My attention was pointed towards an article discussing common narratives repeated on this sub.

Excerpts from The Atlantic article:

For example, when men help more at home, fertility doesn’t rise, one 2018 study found. And although policies to support work and family do boost fertility, their cost is pretty high for fairly modest effects...

when men win the lottery, they become a lot likelier than demographically similar lottery losers to get married (if they were lower-income and unmarried before their win), and they have more children. On its face, that supports the work-life-balance idea. But when women win the lottery, the only big change in their behavior is divorce: Divorce rates for women almost double in the first couple of years after winning the lottery.

Helpfully, the study authors showed that their conclusions matched the findings of another study of lotteries in the United States. It found that winning made both men and women more likely to marry, but that the effect was stronger for men, and that while it decreased divorce rates for men, it increased them for women.

Arguments that fertility can be increased by pushing for a maximally gender-egalitarian society or by delivering family subsidies disproportionately to mothers should be reconsidered.

Unfortunately I'm a little bit lazy today, so I'll appreciate if someone gets curious, looks up the studies themselves (linked from the article), sees if they're flawed or undersampled, and check they have usual symptoms of P-hacking. For everyone else, Yes, I didn't quote every single "ackshully", but the article obviously is more balanced than the chosen punchlines; so, hope you'll find it curious at least.

Discuss!!!