in by the argument that over commitment to kids activities and car centric communities were making parenting harder. I was disappointed to find this isn't really a book about what makes parenting hard in the US as much as it is an investigation into falling birth rates. That investigation hinges on blaming "the culture" and walking a fine line between arguing local communities and churches need to subsidize families but that a welfare state surely wouldn't help.
Carney picks some interesting points but often fails to connect them leaving arguments feeling incomplete and at times disingenuous. For example he praises BYU for having a family forward culture that encourages marriage and child rearing during college. However, he also argues in a separate chapter that the student loan debt of millennials isn't actually the reason they aren't having kids. Both could be true, but it's worth mentioning BYU is heavily subsidized by the LDS church so these college kids don't have anywhere close to the debt of the average college student.
Carney also has a section blaming mom influencers for setting impossible parenting standards centered on consumption. He does not dig into the fact that a disproportionately large percentage of these mom influencers are Mormons whose family friendly culture he was just praising.
June 4, 2024
Carney, author of Alienated America and former mainstay guest of Left, Right, and Center, providea a comprehensive assessment of the inputs on family formation and operation. He pairs specialist interviews and representative profiles, including much of his own experiences, with high-level data snapshots from relevant sociology. Carney's approach isn't formalized or completely academic but still gives scientific-minded readers something to hang on to. There are also some mildly polemical aspects of the book that will ruffle some feathers, especially those with strong Progressive beliefs or even libertarian/classically liberal ones. However, Carney is pretty careful distinguishing between what his pro-family vision is versus what data say about family trends.
There are some limitations to this approach given that the nuclear family has been such a deeply entrenched institution and there are so many reciprocal determinants and effects. It's hard to evaluate family structure in a straightforward way. This is a challenge with many sociological variables though so I don't think it's reasonable to hold against the claims.
The book's animating question is one that is increasingly on the minds of sociopolitical commentators: why has parenting become increasingly challenging? There are relevant correlations too. Why has children's happiness declined compared to previous generations? Why have families gotten smaller?
In Carney's view, one that echoes memes in our increasingly online discourse, parenting appears more daunting to young prospective parents. Additionally, it seems that these Millennials and Generation Z are less equipped to handle this increased challenge . The reasons, as hinted above, are complex, involving material and cultural factors.
While financial hurdles and personal ambitions are often cited, Carney acknowledges that children have always been costly, and self-interest is likely not dramatically different across generations (though psychologists like Jean Twenge have argued just that). If we accept that these common narratives are marginal, what has actually shifted? For Carney and many other thoughtful conservatives, the answer lies in the culture. Today's societal norms are less supportive of parenting than they once were and the social enforcement mechanisms that encouraged family formation and stability have withered. Reflecting on childhood's recent past (Gen X and old Millennials), we recall a time of less surveillance and greater communal obligation and connection. Essentially, markers of local and global social trust have careened down a steep declivity.
Modern parenting is distinctly more Hobbessian, characterized by an intense focus on supervision and development. Children are expected to be constantly nurtured, amused, educated, organized, and indoctrinated into roles of mini-activists, influencers, and workers. Carney suggests a return to the essence of traditional parenting. It's essential to provide children with the freedom to experience both setbacks and triumphs, to embark on adventures, acquire serendipitous wisdom, and relish in unstructured moments.
This entails breaking free from the constraints of competitive youth sports, moving away from overprotective parenting, fortifying community bonds, transforming the workplace, and, most importantly, reaffirming our conviction in the inherent goodness of people, regardless of age.
Carney also focuses on the decline in birth rates and the apparent rise in anxiety and depression among youth. He essentially accepts Jon Haidt's narrative on this front, which is that a mixture of overbearing parenting and smartphone mediated socialization is stunting the development of mental defense against depression and anomie. However, Carney is less concerned with intervention against technology and more interested in reworking culture so that family life is pre-eminent. This reworking would includes some governmental programs to incentives family formation. The programs he favors are generally more direct cash grants and approaches that make young men more marriageable and decrease the motherhood penalty.
Through meticulous investigation, both in his journalistic capacity and as a father of six, Carney illustrates the troubled nature of current parenting paradigms. The lofty ideals prescribed for modern American parents are not only impractical but also pave the way for failure for both parents and their children.
There are some limitations to this approach given that the nuclear family has been such a deeply entrenched institution and there are so many reciprocal determinants and effects. It's hard to evaluate family structure in a straightforward way. This is a challenge with many sociological variables though so I don't think it's reasonable to hold against the claims.
The book's animating question is one that is increasingly on the minds of sociopolitical commentators: why has parenting become increasingly challenging? There are relevant correlations too. Why has children's happiness declined compared to previous generations? Why have families gotten smaller?
In Carney's view, one that echoes memes in our increasingly online discourse, parenting appears more daunting to young prospective parents. Additionally, it seems that these Millennials and Generation Z are less equipped to handle this increased challenge . The reasons, as hinted above, are complex, involving material and cultural factors.
