« wmds, lies and evidence | Main | we the people »
February 10, 2008
the rise of single parents
In 1964 Lyndon Johnson declared a War on Poverty. It was the next great step for the President who had just replaced Kennedy and had soundly defeated Goldwater in the election of 1964. LBJ's Great Society still lives with us today. The well-intentioned programs were meant to lift people out of poverty, but over time it has created an infrastructure of failure in the American family.
One of the great changes in the fabric of American culture is out-of-wedlock births. Since the '60s this number has increased from being under to 10% to being around 37% today. There are various factors that have led to this dramatic increase and there are also many problems that the nation faces with this trend.
During the '50s and '60s some social stigmas starting falling away. Sex outside of marriage started becoming more acceptable as well as the tolerance of single mothers. Since the beginning, women have feared becoming pregnant outside of marriage because of the social and economic implications. Obviously a lot of that is unfair. Each situation is different and this analysis isn't about bashing micro level decisions.
The Welfare program helped ease the economic problem single mothers faced. Before Welfare, single mothers were more likely to get remarried because it was almost economically impossible to raise a child alone. Welfare didn't make it that much easier, but it made it possible. The program even at times rewarded women for having more children before it was reformed in the '90s.
We hear stories all the time of heroic mothers who have raised a child successfully against heavy odds. These women should be commended because it is indeed a difficult thing to do, but too often the other stories are buried. These successful stories are the exception, not the rule.
Children of single mothers are five times more likely to be poor. Close to 35% of these children live in poverty. Crime and drug abuse are much higher among children of single parents. These children are twice as likely to drop out of school. It is this education gap that is creating two social classes in the United States, those who attended at least some college and those that dropped out of High School. The biggest problem with education isn't funding, teachers, or what's being taught, it's the lack of family involvement in the process. The problem continues to get worse all across the nation. How do you educate a child whose parent doesn't care? It is very difficult for a school to instill a sense of discipline if it is absent at home.
This is one area where I don't have many answers. For whatever reason marriage isn't taken as seriously anymore. Given the nation's prosperity since World War II it has become much easier to survive independently. Staying in a committed marriage is hard work and many people opt for the easy way out because it's available. Obviously the easy way out is necessary in some cases, but it's difficult to believe that this current trend is sustainable.
Posted by nemov at February 10, 2008 12:34 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.nemov.net/cgi/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2009
Comments
before i address the many myths and stereotypes of your post, i have couple of questions:
1)are you saying we should go back to the 1950s to a time before there were poor people and the role of women in society was defined by men?
2)and are you saying that poverty leads to out of wedlock childbirth or are you saying that out of wedlock childbirth leads to poverty?
Posted by: brown at February 11, 2008 4:40 PM
1) Is that a serious question? There were no poor people in the 50's? Huh? What does the role of women have to do with this?
2) Poverty generally leads to out of wedlock birth, thanks in part to poor government programs (as mentioned above). Out of wedlock births generally lead to a cycle of poverty.
Posted by: nemov at February 11, 2008 6:03 PM
1)when you use a time line you are making a historical argument that implies the problem started at a certain point in time. so, if welfare causes poverty then prior to welfare there must not have been as much poverty, right? also, it's telling that you don't see any linkages to women's roles in american society...
this is the failing of many econ and poli sci theories. they are a house of cards that don't stand up to anthropological or sociological scrutiny. these academic fields are behind the curve with respect to examination of their respective canons. while other more progressive fields have endeavored since the 1960s to root out and expose cultural bias within their own historiography, econ and poli sci simply ignore "culture".
and, although you will disparage the source as left wing media/academic/govt bias (an ideological tactic in and of itself), here is a link:
Posted by: brown at February 12, 2008 2:46 PM
The link you provided says that it's a myth that "welfare Encourages Out-of- Wedlock Births and Large Families." Then it goes on to discuss "average family size." Wouldn't it make sense that single parents would have fewer children? I'm sorry that I'm not swayed by a "growing body of empirical evidence" vaguely cited from 1997.
Posted by: nemov at February 12, 2008 6:23 PM
1)Why do you always try to bash the sources? This is the American Psychological Association, not some dude's blog. A quick count shows at least 15 bibliographic citations in that article. These people are experts. And all you can say is "I'm not swayed wah wah wah vaguely cited from 1997". Seriously, wtf?
2)Okay, so, moving on.. I'll momentarily ignore the fact that you didn't respond to 90% of my last comment and answer your question:
Yes, it would make sense that single parents have fewer children. That's why a long held republican assertion that single women on welfare are encouraged to have more kids is absurd. Makes you wonder what the motivation to say such a thing really is then, huh?
Posted by: brown at February 12, 2008 7:42 PM
The assertion that "single women on welfare are encouraged to have more kids" (which I made briefly) is born out in law. Congress changed the law.
So let me get this straight, because you haven't really debated anything I've written except to dismiss it as a myth. Your only evidence is a singled citation (that doesn't explain what kind of evidence). Do you believe that the Welfare program had nothing to do with this problem?
Posted by: nemov at February 12, 2008 9:45 PM
first of all, you've far more than "briefly" made this assertion...
secondly, ask yourself, why was such an absurd and inaccurate assertion utilized in a discussion relating to a piece of legislation in the first place? perhaps because it is part of a discourse that helps to reinforce a particular arrangement of power? in other words, if it is not a position based on fact, who benefits from such a portrayal?
finally, i am absolutely debating what you've written. in fact, i'm challenging some of the underlying assumptions (or myths) that inform your opinions. what questions are being asked is as important as what answers are being given.
Posted by: brown at February 12, 2008 11:17 PM
The last sentence of paragraph four, "The program even at times rewarded women for having more children before it was reformed in the '90s."
That's the only time that's mentioned. It's brief.
Do you believe that the Welfare program had nothing to do with this problem?
Posted by: nemov at February 13, 2008 7:06 AM
you've mentioned it in previous posts as well and generally you use several variations on the "individual responsibility" theme in a dogmatic way.
i'm not sure what you mean by "this problem". if you mean does welfare cause women to have more children out of wedlock, i believe we've already debunked that myth. we should move on to the question of whose interests are served by perpetuating such a myth?
this gets back to my points regarding the relationship between discourse and power which you still haven't addressed.
Posted by: brown at February 13, 2008 12:40 PM
"if you mean does welfare cause women to have more children out of wedlock, i believe we've already debunked that myth. "
Do you believe that the Welfare program had nothing to do with the increase in out of wedlock childbirths? It has increased from under 10% to 37% today. What has caused this?
Posted by: nemov at February 13, 2008 8:14 PM
you're obviously not reading the info from the link that i sent you. all you can prove is that out of wedlock childbirths increased. what is your proof that this is linked to welfare? it's the same as the corollary myth we discussed above that there is a link between welfare and large families. no such link exists. i know this shit is blowing your mind but come on...
Posted by: brown at February 13, 2008 9:45 PM
pssst! Brown!
you seem to have gone off on a tangent about absolutely NOTHING! If you are so well informed, then give us your solution to the problem. Or do you see this as *no problem at all?*
Incrementally, this country is slipping into a cesspool. The writers tells us he doesn't have many answers. Evidently you do. So what are these answers?
Posted by: pat at February 15, 2008 4:54 PM