The cardinal rule for writing about child poverty if you are in the mainstream media is this: Never, ever mention single parenthood. This New York Times article on a study showing that one in three young families with children were living in poverty in 2010 scrupulously obeys the rule. The Times offers several possible reasons for this recent rise in child poverty, including the high-tech, high-skills economy and the greater difficulties of going on welfare following the 1996 federal welfare-reform law. It never articulates, however, what is overwhelmingly the largest predictor of child and family poverty: The family is not a two-parent household. In 2007, single-parent families were nearly six times more likely to be poor than married-parent families; that ratio has not significantly changed. The closest the Times comes to acknowledging the role of single parenthood in child poverty is to note that blacks and Hispanics have the highest rates of child poverty. Why that would be, the Times does not say, but it’s just what you’d expect from groups whose illegitimacy rates are 73 percent and 53 percent, respectively.
Of course, any MSM article about child poverty will foreground single mothers in its anecdotes section, but their all-important status as single parents will not be noted. The Times quotes a 27-year-old divorced mother of two in Atlanta and a 22-year-old mother of three in Atlanta, the latter of whom opines: “It’s just a hard time to be a parent.” In fact, it’s always a hard time to be a young, single parent. The inevitable crises of child-rearing can be far more catastrophic without the support system that a second parent provides.
The corollary to the ban on discussing family breakdown is the prohibition on mentioning the absent fathers. The children in an MSM article on child poverty may as well have been the product of a miraculous virgin birth, for all the acknowledgement that there is a biologically related male somewhere out there who, in a different world, would be directly contributing to the household income and welfare.
The ban on discussing the effect of family breakdown is not surprising, since the single mother has become the cornerstone of Democratic politics. She provides the justification for the continuous expansion of the welfare state. Whether the topic is government-provided health care for the poor, taxpayer-funded housing for homeless families, federal Section 8 rental vouchers, more early-childhood-intervention programs, or greater redistribution of income from the rich to the poor, the frequent flyers in all these programs are single mothers. They provide the largest constituency for every means-tested government poverty program in the country, and they are a growing constituency.
There is a far more efficient solution to family poverty and the childhood problems associated with single-parent families: Revive the marriage norm among the poor. Public policy’s ability to restore the expectation that children be raised by both their parents is undoubtedly limited. But it is better to try than to do nothing. And making child poverty a political issue without mentioning father absence is worse than doing nothing.
Don't forget the fallout from the sexual and counter-culture revolutions, where the worst thing you can do is comment negatively on someone's sexual or lifestyle choices.
DON'T JUDGE!
Furthermore, "a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle" has been socially enforced through the "experimentation" with non-marital living arrangements, all of which make it harder to insist that fathers be financially, socially, and emotionally tethered to the home.
I'm afraid that gay marriage will further this trend of reducing fatherhood to mere sperm donation. (AI for single women who desperately want to become mothers started the ball rolling.)
At some point, Father's Day will become Turkey-Baster Day, and what we've lost as we "progress" in this wise will be forgotten even as our stupidity wreaks havok on the human soul.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDon't hold your breath waiting for the Woodstock Generation to apologize.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Woodstock Generation will have to die off before things get better.
Ours is not the first society to stray from family norms and sexual morality; eventually, the pendulum swings back the other way.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI really, really hope that you're right.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI worry about my three young daughters finding quality husbands some day, and about my little son growing up to be a quality husband. We do the best we can by being and providing role models and proactively teaching our values and that they have to be strong in living them out in the face of opposition--but they are surrounded by a world that overwhelmingly tells them 'if it feels good, do it, and you're a sucker if you don't.' I hope and pray that by the time they are adults and are looking for partners, the cognitive dissonance afoot in which the elites of society refuse to acknowledge the connection between permissiveness and dysfunction will start to wane.
Your point about gay marriage is so illogical as to approach delusional.
I think your reasoning is this. "I don't personally like it. Therefore, it must have bad consequences, even though I cannot make a coherent argument about how those consequences logically follow."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI doubt that's the reasoning, though, it isn't argued, just a worry expressed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is certainly an argument to be made: part of the problem of single moms is not just half the parenting but missing a constant male role model, and encouraging two women living together to be seen as equivalent to a man and woman being married will certainly increase the number of children who grow up thus.
Actually, David, you're the delusional one here.
Maggie Gallagher has done a thorough job of laying out the potential damage that gay marriage will have on the traditional understanding of the institution. The biggest looming factor is the fact that it completely de-couples the act of procreation from the definition of marriage, making it nothing more than any other social association. Heck, under that definition, I could marry my dog. After all, we live together and I care for him and he for me.
Let me state this more plainly so you can try and follow the logic this time: if you make marriage about nothing more than two people (gay or straight) having sex without commitment, you invite the very illegitimacy that is directly correlated with poverty.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSee my comment below, wherein I make a coherent argument from cause to consequence:
External Link
I'm just astounded that I have to spell out something so obvious.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou might also consult Stanley Kurtz, whose sociological scholarship demonstrates that marriage is declining in Scandinavia as a direct consequence of SS"M."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMs McDonald: Would you expand on how you would 'revive the marriage norm among the poor' [and the not-poor, for that matter]?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAha! Revive the marriage norm among the poor, and poverty will melt away!