While financial hurdles and personal ambitions are often cited, Carney acknowledges that children have always been costly, and self-interest is likely not dramatically different across generations (though psychologists like Jean Twenge have argued just that). If we accept that these common narratives are marginal, what has actually shifted? For Carney and many other thoughtful conservatives, the answer lies in the culture. Today's societal norms are less supportive of parenting than they once were and the social enforcement mechanisms that encouraged family formation and stability have withered. Reflecting on childhood's recent past (Gen X and old Millennials), we recall a time of less surveillance and greater communal obligation and connection. Essentially, markers of local and global social trust have careened down a steep declivity.
Modern parenting is distinctly more Hobbessian, characterized by an intense focus on supervision and development. Children are expected to be constantly nurtured, amused, educated, organized, and indoctrinated into roles of mini-activists, influencers, and workers. Carney suggests a return to the essence of traditional parenting. It's essential to provide children with the freedom to experience both setbacks and triumphs, to embark on adventures, acquire serendipitous wisdom, and relish in unstructured moments.
This entails breaking free from the constraints of competitive youth sports, moving away from overprotective parenting, fortifying community bonds, transforming the workplace, and, most importantly, reaffirming our conviction in the inherent goodness of people, regardless of age.
Carney also focuses on the decline in birth rates and the apparent rise in anxiety and depression among youth. He essentially accepts Jon Haidt's narrative on this front, which is that a mixture of overbearing parenting and smartphone mediated socialization is stunting the development of mental defense against depression and anomie. However, Carney is less concerned with intervention against technology and more interested in reworking culture so that family life is pre-eminent. This reworking would includes some governmental programs to incentives family formation. The programs he favors are generally more direct cash grants and approaches that make young men more marriageable and decrease the motherhood penalty.
Through meticulous investigation, both in his journalistic capacity and as a father of six, Carney illustrates the troubled nature of current parenting paradigms. The lofty ideals prescribed for modern American parents are not only impractical but also pave the way for failure for both parents and their children.
January 31, 2025
This book was so overwhelming. I didn’t realize it was all going to be about birth rates, and the first few chapters seemed disjointed from the rest of the book because of that.
A lot of what he says about birthrates I had heard from Hannah’s Children by Catherine Paukaluk, but Carney’s writing style seemed much more urgent. (Hence my overwhelm.) While I think his proposals for how to fix the birthrate would be very hard to achieve, I think the strength of the book is that he shows that the birthrate is a cultural and ideological problem more than any financial problem. We (mainly Millennials, he argues) have internalized so much of what the culture has fed us, that we are getting married too late or not at all, not having sex, working too much, are unwilling to be dependent on others, and are overall too unhappy. American women are having fewer babies than they both intend and want to have. (And hey, that is SAD!!!)
I do appreciate a conservative Catholic dad being a conservative Catholic dad.
There were also so many italics. **So many.**
I feel lighter having finished this. 😅
A lot of what he says about birthrates I had heard from Hannah’s Children by Catherine Paukaluk, but Carney’s writing style seemed much more urgent. (Hence my overwhelm.) While I think his proposals for how to fix the birthrate would be very hard to achieve, I think the strength of the book is that he shows that the birthrate is a cultural and ideological problem more than any financial problem. We (mainly Millennials, he argues) have internalized so much of what the culture has fed us, that we are getting married too late or not at all, not having sex, working too much, are unwilling to be dependent on others, and are overall too unhappy. American women are having fewer babies than they both intend and want to have. (And hey, that is SAD!!!)
I do appreciate a conservative Catholic dad being a conservative Catholic dad.
There were also so many italics. **So many.**
I feel lighter having finished this. 😅
May 7, 2024
4 months ago I woke up to a sick babysitter and an early morning haircut that I absolutely had to have (It was a pixie cut then. A 12-week-gap is unthinkable). So I dragged my two kids over with bag of toys and promises of treats if they behaved themselves. Apologizing profusely, I walked into the tiny salon room--- 8 occupancy limit and I was making it 11---and I got the sternest stare from the head stylist. She's all tough and honestly used to terrify me a bit. She cut me off mid second apology and gave me a lecture about how it was fine, about how she used to bring her kids when they couldn't go to school, and about how kids are the most important thing in my life and "don't you ever, ever, ever apologize for bringing your kids anywhere." And, suddenly, it hit me that the public life of kids is so different now than 10, 15, 20 years ago.
I first stumbled across Carney with his empathetic Alienated America: Why Some Places Thrive While Others Collapse. This book, his newest, was referenced in several books I read this year and, intrigued by the title, I picked it up.
It's quite good. Inevitably I would find myself thinking "But what about this?" and the next chapter would address it. It's realistic and I respect that.
I did take issue with a couple of sections that didn't go deep enough(both he and Brad Wilcox in Get Married: Why Americans Must Defy the Elites, Forge Strong Families, and Save Civilization essentially said "Rexburg ID is an amazing place, defying trends because they have a jewelry store, a wedding dress store, and a baby store in town." and then talk about the reason professors take jobs at BYUI. What about the students?). The organization seemed a bit haphazard. And what about the growing infertility crisis? 7 years ago it was 1 in 8 and now it's 1 in 6. Maybe all those healthish nuts know something? I thought it would be outside the scope but then almost 6 pages were devoted to the pill... and didn't really discuss the multitude of health side effects(among them depression. Who wants kids when you're depressed?).
But kudos to Tim for noticing and touching on things my mom friends have all been noticing. The almost impossibility of bringing your kids anywhere---especially since COVID. The ridiculousness of being unable to put three car seats in the back seat of a "family friendly vehicle." The disappearance of the village. Admittedly, I'm in the odd minority with my issues because some of those things are my pet soapboxes. So, realistically, I'd give it a 4. But for feeling seen I'll roll it up a star.
I first stumbled across Carney with his empathetic Alienated America: Why Some Places Thrive While Others Collapse. This book, his newest, was referenced in several books I read this year and, intrigued by the title, I picked it up.
It's quite good. Inevitably I would find myself thinking "But what about this?" and the next chapter would address it. It's realistic and I respect that.
I did take issue with a couple of sections that didn't go deep enough(both he and Brad Wilcox in Get Married: Why Americans Must Defy the Elites, Forge Strong Families, and Save Civilization essentially said "Rexburg ID is an amazing place, defying trends because they have a jewelry store, a wedding dress store, and a baby store in town." and then talk about the reason professors take jobs at BYUI. What about the students?). The organization seemed a bit haphazard. And what about the growing infertility crisis? 7 years ago it was 1 in 8 and now it's 1 in 6. Maybe all those healthish nuts know something? I thought it would be outside the scope but then almost 6 pages were devoted to the pill... and didn't really discuss the multitude of health side effects(among them depression. Who wants kids when you're depressed?).
But kudos to Tim for noticing and touching on things my mom friends have all been noticing. The almost impossibility of bringing your kids anywhere---especially since COVID. The ridiculousness of being unable to put three car seats in the back seat of a "family friendly vehicle." The disappearance of the village. Admittedly, I'm in the odd minority with my issues because some of those things are my pet soapboxes. So, realistically, I'd give it a 4. But for feeling seen I'll roll it up a star.
Want to read
April 18, 2024Really great review of this one as well as of "The Anxious Generation" here, by Leah Sargeant:
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2...
Also, an excerpt:
https://thelampmagazine.com/issues/is...
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2...
Also, an excerpt:
https://thelampmagazine.com/issues/is...
May 20, 2025
I really loved the first half of this book, but in the second half there was a definite tone shift that I didn't care for.
This is a compelling and incisive cultural critique that begins with great intellectual force. In the first half, Carney offers a lucid, data-rich analysis of how modern social institutions—ranging from government to education to corporate culture—have increasingly marginalized the traditional family structure. His argument, grounded in both empirical research and sociological observation, is especially effective when exploring the decline of civil society and the erosion of intermediary institutions that once supported family life. Carney’s writing is sharp, his insights trenchant, and his moral urgency palpable. I found myself nodding along, and even occasionally muttering,"yes!" as I read his insights about how the deck is stacked against families.
However, the book loses momentum in its latter chapters. As the analytical rigor gives way to broader ideological assertions, the second half feels increasingly polemical and less precise. Carney shifts from diagnosis to prescription, but his proposed solutions lack the same depth and nuance that characterize his critique. The narrative becomes repetitive, and some policy suggestions feel more aspirational than actionable. While Carney’s vision of cultural renewal is admirable, the second half fails to sustain the intellectual clarity and persuasive power of the opening chapters.
Ultimately, Family Unfriendly is an important and provocative work, particularly in its early sections—but it falls short of fully delivering on its initial promise. I loved the first half and really didn't like the second, so I'm fairly balanced right in the middle on this one.
This is a compelling and incisive cultural critique that begins with great intellectual force. In the first half, Carney offers a lucid, data-rich analysis of how modern social institutions—ranging from government to education to corporate culture—have increasingly marginalized the traditional family structure. His argument, grounded in both empirical research and sociological observation, is especially effective when exploring the decline of civil society and the erosion of intermediary institutions that once supported family life. Carney’s writing is sharp, his insights trenchant, and his moral urgency palpable. I found myself nodding along, and even occasionally muttering,"yes!" as I read his insights about how the deck is stacked against families.
However, the book loses momentum in its latter chapters. As the analytical rigor gives way to broader ideological assertions, the second half feels increasingly polemical and less precise. Carney shifts from diagnosis to prescription, but his proposed solutions lack the same depth and nuance that characterize his critique. The narrative becomes repetitive, and some policy suggestions feel more aspirational than actionable. While Carney’s vision of cultural renewal is admirable, the second half fails to sustain the intellectual clarity and persuasive power of the opening chapters.
Ultimately, Family Unfriendly is an important and provocative work, particularly in its early sections—but it falls short of fully delivering on its initial promise. I loved the first half and really didn't like the second, so I'm fairly balanced right in the middle on this one.
April 17, 2025
3/5. It’s aight. Love the vision of a culture where parenting is less stressful and more highly esteemed and parents have more kids. But I struggle to know how to implement it without completely retreating from the current culture and moving to Utah or Israel.
“Overly ambitious parents raising overextended children are both the cause and an effect of sadness. When parents organize their lives and their kids lives around the relentless pursuit of perfection they can convey the notion that their child’s worth is tied up with worldly success. At best this is an accidental implication. At worst it is the parent’s or the kid’s actual belief…A life full of fear is a life lacking in love.”
“Overly ambitious parents raising overextended children are both the cause and an effect of sadness. When parents organize their lives and their kids lives around the relentless pursuit of perfection they can convey the notion that their child’s worth is tied up with worldly success. At best this is an accidental implication. At worst it is the parent’s or the kid’s actual belief…A life full of fear is a life lacking in love.”
April 7, 2024
I was thoroughly impressed with this book. It jives nicely with others in the genre right now, revolving around how we get kids back to “normal.”
You don’t have to have or want a large family to appreciate the meticulous research and real world journalism in this book. Tim is a true journalist, meeting people in bars and at the farmers market…I love that aspect of this book.
This book offers a ton of practical ideas and shows us the micro-cultures of people who have managed to keep kids alive in the way at they should be these days.
Also great for families in general, and how we can support one another more wholly in this increasingly isolated and atomized world.
I highly recommend this book and love the conversations it brings to the table.
You don’t have to have or want a large family to appreciate the meticulous research and real world journalism in this book. Tim is a true journalist, meeting people in bars and at the farmers market…I love that aspect of this book.
This book offers a ton of practical ideas and shows us the micro-cultures of people who have managed to keep kids alive in the way at they should be these days.
Also great for families in general, and how we can support one another more wholly in this increasingly isolated and atomized world.
I highly recommend this book and love the conversations it brings to the table.
May 6, 2024
My main disappointment with this book is that it spends less time on practical solutions or suggestions and more time on lamenting how people don’t want to reproduce. I also found the evidence to be mostly one sided, meaning lots of sources for claims like stay at home mothers offer the optimal structure for most families, and then one or two lines with scant evidence arguing the opposite. I think this book is more of a manifesto for increased reproduction, and less of a balanced analysis on people’s choices. I finished this book with very few practical solutions to take away. Unfortunately, meh.
May 15, 2024
DNF after first half. I agreed with the premise of a lack of third spaces, lack of walkable neighborhoods, etc. but once he shifted to a “breadwinner” raise while acknowledging this would benefit men over women and extensive citing of David Brooks, I could see more of his privilege shining through.
November 18, 2025
Sweet moses, where to start with this one?!? Having spent a decade researching births and fertility in the US I can say that the topic is complex and the author, despite spilling a lot of words, did not do it justice.
Can we all just get on the same page to start with since Carney's intentionally myopic data analysis likely misleads casual readers about birth data. The crux of the book is that births per woman, which needs to be 2.1 absent immigration in order to be sustainable, was at that rate in 2007 and has since cratered. He told no lies there but he didn't tell the whole truth. In reality the fertility rate was below 2 throughout the 70's and 80's before rebounding and hitting a plateau for ~15 years at around 2. Carney ignores this and instead hyper fixates on the last 15-20 years. He even concedes that the fertility rate has trended downward over the past 100-150 years. Really the correct analysis is that the baby boomer generation was a blip on an otherwise predictable downward trend since the civil war when reliable data was starting to be produced. This is neither new to the last 2 decades nor is it unique to the US but to hear the author explain it, you would not necessarily understand that. The average woman doesn't birth 7 kids like in the 1850's data because we aren't agrarian anymore so the worker value of kids is diminished. And we have vaccines so if you have 7 kids you can pretty much expect to see all 7 live to adult hood - that was not true 170 years ago.
This premise shift is important. He fixates on what has changed in post 2007 but when given the proper framing the topic, then the analysis becomes more about this being a century long march and perhaps exploring more rationally what has changed over a longer period of time.
Some things were easy to agree with. Yes our auto-only form of transit spaces out communities, massively cuts down on informal interactions and unstructured playtime. Heck the invention of the playground was to get kids off the streets so that car drivers would stop killing them. So it is absolutely true that things like our built environment have structurally changed which results in less kids. If you have to drive 20 minutes to get anywhere as opposed to have kids meet other kids in the street and walk to your corner store, your most valuable resource of time is going to be stretched too thin to have many kids. The national highway system that was 90% subsidized by the federal government started bulldozing neighborhoods in the 1950's to this end and our neighborhoods an communities have never been the same.
There were many analyses in the book that were not great. Why take us down long winding analyses about policies to stimulate births just to conclude they don't work? Just give us the punchline so we can spend more time talking about what matters. I get he works for a right wing think tank but people probably aren't here to learn about ineffective policy ideas that shouldn't gain traction.
Like I mentioned, having kids is complex. That is why it doesn't fit in a neat box. As Carney lays out there are cultural and financial factors. But the sad thing is, the best through line driving lower births statistically speaking is women's education. Now the author does sort of address this, but he calls it feminism and ultimately paints it as bad. Let's back it up for a second. Birth rates have collapsed among teenagers in the last 30+ years. Women in school are not having kids. Over the past 50+ years women have achieved a higher rate of undergraduate and graduate degrees. Similar to high school ages, birth rates are fairly de minimus among those groups as well. So now you have a lower likelihood of births occurring in early 20's and just under 30 group more broadly which the data bears out. But let's run this out further because post graduation if you have a ton of debt, finances may be much more problematic than the average person at that age. In addition marriage rates are low while actively being a student so marriages are taking place later in life. Does the author spell any of this out? Of course not, instead he rails on feminism. Again with the right framing this gets corrected. Slumping fertility didn't start in 2007, it started 50+ years ago. You know what women couldn't do 50 years ago? They couldn't have a credit card. Divorce laws were more strict which forcibly tied abusive spouses together. I wasn't alive for all of this but the reality is that most women had less choices. Decrying that change is definitely an interesting angle to take.
The author is also not particularly credible. "Oh youth sports fixation is ruining our families" and then explains that his son participates in said high stakes travel leagues. "Oh the car only infrastructure makes our cities less habitable" and then lives in a car centric suburb. He is shoveling to the reader a thesis even he doesn't want to consume.
The most cringeworthy parts of this book are the times he gets out over his skies. At one point he gives his two cents on pregnancy. At several junctures he comments on paid maternity leave not being a meaningful idea. The best is how he dismisses young child care setups in the US as problematic because universal child care is an ineffectual policy. What planet are you living on? The current situation or universal child care are not the only 2 options. I just want to not sit on a waiting list for 12 months while hoping my family can secure child care. I want to not need to pay tuition level money for each of my children attending day care. The author's grasp of reality is very much of someone in the political realm - only talks and thinks in extremes as opposed to just making incremental improvements on what we have. This is critical cause what we have is the only nation without maternity leave and I don't care if that policy does or does not stimulate birth rates. That isn't really the point. If the author loves family life so much, then a new mom should get at least that. (On that point the most hilarious proposal of Carney's is a random tangent about how dad's paternity leave should be flexible anytime before the age of 18 for the child cause a daughter needs their dad the most in teen years. Yes sir, if you suck as a dad you can make up for a decade of inadequacy with a 5 day retreat with your kid.)
The sourcing in this book is hot garbage. Sure he cherry picks studies that support his thesis. But beyond that the vast majority of sourcing is talking to a bartender in a college town, talking to a teenager with lots of siblings and citing shock jocks like Candace Owens. He also relies heavily on hot take opinion pieces in the NYT and WSJ. Again, having researched births for a decade, I can tell you those papers are constantly filled with contrived consternation about the dropping birth rates from people that don't really understand the topic. They are, in short, not experts. Relying on them for a book that proposes to the reader that the author will get to the root of the issue is ludicrous. His best source he leans on is his colleague Lyman Stone who does in fact know what he is talking about but at that point just go read Stone's blog instead of trying to piece together scraps of fact buried underneath red herrings that Carney is writing about.
I think the thing about this book that is infuriating is all the constant handwringing about the birth rate. That would make sense if he wrote this 50 years ago but we are a half century into this phase of being below replacement level. If not for net immigration over the period and extending the average age of life, our US population would be shrinking. Of course he bumps up against immigration and then brushes that off cause net global immigration is a zero sum game. This is dumb though because within that, there will be net winners and net losers. America has ~always been a net gainer.
At the end of the day I think Carney's argument is mostly centered on women wanting 2.7 kids and only having 1.7 kids. But what he doesn't tell you is that these types of surveys have always produced a similar disconnect. That ~1 kid gap was true when births were at 2.1/woman. That isn't a new phenomenon that has sprung up in the last 15-20 years as he would have you believe. Even after reading this whole book, the reader is left to wonder why that gap exists. Of course asking a dude with 6 kids, working at a right wing think tank and having a stay at home wife is probably not going to be our best source on solving why women have this disconnect. At one point Carney explains that he'd like to have a wrap around porch but the tradeoffs of budgets don't allow for this so he doesn't have one. The same is likely true for this disconnect in desired births and actual births. Perhaps it is because when adults start having kids it is harder than they realized so they stop short of their intent. Maybe it is health risks or not wanting to get married or not being able to find a partner. Maybe it is any number of things. Unfortunately if you read this book you will be no closer to answering that question and that is a shame.
Can we all just get on the same page to start with since Carney's intentionally myopic data analysis likely misleads casual readers about birth data. The crux of the book is that births per woman, which needs to be 2.1 absent immigration in order to be sustainable, was at that rate in 2007 and has since cratered. He told no lies there but he didn't tell the whole truth. In reality the fertility rate was below 2 throughout the 70's and 80's before rebounding and hitting a plateau for ~15 years at around 2. Carney ignores this and instead hyper fixates on the last 15-20 years. He even concedes that the fertility rate has trended downward over the past 100-150 years. Really the correct analysis is that the baby boomer generation was a blip on an otherwise predictable downward trend since the civil war when reliable data was starting to be produced. This is neither new to the last 2 decades nor is it unique to the US but to hear the author explain it, you would not necessarily understand that. The average woman doesn't birth 7 kids like in the 1850's data because we aren't agrarian anymore so the worker value of kids is diminished. And we have vaccines so if you have 7 kids you can pretty much expect to see all 7 live to adult hood - that was not true 170 years ago.
This premise shift is important. He fixates on what has changed in post 2007 but when given the proper framing the topic, then the analysis becomes more about this being a century long march and perhaps exploring more rationally what has changed over a longer period of time.
Some things were easy to agree with. Yes our auto-only form of transit spaces out communities, massively cuts down on informal interactions and unstructured playtime. Heck the invention of the playground was to get kids off the streets so that car drivers would stop killing them. So it is absolutely true that things like our built environment have structurally changed which results in less kids. If you have to drive 20 minutes to get anywhere as opposed to have kids meet other kids in the street and walk to your corner store, your most valuable resource of time is going to be stretched too thin to have many kids. The national highway system that was 90% subsidized by the federal government started bulldozing neighborhoods in the 1950's to this end and our neighborhoods an communities have never been the same.
There were many analyses in the book that were not great. Why take us down long winding analyses about policies to stimulate births just to conclude they don't work? Just give us the punchline so we can spend more time talking about what matters. I get he works for a right wing think tank but people probably aren't here to learn about ineffective policy ideas that shouldn't gain traction.
Like I mentioned, having kids is complex. That is why it doesn't fit in a neat box. As Carney lays out there are cultural and financial factors. But the sad thing is, the best through line driving lower births statistically speaking is women's education. Now the author does sort of address this, but he calls it feminism and ultimately paints it as bad. Let's back it up for a second. Birth rates have collapsed among teenagers in the last 30+ years. Women in school are not having kids. Over the past 50+ years women have achieved a higher rate of undergraduate and graduate degrees. Similar to high school ages, birth rates are fairly de minimus among those groups as well. So now you have a lower likelihood of births occurring in early 20's and just under 30 group more broadly which the data bears out. But let's run this out further because post graduation if you have a ton of debt, finances may be much more problematic than the average person at that age. In addition marriage rates are low while actively being a student so marriages are taking place later in life. Does the author spell any of this out? Of course not, instead he rails on feminism. Again with the right framing this gets corrected. Slumping fertility didn't start in 2007, it started 50+ years ago. You know what women couldn't do 50 years ago? They couldn't have a credit card. Divorce laws were more strict which forcibly tied abusive spouses together. I wasn't alive for all of this but the reality is that most women had less choices. Decrying that change is definitely an interesting angle to take.
The author is also not particularly credible. "Oh youth sports fixation is ruining our families" and then explains that his son participates in said high stakes travel leagues. "Oh the car only infrastructure makes our cities less habitable" and then lives in a car centric suburb. He is shoveling to the reader a thesis even he doesn't want to consume.
The most cringeworthy parts of this book are the times he gets out over his skies. At one point he gives his two cents on pregnancy. At several junctures he comments on paid maternity leave not being a meaningful idea. The best is how he dismisses young child care setups in the US as problematic because universal child care is an ineffectual policy. What planet are you living on? The current situation or universal child care are not the only 2 options. I just want to not sit on a waiting list for 12 months while hoping my family can secure child care. I want to not need to pay tuition level money for each of my children attending day care. The author's grasp of reality is very much of someone in the political realm - only talks and thinks in extremes as opposed to just making incremental improvements on what we have. This is critical cause what we have is the only nation without maternity leave and I don't care if that policy does or does not stimulate birth rates. That isn't really the point. If the author loves family life so much, then a new mom should get at least that. (On that point the most hilarious proposal of Carney's is a random tangent about how dad's paternity leave should be flexible anytime before the age of 18 for the child cause a daughter needs their dad the most in teen years. Yes sir, if you suck as a dad you can make up for a decade of inadequacy with a 5 day retreat with your kid.)
The sourcing in this book is hot garbage. Sure he cherry picks studies that support his thesis. But beyond that the vast majority of sourcing is talking to a bartender in a college town, talking to a teenager with lots of siblings and citing shock jocks like Candace Owens. He also relies heavily on hot take opinion pieces in the NYT and WSJ. Again, having researched births for a decade, I can tell you those papers are constantly filled with contrived consternation about the dropping birth rates from people that don't really understand the topic. They are, in short, not experts. Relying on them for a book that proposes to the reader that the author will get to the root of the issue is ludicrous. His best source he leans on is his colleague Lyman Stone who does in fact know what he is talking about but at that point just go read Stone's blog instead of trying to piece together scraps of fact buried underneath red herrings that Carney is writing about.
I think the thing about this book that is infuriating is all the constant handwringing about the birth rate. That would make sense if he wrote this 50 years ago but we are a half century into this phase of being below replacement level. If not for net immigration over the period and extending the average age of life, our US population would be shrinking. Of course he bumps up against immigration and then brushes that off cause net global immigration is a zero sum game. This is dumb though because within that, there will be net winners and net losers. America has ~always been a net gainer.
At the end of the day I think Carney's argument is mostly centered on women wanting 2.7 kids and only having 1.7 kids. But what he doesn't tell you is that these types of surveys have always produced a similar disconnect. That ~1 kid gap was true when births were at 2.1/woman. That isn't a new phenomenon that has sprung up in the last 15-20 years as he would have you believe. Even after reading this whole book, the reader is left to wonder why that gap exists. Of course asking a dude with 6 kids, working at a right wing think tank and having a stay at home wife is probably not going to be our best source on solving why women have this disconnect. At one point Carney explains that he'd like to have a wrap around porch but the tradeoffs of budgets don't allow for this so he doesn't have one. The same is likely true for this disconnect in desired births and actual births. Perhaps it is because when adults start having kids it is harder than they realized so they stop short of their intent. Maybe it is health risks or not wanting to get married or not being able to find a partner. Maybe it is any number of things. Unfortunately if you read this book you will be no closer to answering that question and that is a shame.
May 13, 2025
Really interesting book! It first makes the argument that families and children are a societal good—we should WANT people to have babies and raise them within families. The second argument is that our current society is "family unfriendly" or in other words makes parenting harder than it should be and discourages people having more children. The third argument are strategies for making our society more family friendly.
A main takeaway is that making our society family friendly is bigger than giving checks to parents who have babies, or granting more family leave time, or providing universal day care. The biggest challenges are cultural. It's the guilt parents face when letting their child walk alone to the park. It's the way people are looked down on for choosing to have kids (there was a professor in college tell a friend of mine that he was "irresponsible" for having children while in school. I think it's the opposite--it's a tremendous shouldering of responsibility in his life). It's also employers who make it flexible work situations difficult for parents trying to find balance. It's the subtle jokes on social media about how terrible parenting is, warning singles to enjoy the fun life before parenting makes it un-fun. It's also how we design our cities so parents are stuck in car-hell instead of making it safe enough for kids to navigate to their own activities on their own via bike or transit.
It's all of that! So while parental leave and day care options are good, what we really need is to shift cultural attitudes towards parenting. To truly accept that we WANT parents having children—for their happiness, but also for the good of our country. Because immigration won't be enough to save our country from the challenges that are coming from being too far below "replacement rate."
A main takeaway is that making our society family friendly is bigger than giving checks to parents who have babies, or granting more family leave time, or providing universal day care. The biggest challenges are cultural. It's the guilt parents face when letting their child walk alone to the park. It's the way people are looked down on for choosing to have kids (there was a professor in college tell a friend of mine that he was "irresponsible" for having children while in school. I think it's the opposite--it's a tremendous shouldering of responsibility in his life). It's also employers who make it flexible work situations difficult for parents trying to find balance. It's the subtle jokes on social media about how terrible parenting is, warning singles to enjoy the fun life before parenting makes it un-fun. It's also how we design our cities so parents are stuck in car-hell instead of making it safe enough for kids to navigate to their own activities on their own via bike or transit.
It's all of that! So while parental leave and day care options are good, what we really need is to shift cultural attitudes towards parenting. To truly accept that we WANT parents having children—for their happiness, but also for the good of our country. Because immigration won't be enough to save our country from the challenges that are coming from being too far below "replacement rate."
January 2, 2025
Co-sign almost every argument here. I find myself agreeing with religious conservatives about pro-family policy… very frequently. The progressive left has a blind spot about it for sure. More people should read this and think about this kind of policy more seriously.
I’ll just cherry pick for illustration one of my favorite arguments here: the purpose of high school is not to get into college. The purpose of high school is to grow. To find yourself in social groups, to explore and discover, to learn about leadership and principles and what you believe, to have some degree of ownership over your path and see how that turns out, etc etc. See for an anti capitalist leftist there is a lot to like about a worldview that values life in and of itself, not as a means to accomplishments or wealth accumulation.
I feel like I could say a lot more, and maybe I will later. For now I keep thinking about how I can find a family friendly *subculture* within our family un-friendly culture. That will be part of my life’s project for 2025, and far beyond, as we’re expecting our 4th in July…
I’ll just cherry pick for illustration one of my favorite arguments here: the purpose of high school is not to get into college. The purpose of high school is to grow. To find yourself in social groups, to explore and discover, to learn about leadership and principles and what you believe, to have some degree of ownership over your path and see how that turns out, etc etc. See for an anti capitalist leftist there is a lot to like about a worldview that values life in and of itself, not as a means to accomplishments or wealth accumulation.
I feel like I could say a lot more, and maybe I will later. For now I keep thinking about how I can find a family friendly *subculture* within our family un-friendly culture. That will be part of my life’s project for 2025, and far beyond, as we’re expecting our 4th in July…
July 31, 2024
Lots of concrete ideas for not just policymakers, but also employers, schools, churches, neighborhoods, and families! It was very interesting with great anecdotes
February 1, 2025
I enjoyed reading Timothy Carney's book. In it, he lays out the problems with our below-replacement birth rates, highlights many reasons why this may be, and offers suggestions for welcoming more babies.
2025 A book from a library
2025 A book from a library
August 8, 2024
Tim Carney weaves a beautiful web of social science statistics, personal anecdotes and vignettes, and public policy prescriptions.
March 27, 2024
Good diagnosis of an immense cultural problem. I am predisposed to agree with Carney’s views, but the statistics and examples he provided were eye-opening.
August 31, 2024
Basically agreed with every thing in this book.
April 29, 2024
This book is a trip for a liberal feminist like myself. It was legitimately a great exercise in bipartisanship.
There were so many points to love, to back, to be excited about: many of the policy and cultural positions were spot on and innovative. Moments after celebrating, I’d feel myself amping up for a political fight, upset at the how Carney arrived at his conclusion, ready to challenge his way of thinking. A few pages later, I was shaking my head yes, even fuck yes.
It’s an important book for a lot of reasons, and presents a great opportunity for both sides of the American political spectrum to come together for the better of children, families, and thus our society. Highly highly recommend.
A few criticisms: 1) he talks a lot about how we’re not replacing humans for the working world - it’s 2024 - where’s the discussion of AI? 2) He spends way too much time on conservative religious groups and how their sooo happy (without a nod to any of the abuse or darker sides of those lifestyles). 3) he seems to think non religious folk just don’t value life or have meaning if they don’t follow a religion. 4) In many ways his choice of diction around fertility feels inhumane. 5) He’s definitely a good old fashion DC policy nerd who surrounds himself with likeminded DC policy needs. That’s a fine choice except it limits his lens. It doesn’t seem like he has many - if any friends - who aren’t conservative or non religious. In most if not all cases he seems to rely on outliers in the media or people in bars.
There were so many points to love, to back, to be excited about: many of the policy and cultural positions were spot on and innovative. Moments after celebrating, I’d feel myself amping up for a political fight, upset at the how Carney arrived at his conclusion, ready to challenge his way of thinking. A few pages later, I was shaking my head yes, even fuck yes.
It’s an important book for a lot of reasons, and presents a great opportunity for both sides of the American political spectrum to come together for the better of children, families, and thus our society. Highly highly recommend.
A few criticisms: 1) he talks a lot about how we’re not replacing humans for the working world - it’s 2024 - where’s the discussion of AI? 2) He spends way too much time on conservative religious groups and how their sooo happy (without a nod to any of the abuse or darker sides of those lifestyles). 3) he seems to think non religious folk just don’t value life or have meaning if they don’t follow a religion. 4) In many ways his choice of diction around fertility feels inhumane. 5) He’s definitely a good old fashion DC policy nerd who surrounds himself with likeminded DC policy needs. That’s a fine choice except it limits his lens. It doesn’t seem like he has many - if any friends - who aren’t conservative or non religious. In most if not all cases he seems to rely on outliers in the media or people in bars.
July 15, 2025
I started reading this book because I mistakenly thought it was about urban planning for families. I finished it on principle but there are a lot of secretly insane ideas slipped in among the more typical suggestions.
For example, I couldn’t take the rest of the book seriously after I read the author’s thoughts on parental leave. He is pro significant parental leave but asks why men are expected to take leave when the baby is born, because, as he puts it, there is nothing for a father to do with an infant since the mother is taking care of all infant related tasks anyway (?). Instead, he says, the father should be free to take time off work to take his children on camping trips. So, the mother gets to do all the hard work around caring for an infant (or six, as was the case in the author’s family) while the father gets to have fun with his children on vacation.
I was disappointed as I had been looking forward to reading this book. I don’t disagree that it is harder than necessary to raise a family in the US, but the author mostly skirts actual structural solutions in favor of blaming women
For example, I couldn’t take the rest of the book seriously after I read the author’s thoughts on parental leave. He is pro significant parental leave but asks why men are expected to take leave when the baby is born, because, as he puts it, there is nothing for a father to do with an infant since the mother is taking care of all infant related tasks anyway (?). Instead, he says, the father should be free to take time off work to take his children on camping trips. So, the mother gets to do all the hard work around caring for an infant (or six, as was the case in the author’s family) while the father gets to have fun with his children on vacation.
I was disappointed as I had been looking forward to reading this book. I don’t disagree that it is harder than necessary to raise a family in the US, but the author mostly skirts actual structural solutions in favor of blaming women
June 18, 2024
It sucked. The racism and homophobia that seep into this is vile. I thought I would learn about why third spaces for kids have disappeared. He makes good points in the beginning about putting pressure on kids. Then he just starts attacking women, for supporting the household. He preaches about how raising children is made to be this daunting task but then suggest that mom's should have a bunch of kids and not work. Someone's got to pay the bills.
Also he is hyping up Israel so much but makes little mention of anyone who is Muslim.
My biggest gripe is that he says that enviormentalist are wrong about population and climate change. Says that children shouldn't learn about it. Where the evidence shows less people means leas emissions. There also other factors going into lower birth rate that don't protein to women choosing not to have kids.
Also he is hyping up Israel so much but makes little mention of anyone who is Muslim.
My biggest gripe is that he says that enviormentalist are wrong about population and climate change. Says that children shouldn't learn about it. Where the evidence shows less people means leas emissions. There also other factors going into lower birth rate that don't protein to women choosing not to have kids.
June 2, 2024
I can’t recommend this book enough. I think everyone should read it. If you have kids, if you are childfree, if you know a kid or were one….
It is an insightful look on how America makes it so hard to raise a family AND presents solutions. But also, how a lot of the pressures on parents can be set aside if you choose! It isn’t nihilistic and backs up all its findings with research! Even if you don’t want kids, a society that is anti-family isn’t one with a future.
10/10 can’t stop talking about this book (to Tim’s dismay)
It is an insightful look on how America makes it so hard to raise a family AND presents solutions. But also, how a lot of the pressures on parents can be set aside if you choose! It isn’t nihilistic and backs up all its findings with research! Even if you don’t want kids, a society that is anti-family isn’t one with a future.
10/10 can’t stop talking about this book (to Tim’s dismay)
September 2, 2024
Women’s Lib (as it used to be called when I was a lass) was supposed to be about women having choices about whether to stay home with their kids or go out into the workforce. What happened? Carney makes a strong case that women would still like to have this choice but that somehow public policy has become all about ensuring all women can trudge off to work. I really appreciated this book - it made me feel very seen as a woman.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 154 reviews