A third of US births are to single women - Should this be worrisome?

[astro]

Per the attached MSNBC article discussing Moniyhan’s report on the Black family 40 years ago relative the the situation today, one third of ALL (black, white, hispanic etc) new births are to single females. Is this necessarily a worrisome thing? If it comes to the point that one third or more of all children are raised in single mother households will the pathologies that afflicted the black single mother households ripple across these households as well?

Long After the Alarm Went Off - The statistics, so worrisome about blacks then, would eventually describe reality for whites. A third of American births are to single women

As Coontz sees things, Moynihan erred not only in misdiagnosing the breadth of the phenomenon but in seeing pathology where it did not necessarily exist. A woman’s decision to be alone is not always a bad thing. In her forthcoming book, “Marriage, a History,” Coontz makes the case that many things we see as social improvements—from increased employment opportunities for women to widespread acceptance of the notion that spouses should be in love—inevitably have undermined the institution of marriage. Also, the very fact that many social indicators got better (crime rates went down, educational rates went up) even as single-parent families were on the rise shows that something more complicated was going on than Moynihan realized, Coontz contends.

No serious scholar argues that the trends Moynihan highlighted were essentially for the best. Single-parenthood, as he correctly surmised, tends to be associated with a host of bad things—including poverty and an increased likelihood of children’s dropping out of school and into jail—especially if the single parent is un-educated and unemployed. Practically speaking, it’s not so much single-parenthood that is the problem as the things that often come with it.

[Mops]

Reading the linked article it’s not totally clear to me if the statistics refer to births to single or to unmarried women - the article seems not to make that distinction. If it’s the latter - well, in Sweden more than half of births are to unmarried mothers, and it doesn’t look like Sweden is going to the dogs.

[Phatlewt]

On the bright side, maybe certain people won’t try to blame this on homosexuals wanting to get married… Also, if the notion that spouses should be in love undermines the institution of marriage, then the institution isn’t worth dirt.

[brownie55]

@Phatlewt

Also, if the notion that spouses should be in love undermines the institution of marriage, then the institution isn’t worth dirt.

I read that too and did an immediate WTF? What are they talking about?

[astro]

@tschild

Reading the linked article it’s not totally clear to me if the statistics refer to births to single or to unmarried women - the article seems not to make that distinction. If it’s the latter - well, in Sweden more than half of births are to unmarried mothers, and it doesn’t look like Sweden is going to the dogs.

Good point. Per your note I found an article discussing just that issue.

UNWED BIRTHS - one report -different presentations 4/18/01

A record 1.3 million babies were born out of wedlock in 1999, marking
the first time that a full one-third of all U.S. births were to unwed mothers, the federal government said yesterday. The increases are the result of demographic changes and an increasing tolerance for couples to have children without marrying, said analysts. The 1999 data also demonstrate that the number of unwed births hasn’t declined, despite high hopes associated with the 1996 welfare reform law, which made curbing illegitimacy a primary goal. A major reason unwed births have hit a new high is that the number of single women who are of child-bearing age has also grown, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) said in its final report on 1999 birth data, released yesterday.

[astro]

@brownie55

I read that too and did an immediate WTF? What are they talking about?

Coontz makes the case that many things we see as social improvements—from increased employment opportunities for women to widespread acceptance of the notion that spouses should be in love—inevitably have undermined the institution of marriage.

As this is from a to be published book there’s no text to reference, but in looking at the context of things being discussed I’m guessing that this relates to the (fairly recent) notion of leaving or dissolving a marriage when the parties are no longer in (romantic) love, even there are children involved.

[Dangerosa]

very good point tschild. I don’t know if its still the case, but California used to assume that you were unwed if you had a different last name than the father or the baby (that’s somewhere in Coontz’s “The Way We Never Were” which I don’t have access to right now). Meaning both my children (I kept my maiden name) would be counted.

My cousin is expecting her first. She is 22, will graduate before delivery as an RN. She has been cohabitating for two or three years with a guy she has been with for five or six years. He is apparently looking forward to being a dad. I don’t think the birth was planned, and I don’t doubt they will get married in a year or so (will it last is another question) unless the baby significantly changes the dynamics of the relationship for the worse, but she isn’t single.

[Malodorous]

@Dangerosa

My cousin is expecting her first. She is 22, will graduate before delivery as an RN. She has been cohabitating for two or three years with a guy she has been with for five or six years. He is apparently looking forward to being a dad. I don’t think the birth was planned, and I don’t doubt they will get married in a year or so (will it last is another question) unless the baby significantly changes the dynamics of the relationship for the worse, but she isn’t single.

Yeah, I’ve known two couples that have had unplanned births and are living togeather to raise the child despite not being married. One couple intends to marry, but wanted to wait until they were on financially more stable ground. The other couple didn’t marry until later because it made it easier to get help from the state if they looked single on paper.

Another women I knew stayed “single on paper” when her partner and hers child was born because she had friends back in Vietnam and she wanted to enter a sham marriage with someone there so that they could come to the U.S.

It would be interesting for a study to find what precentage of single moms are really single.

[MissGypsy]

@Malodorous

It would be interesting for a study to find what precentage of single moms are really single.

I agree. I spent a few minutes puzzling over the difference between “single” and “unwed” moms, because I’ve always considered myself both, interchangeably. Yet, I’m in a long-term, committed, living-together relationship with the father of my youngest son. So I guess I don’t qualify as “single,” but if some government form asks, that’s what I usually check.

(Actually, I’m divorced, so that makes it even messier. I’ve been divorced for 8 years, and my oldest child is 3. I just call myself single, implying that I am not currently married to anyone.)

I suspect that the number of truly “single” moms, meaning those who are not involved in a relationship with the father of the child, is far lower. Most, I would wager, are moms who are involved with or living with a partner, just not married to him.