It's just so simple!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks to Heather Mac Donald for posting this. It gives me the opportunity (not too OT) to recommend a condemnation of divorce by, of all people, the author of The Starter Wife posted on, of all sites, Huffington Post. You will be pleasantly surprised: External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I'm afraid that gay marriage will further this trend of reducing fatherhood to mere sperm donation."
It an amusing assertion considering there is absolutely zero evidence that gay marriage affects the ability or inability of heterosexual men to attempt fatherhood. If anything, statements like these are evidence of the lack of responsibility that's the main problem. Blaming some outside event with no bearing on the problem is a typical victim ploy. If companies like NOM and Focus on the Family used even half of their money and resources for strengthening straight marriage rather than denying rights to others there might actually be some progress in this issue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs I understand the argument for the connection between gay marriage and the rise of single parenting most of the data has come from Europe, since they have the longest test cases for gay marriage and its impact on the family. I defer to Maggie G on the details for this argument. As I understand it, gay mariage has furthered the disconnect between sex, marriage, and the environment for raising children. Gay parents, aside from adoption and the use of technology, cannot by definition have children. Marriage (and sex) have become commotities to support "personal happiness" (whatever that is). Gay marriage is one of the largest and most vocal governmental statements that marriage (and sex) are not about the health of the family unit including children. Our whole culture has moved towards personal happiness and away from creating healthy environments for raising kids. Gay marriage moves that argument down the road. So, why stay married if I am personally unfullfilled? If it hurts the kids, too bad. Why get married if it wont make me happy (since I already get the sex I really want). If a kid comes along, well, that does not make me happy, so I am out of here. Going back to the 60s and the rise of the acceptance of divorce, pre-marital sex, and co-habiting, the concern for the health of children has been forgotten. The state has stepped in by funding single-parent families (providing cash but not the positives that kids need from a dad). All of this was done to affirm personal rights (which in general conservatives affirm, but we always point to the calling of submitting your personal rights to the needs of society at large). We no longer shame people for divorce, co-habitation, or walking out on your kids. Gay marriage is just the latest and boldest step of social norming of anti-child environments. Maybe we are a better people for getting rid of the shame surronding these anti-child situations, but we would be fools to ignore the cost socially. A personal-liberty focused society as ours was designed to be was always dependent on a moral (yes, I think largely religous) populace. Some of the founding fathers even said so point blank. Without morality and a calling for self-sacrifice, an understanding of that using my freedom only for persoal gain causes a net deficit in society, we get the current realities. No, child poverty and unwed mothers is not because of gay marriage, but gay marriage is symbolic of the environment we have created, and it is another brick in the wall.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Maybe we are a better people for getting rid of the shame surronding these anti-child situations . . . ."
No, we're not, in so many obvious ways, it seems to me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGay couples can't "reproduce" without one parent being reduced to a mere gamete donor.
Lesbian couples are more likely to beget children, so gamete donors will most often be fathers.
That's pretty easy math; I don't know why you couldn't manage it.
"typical victim ploy"
Oh, here's why: you were too busy attributing idiotic motives to me.
"denying rights to others"
Project much?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFOTF doesn't spend any money denying people rights. They oppose the homosexual agenda, this is true, but they spend a whole lot more of their time and money coaching people through routine problems in normal-people marriages. So your "wish" is already their command!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is no way for "gay couples" to "reproduce" that does not rely on separating a child from one or both of its real parents first, and then - on top of that - forcing the child to pretend that not having a mother, or not having a father, is "no big deal".
But it IS a "big deal".
Children deserve both a mother and a father. Neither relationship is expendable. Both are valuable. And they are NOT interchangeable.
At the very least, children who are missing a mother or a father need to be allowed to grieve openly.
And children who are missing a mother or father because a grownup arranged it that way on purpose need to be recognized as having been victimized. Whether that grownup was motivated by fear, spite, or a political agenda, or whatever does not change the fact that the child has been robbed of something irreplaceable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusevery good, Heather, that " Revive the marriage norm among the poor."
use your magic wand and do that thing, willya?
I always wanted to play in the NBA and the most efficient method of accomplishing that, i figured out, was to become a foot taller.....so i see what you mean.
woulda been great but didn't have an efficient way of securing a wand.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is no magic wand. But maybe government and the media can somehow "encourage", or celebrate marriage the way they've spent 40 or so years "encouraging" cohabitation, divorce, sleeping around and single motherhood. But that would be 'turning back the clock" to the days of shot-gun marriage, and back alley abortion. Seriously, this is the end result of poor people copying the social mores of upper middle class whites. Marriage is strong in many of the newer immigrant groups, and while many Hispanic children are born out of wedlock, it's very common for the couple to eventually marry. It's an American "thing", black and white, this disdain for marriage.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse