Katie Roiphe’s full-throated defense of single parenthood should not really come as a surprise, given the iron-clad grip of feminism and the related prerogatives of the sexual revolution on the elite worldview. This proud single mother and NYU journalism professor, who is definitely not “too poor to marry,” is insulted by a New York Times article on the 53 percent illegitimate-birth rate among females under 30, which she thinks covertly telegraphs the message that unwed moms can’t in fact do it all:
The Times reporters’ analysis of the economics and sociology of [an Ohio town with a particularly high illegitimacy rate] is punctuated by a pat “meanwhile, children happen” that is perhaps not quite as respectful as it could be of the fact that these independent-minded, apparently hard-working women are making decisions and forging families, after thinking clearly about their situation.
Marriage, Roiphe reveals triumphantly, “does not ensure eternal love, or even eternal security.” Now we know.
But despite its overdetermined status, Roiphe’s Slate piece is nevertheless a sobering reminder of how great the abyss still is between those who understand the costs of family breakdown and those who see it as merely “refresh[ing] our ideas of family.” Roiphe concludes that there are no (annoyingly retrograde) studies on “what it will be like for . . . children to live in” the coming world without marriage. Actually, we know already. It’s called the ghetto.
The Left is not ignoring those costs, it is banking on them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSpot on target.
When will we learn that this kind of thing is not accidental? It is the desired result of policies enacted over the past 50 years, intended to create a dependent population ignorant of our country's history and culture, its outstretched hand reaching, its voice crying in a Bill-Murray-What-About-Bob? plea, "Gimme, Gimme, Gimme, I need, I need, I need." . Daniel Patrick Moynihan predicted the welfare state's destruction of the black family, and for his prophecy he was pilloried as a racist. In reality, the welfare state desires to destroy all families.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The Left Is Still Ignoring the Costs of Family Breakdown"
Not surprising given its role in it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMs. Mac Donald wrote in "The City Journal":
"The Daley dynasty in Chicago may be giving way to the Obama-Emanuel political machine, but one thing remains constant in the Windy City: youth violence and a collective refusal to acknowledge its root cause. On the one-year anniversary of the beating death of a Chicago teen by his fellow students, Chicago remains in denial about the driving factor behind such mayhem: the disappearance of the black two-parent family."
She does not even consider the hypothesis that the "root cause" of both,
"disappearance of the black two-parent family" and "youth violence "
may be something else;
not one being "cause" of the other.
It is not that I am an opponent of "two-parent family".
Respectfully, Florida resident.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat piece and many others are nothing but self justification for the authors. Anyone who has dealt with the schools and children know the harm being done.
But this professor took the article as a slam on her. She reacted emotionally, and without any type of reason. Typical of the left.
There was an article in which a semi-researcher provided statistics about the "new" families. When I added up the percentages and found out the "new" families were not the majority as the supposed authority thought they were.
I got 15 thumbs down for an addition problem the supposed researcher should have done.
Like I said, typical.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo those whose want the State to be our mommy and daddy, actual, functional families are an obstacle and a threat. At every turn, our government is muscling in to do functions poorly that families do well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI had a flash of insight on this topic the other day from -- of all unlikely sources -- Geraldo Rivera.
Geraldo was having a hissyfit on Fox over the stunning rates of illegitimacy among blacks and very high -- but less stunning -- rates for Hispanics. Geraldo loudly made the case that there is not nearly as much "family breakdown" as the numbers suggest. What is, in fact, going on is the massive gaming of the government benefits game. In these communities, it is broadly understood that the potential for claiming government benefits is greatly diminished by having a father of record living in the home; and it is widely accepted that it is good planning and normal behavior to avoid marriage for this reason, notwithstanding the presence of the father.
I immediately realized that, for once, Geraldo has stumbled onto the truth. It is not much of a survey, but a good friend of mine owns two Section 8 houses. In 50 percent of this sample lives a family running exactly this scam, and they have been fairly open about it, the father insisting that his name not be on the rental paperwork. (In my friend's other Section 8 rental, there is some other type of scam going on: A single woman with no kids and a completely middle-class lifestyle has her rent paid by the government. All black. )
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is true. My wife used to work in daycare, including one center that had primarily Title XX kids. A good number of those kids moms lied on their paperwork that the father was not living with them, when, in fact, they were. My wife was told by her employer not to report the parents who did that.
The families that did that included an ex-OSU star basketball player and his fiance. I mention this because he was playing professionally in Italy at the time, they had no need for this financial assistance from the government. I can only assume that they grew up in a family/culture that did what they could to game as much gov money as they could.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHave any of you noticed that Slate has the most vapid and pop-culture related articles on the web? It's like reading TV Guide. If you want to read TV-addicted morons drone on about Mad Men, you should read Slate. If they try talk about anything important, you might as well ignore them, now that Christopher Hitchens is dead
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"these independent-minded, apparently hard-working women are making decisions and forging families, after thinking clearly about their situation."
Pure lies.
Nearly every single mother I've ever known met a guy, shacked up almost immediately, got pregnant and then was surprised when the father ran for the hills the first chance he got. And usually, there will be a succession of substitute "daddies"passing through the home for years afterwards.
There's nothing new about this kind of behavior but the scale of it these days is remarkable. I cannot fathom why anyone would think it's a good thing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm confused. Do you not support single motherhood? Given the alternative which would presumably be having no children (unless you think women would marry just in order to bear children), that seems perverse.
I think we should encourage parenthood in every successful instance.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMarriage, Roiphe reveals triumphantly, “does not ensure eternal love, or even eternal security.”
As per usual, this lefty woman assumes that it's all about her and her needs rather than the needs of her offspring.
Yay us.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse