# Rush Limbaugh and the institution of marriage. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 12, 2004, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-and-the-institution-of-marriage/249910 "2004-06-12T00:22:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![TVeblen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4bbf92/32.png) [@TVeblen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVeblen)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-and-the-institution-of-marriage/249910/61 "2004-06-14T16:31:21Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > \*\* > > I’d like to see a better dialogue about this, but the Left has completely surrendered on this issue. They’re caught in a bind here between their libertine impulses and the damage those those same attitudes have on poor women and children. I realize that much of this is perception so as an Independent and a moderate, my dog waits on the sidelines of this fight. FWIW I consider the “left’s” stance as a fundamentally conservative refusal to have goverment dictate unduly in what amounts to individual and family decisions. Damned if I can figure out exactly what either party actually stands for anymore. Of course no govermental actions come free of social consequences–or, inevitably, costs. Seems to me the principal area of disagreement is where and when goverment should get heavy–and start billing. FWIW I don’t think the Left has surrendered on this issue, nor do they have particularly libertine impulses. They just draw the line for govermental interference farther out. Which, of course, just loops the argument right back around to the relative social and financial costs associated, not to mention the real efficacy of _any_ govermental\* intervention. Which added nothing of value to the discussion beyond a bit more confusion and a mild caveat. Veb Great discussion, though, and unusually substantive. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-and-the-institution-of-marriage/249910/62 "2004-06-14T19:12:57Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > The Left cannot, and does not, criticize and condemn single parenthood. Yet this “lifestyle choice” has caused tremendous misery, especially in the black community. When fathers are seen as a check-writer, at best, children suffer. I don’t think anyone on the left thinks that single parenthood, when considered in a vacuum, is the optimal situation for children. But “single parent” is not some monolithic category. Parents can be single for a number of reasons and lumping them all together, as the right has a penchant for doing, is unhelpful. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-and-the-institution-of-marriage/249910/63 "2004-06-14T19:32:50Z")
Well, that’s fair, **Otto**. But there’s only one instance where single parenthood can be considered, in my opinion, to be the fault of none of the principals, and that’s the case of a widowed parent. Everything else shows a breakdown in the family. There’s no way around that. The fact that that situation may preferable to a situation beforehand, especially in the case of abuse, does not change that fact. In fact, it reinforces it further. My point at the beginning was that the American family was in crisis, a statement that was immediately attacked. But nothing anybody has said has seriously questioned my main points. There are a lot of serious challanges to the family unit today. Everybody knows it, it’s the elephant in the room. And what I’m getting from you, **Otto** , is that even discussing the problems single parents face will get me labeled, quickly, as “unhelpful.” ---
**Author:** ![DKW](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dkw/32/3118_2.png) [@DKW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DKW)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-and-the-institution-of-marriage/249910/64 "2004-06-14T23:29:17Z")
Pardon me if I sound, eh, naieve or anything, but since when the freak have conservatives in this country _ever_ had the slightest qualm about divorce? In all the speeches, platitudes, rallies, sermons, protests. etc. I remember from these guys, not once have I heard any of them denounce divorce. (Occasionally, they have a problem with the _consequences_ of divorce, e.g. single parenthood, but that’s as far as it goes.) Newt Gingrich initiated divorce proceedings while his wife was in the damn hospital. How much heat do you think he took for that? And when has Rush Limbaugh ever espoused belief in Christian sexual values, anyway? Look, he’s a money-grubbing doof who rags on liberals and doesn’t give a crap about the facts. Period. “Till death do us part” sure as hell ain’t a requisite for that mindset. ---
**Author:** ![UrbanChic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/9dc877/32.png) [@UrbanChic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UrbanChic)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-and-the-institution-of-marriage/249910/65 "2004-06-14T23:52:02Z")
[hijack] Say, gobear, I thought you were a Republican. What gives? Am I mistaken? [/hijack] ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-and-the-institution-of-marriage/249910/66 "2004-06-15T00:29:11Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > My point at the beginning was that the American family was in crisis, a statement that was immediately attacked. But nothing anybody has said has seriously questioned my main points. There are a lot of serious challanges to the family unit today. Everybody knows it, it’s the elephant in the room. First of all, I’m a bit curious as to what the rate of single parenthood is today vs. 5, 10, or 20 years ago. Anyone know? Secondly, I don’t know what _any_ politician has said about single mothers recently that’s even remotely constructive. As I see it, there are two basic ways (other than death) that a single baby can result: (1) A married couple has a baby, then divorces (2) A single woman gets pregnant I really don’t see a damn thing that can be done about (1), at least by a government. It’s not a problem that is easily addressible via laws, or via spending of public moneys. As for (2), it seems to me that it’s the _conservatives_ who are holding back progress in that area, by way of their incomprehensible opposition to any and all birth control education or endorsement other than “abstinence, abstinence, abstinence”. The situation is further muddled by the fact that so many conservatives have spent so much time being homophobic under the banner of “family values”, that if a Republican proposes a “family values” bill, people are going to just assume that it has some bit of homophobia in it somewhere, even if it doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-and-the-institution-of-marriage/249910/67 "2004-06-15T01:33:24Z")
**MaxThe Vool** , with all due respect, you’ve got to be kidding. The government can do an awful lot about (1). It is, after all, the entity that writes and enforces the divorce laws. Do you really think it’s a coincidence that no-fault divorce and the divorce rate took off in this country at the same time? I believe a ripple effect was created across the country. A rising divorce rate created the drive to liberalize divorce laws. This made divorces easier to get in the states that enacted these so-called “reforms”. The rates then went up again in these states, and created political pressure to liberalize the divorce laws elsewhere, because of the perceived need. As for (2), government (in the form of a welfare check) replacing the father as the breadwinner in the family has been noted time and time again in studying the rise of fatherlessness in the inner city. So it’s seems obvious that governmental steps and missteps can have huge impacts on the family. There’s surely no doubt in my mind about it. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-and-the-institution-of-marriage/249910/68 "2004-06-15T04:06:03Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Sorry I’m so late to reply. We took the twins to a petting zoo and carnival today. Gee, how nice for you. We took the boys and their grandmother for ice cream. We talked about our trip earlier in the evening, when we went to the local library, and how they have had to cut back on some of the reading programs, thanks to George W. Bush’s economy. My 9 year old son, said, “Yeah, George Bush.” Isn’t that a nice, warming family moment for you? > [@](#): > > I don’t talk in code words. Family values are just what they sound like, issues and values that affect families. For one who doesn’t talk in code words, you sure are dancing around your point over this series of posts. Yes, single parenthood, divorce, child abuse and the need for protection, poor education - these things are generally not great things. What is your point? Come on out and say it, man! I’m against cancer too! > [@](#): > > This sort of thing cuts across the political spectrum. If the left refuses to address some of the issues involved, they’ll find themselves marginalized on this issue. So, it cuts across the political spectrum, except for the left? Could it be that the left does address it, but simply in ways that you disagree with? > [@](#): > > It seems like the only time I hear from the political left on the subject of the American family, it’s tied up with the feminism diatribe or with the recent gay marriage debates. I’m not saying these aren’t important matters to discuss, but they don’t really affect the bulk of American families. Due respect, but bullshit. Oh, yeah, that’s all we do around my house is talk about feminism and homosexuality. Frankly, there would be no need for the left to bring up feminism and homosexuality if the right would pull these respective bugs out of their ass. The left cares very much about families and children - what we don’t care to do is make sure families and children look exactly like we do. We care that they get food, clothing, education and support through good jobs and good wages for the parents. These are the things we are constantly fighting conservatives for. We don’t care about that? Minimum wage, universal health care for children and families, education funding… Don’t care? Fuck that nonsense. But you are not getting quite to your point, yet. > [@](#): > > What does affect American families, and lead to this sense of crisis: > > Single parenthood […] Divorce […]has become a permanent part of American culture. […] Given that it’s by now well proven that this can have bad consequences for kids, this is depressing indeed. Since it is well-proven, I am sure that you can provide many examples of empirical studies of the issue, which show that divorce, over and above the effects of pre-divorce familial discord and economic issues, is predictive of bad consequences. Nobody would argue that divorce is good for children, mind you, but it is more likely to be a marker for other causal factors than a causal factor itself. Ending divorce won’t end familial conflict, for example. > [@](#): > > American families are poorly served by the educational system, which is not educating children well even in affluent areas. By what measure, as demonstrated in what references, are our affluent children receiving a poor education? I am honestly curious. > [@](#): > > In poor areas, it is not educating children at all, to any appreciable degree. The Democratic Party has a particular problem addressing this deficiency because the NEA wields tremendous power within the party establishment. Setting that argument aside, what is your excuse for the failure of the Republican Party to resolve the problem? > [@](#): > > Family law in America is broken. There’s no two ways about it. For every story of an innocent family harrassed by social service busybodies, there’s another one of a child allowed to die because they’d been returned to clearly unfit parents or sent to abominable foster homes. There are children who have disappeared, lost track of by the very bureaucracy charged to help them. These are some aspects of family law, but surely you would have specified child protective services if that is all you meant by family law. Let’s not talk in code words here. And again, please get to your point. Cancer is bad, yes. > [@](#): > > In a similar way, juvenile justice in America is similarly broken. A child who faces all of these societal breakdowns may well turn out a criminal, even a violent one. If he’s an adolescent, though, he clearly can’t be treated as a child, because he’s committing adult crimes. But an adult’s impulse control is lacking as well. > > A way of dealing with adolescents that commit very violent crimes has to be devised. But our country has instead reacted by trying them as adults. This does not seem appropriate at all. And coming up with an alternate plan would take some of that courage I talked about. Heck, you sound like someone from the left here. However, you move rather blithely from the point of discussing a link between social context and child behaviors to adolescents committing “very violent crimes.” The uber-criminal adolescent is a bit of a red herring, at least in the context of child and adolescent delinquency. There are a range of children committing a range of problem behaviors. Children and adolescents committing child and adolescent delinquency are far and away the bulk of the problem. Why can’t adolescents be treated as adolescents? Why do you claim adolescents are necessarily committing adult crimes? Further, what is your courageous plan? As a lefty, my thoughts turn to early intervention programs, to improved public schools, public school programs, after-school programs and community development, equitable housing, jobs programs and the creation of better paying jobs. > [@Mr. Moto](#): > > My point at the beginning was that the American family was in crisis, a statement that was immediately attacked. But nothing anybody has said has seriously questioned my main points. There are a lot of serious challanges to the family unit today. Everybody knows it, it’s the elephant in the room. I seriously don’t question your catalog of ills. Cancer is bad. What the hell are your main points, you straight shooter? That lefties are pro-divorce? Bullshit. That lefties are ignorant of divorce because we are always on about gays and feminists? Bullshit. > [@Mr. Moto](#): > > MaxThe Vool, with all due respect, you’ve got to be kidding. > > The government can do an awful lot about (1). It is, after all, the entity that writes and enforces the divorce laws. > > Do you really think it’s a coincidence that no-fault divorce and the divorce rate took off in this country at the same time? It would make sense. Did it happen that way (i.e. what is the evidence that this was the process)? > [@](#): > > I believe a ripple effect was created across the country. A rising divorce rate created the drive to liberalize divorce laws. This made divorces easier to get in the states that enacted these so-called “reforms”. > > The rates then went up again in these states, and created political pressure to liberalize the divorce laws elsewhere, because of the perceived need. So, people saw that others were getting divorces, and thought it seemed like a good idea? Damn Kramer vs. Kramer! Fucking Murphy Brown and her “lifestyle choice.” You need to fucking close the loop on your arguments here. Demonstrate that divorce is causal of other problems. You yourself note a constellation of environmental stressors. How is it that divorce conveys unique risk, as based on any sort of empirical evidence? > [@](#): > > As for (2), government (in the form of a welfare check) replacing the father as the breadwinner in the family has been noted time and time again in studying the rise of fatherlessness in the inner city. Could you cite these time and again demonstrations, and finish your thought. As in: So what does this mean? How does this exert whatever influence it supposedly has on whatever the outcome is that you are talking about. > [@](#): > > So it’s seems obvious that governmental steps and missteps can have huge impacts on the family. There’s surely no doubt in my mind about it. Clearly. What there is great doubt in my mind about is what the hell you are trying to say. Shoot straight, man. How can we shoot down your points if you don’t make them. In sum, divorce, poor education, failing juvenile justice, failing child protective services, single parenthood: BAD. Lefties and liberals: BAD. Mr. Moto: COURAGEOUS, CLEAR-MINDED, FAMILY MAN. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-and-the-institution-of-marriage/249910/69 "2004-06-15T06:29:19Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > **MaxThe Vool** , with all due respect, you’ve got to be kidding. > > The government can do an awful lot about (1). It is, after all, the entity that writes and enforces the divorce laws. **Hentor the Barbarian** has already said much of what I would say in response, but I’ll add a few things: (1) Saying that things the government does have impacts on the family (and who could disagree with that) is not the same as saying that the government can take action which will have a predictable effect on the family (2) Somehow welfare causes single parenthood? So if there’s a single mother who can at least survive on welfare, then she’s worse off than she would be if there were no welfare? Somehow, if welfare didn’t exist, the baby’s father would magically rematerialize, along with a dog and a picket fence? (3) To sum up (again, repeating much of what **Hentor** said), one reason you think you hear so much from the left about, say, homosexuality, is that it’s at least an issue which can be clearly and immediately addressed. To many liberals, there are zillions of huge problems out there. Divorce is rampant (bad). Lots of kids are being raised by single parents (bad). The education system is screwed up (bad). The Cubs and Red Sox both failed to make the world series last year (bad). Homosexuals are denied the equal treatment they deserve as US Citizens (bad). Of those BAD things, one and only one could be immediately and cheaply addressed by a single simple change in law. Therefore, liberals are very immediately and clearly for gay rights and gay marriage. It’s a slam dunk. Liberals can’t understand why anyone who isn’t a bigot would disagree. All the other issues are far more complicated. It’s not that liberals aren’t against divorce. It’s that it’s not clear what “being against divorce” means, whereas it’s much more clear what “being for gay rights” means, in a direct and legislative fashion. (4) As for no-fault divorce laws, I agree that divorce is bad. So are children being raised by parents in unhappy marriages who would get divorced if they could. Everyone agrees on those two points. What does that say about liberals and conservativse? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-and-the-institution-of-marriage/249910/70 "2004-06-15T11:07:35Z")
For the record, I am in favor of civil unions for gay (and non-gay) couples, and have said so in other threads. But that’s tangential to most American families, as I’ve said before. I don’t think for one second we should only worry about those social problems solvable with an easy fix. However, some of these other matters can be addressed by legislation also. In Arkansas, Arizona and Louisiana, couples can voluntarily enter into a “covenant marriage.” Covenant marriages require intensive premarital counseling prior to the wedding, and they also require counseling before the couple can legally begin divorce proceedings. It’s a new idea, and it’s a bit early to see what an impact will be had. But I like the message being demonstrated by these couples, that their first stop will be at a counselor’s office, not a lawyer’s office, when problems occur in their marriage. **Hentor** , I’ll take on some of your points later. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-and-the-institution-of-marriage/249910/71 "2004-06-15T15:40:37Z")
Well now, here we go. First of all, there’s no question that education has stagnated, and even regressed, among Americans across the board, even in affluent areas. In 1950, the average American fourteen year old had a vocabulary of 25,000 words. Today, that same student has a vocabulary of 10,000 words, according to the Gallup Poll. [http://www.wordsmart.com/pages/learning-centers.html](http://www.wordsmart.com/pages/learning-centers.html) Now, whether you can blame this primarily on families or the educational system just proves my original point, that families are in crisis and that the educational system isn’t serving them well. Next up, the link between welfare and single parenthood has been noted by social scientists like Charles Murray for years. The reason is simple. The primary benefit, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, was linked to the number of children in the household, and any income brought in by a working spouse brought a tremendous decline in benefits, or disqualification from the program altogether. In a situation like this, it becomes easy for a woman to tell a man to take a hike. And this is circular, too. With women not willing to commit for financial reasons, there will be a whole lot of men perfectly willing to bed-hop, and serially father children with different women. Anyone who hasn’t noticed this pattern of behavior hasn’t been paying attention. It’s instructive that Canada, with a welfare system less biased against marriage and less responsive to fertility, has a much lower incidence of single parent births. [http://econ.la.psu.edu/~nguner/papers/gkcanada.pdf](http://econ.la.psu.edu/~nguner/papers/gkcanada.pdf) As to why we should care about divorce and single parenthood, it’s quite obvious. These things, more than poverty, more than a working mother, hurt children. [Children in one-parent homes are twice as likely as those in two-parent families to develop serious psychiatric problems and addictions later in life.](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/04/health/main539283.shtml) The news story references a Swedish study that studied over one million children over nearly a decade. Severe poverty was controlled for by the Swedish social welfare net, so things like starvation weren’t at issue here. But there are things the social safety net can’t replace , as we all know. From the article: > [@](#): > > …the research showed, among other things, that 2.5 percent of girls and 1.5 percent of boys in single-parent families were hospitalized with problems ranging from severe depression to paranoid schizophrenia, compared to just 1 percent of girls and 0.5 percent of boys in two-parent homes. > > Similar risk differences were seen for alcohol problems, and the increased risk for drug addiction was even higher than for other problems. > > The study also showed that 2.2 percent of girls and 1 percent of boys living with a sole parent either killed themselves or ended up in the hospital after an attempted suicide by the age of 26, compared with 0.8 percent of girls and 0.3 percent of boys living with two parents. Because the study relied on records over 10 years, some of those cases could have overlapped with earlier hospitalizations for psychiatric problems. > > Because researchers looked only at those hospitalized, experts said many more children suffer emotional problems, though perhaps not so severe. [With 59% of American kids expected to spend time in a single parent household in their lifetime now, this should worry us all.](http://www.metlife.com/Applications/Corporate/WPS/CDA/PageGenerator/0,1674,P981,00.html) ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-and-the-institution-of-marriage/249910/72 "2004-06-15T17:15:09Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > First of all, there’s no question that education has stagnated, and even regressed, among Americans across the board, even in affluent areas. > > In 1950, the average American fourteen year old had a vocabulary of 25,000 words. Today, that same student has a vocabulary of 10,000 words, according to the Gallup Poll. > > [http://www.wordsmart.com/pages/learning-centers.html](http://www.wordsmart.com/pages/learning-centers.html) Two problems: one, you are linking to a commercial learning center website to support an argument about average size of vocabulary for an American teen, which itself cites the Gallup Poll, but provides no link to the poll. How can a poll answer this question for us? Was it a poll of 14 year olds asking them the number of words they knew? However, the larger problem is that even were this Gallup Poll surprisingly suitable to give the information you and the Learning Center purport, it is a statistic about the mean child. It cannot tell us how well children of affluence are being educated, which was your original assertion. Children of affluence may be doing super, perhaps even better than ever, and the mean number of words American children know could be dropping like a stone. But since there is “no question” about the issue, you will have many more pieces of evidence to support your claim. Lemme have 'em! > [@Mr.Moto](#): > > Now, whether you can blame this primarily on families or the educational system just proves my original point, that families are in crisis and that the educational system isn’t serving them well. Nothing you’ve done so far has proven your point. But let us move on. > [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Next up, the link between welfare and single parenthood has been noted by social scientists like Charles Murray for years. The reason is simple. The primary benefit, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, was linked to the number of children in the household, and any income brought in by a working spouse brought a tremendous decline in benefits, or disqualification from the program altogether. > > In a situation like this, it becomes easy for a woman to tell a man to take a hike. And this is circular, too. With women not willing to commit for financial reasons, there will be a whole lot of men perfectly willing to bed-hop, and serially father children with different women. Anyone who hasn’t noticed this pattern of behavior hasn’t been paying attention. This must be in response to MaxtheVool. Nobody would dispute a link between welfare and single parenthood. More people supporting a family on one income would require social support. However, you’re turning the issue on its head, and as a social scientist for years myself, I tell you you’re full of crap. Please link or reference any evidence of increased bed-hopping and disinterest in long-term relationships among any particular group of people. I must not have been paying attention, but your speculation is not going to cut it. > [@Mr. Moto](#): > > It’s instructive that Canada, with a welfare system less biased against marriage and less responsive to fertility, has a much lower incidence of single parent births. > > [http://econ.la.psu.edu/~nguner/papers/gkcanada.pdf](http://econ.la.psu.edu/~nguner/papers/gkcanada.pdf) Are you arguing that we should adopt the social support network of Canada? Hooray! Hooray! Hooray! It’s also instructive that you apparently intentionally left off one difference the authors specified, and I quote: > [@](#): > > We identify three critical differences between the two approaches to social policy: compared to the Canadian policy, the AFDC policy tends to excludes [sic] married parents, makes payments more dependent on fertility, **and has lower average levels of payments**. Why did you do that, I wonder? > [@Mr. Moto](#): > > As to why we should care about divorce and single parenthood, it’s quite obvious. Again, it is blind stupidity to suggest that anyone does not care about divorce and single parenthood. Knock it off. > [@Mr. Moto](#): > > These things, **more than poverty** :eek: , more than a working mother, hurt children. > > [Children in one-parent homes are twice as likely as those in two-parent families to develop serious psychiatric problems and addictions later in life.](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/04/health/main539283.shtml) > > The news story references a Swedish study that studied over one million children over nearly a decade. Severe poverty was controlled for by the Swedish social welfare net, so things like starvation weren’t at issue here. Your article is from _The Lancet_. Although you reference it in regards to divorce, divorce and family situations were not known to the researchers. (Setting aside for the moment that you already gave a pass to those who were in single parent families not by choice). Since you cited the article, you must, I assume, stand by its conclusions. Here are the authors of the article in their Discussion: > [@](#): > > When divorce is the cause of the family breakdown, this process is usually preceded by family conflict, which in many cases continues well beyond actual separation. Hostility between the parents creates an aversive home environment in which children become stressed, unhappy, and insecure. The results of several studies have suggested that children are better off in a single-parent family with a low level of conflict than in an intact family with a high level of conflict. Ringbäck Weitoft, Hjern, Haglund & Rosén (2003). Mortality, severe morbidity, and injury in children living with single parents in Sweden: a population-based study. Lancet, 361, 289–95. Thanks for the reference. The Lancet also published a commentary regarding the article, and the issue of socioeconomic status. Specifically > [@](#): > > The findings still leave major questions about why and how. What are the causal pathways, for instance, by which inequalities in household resources could translate into differential risk to health for lone-parent versus two parent households? And are these pathways necessarily the same in different countries? The possibility of different social pathways to ill-health in contrasting policy contexts has recently been raised by the findings of cross-country comparisons. Take, for example, the hypothesised > pathway that financial hardship of lone parents causes heightened anxiety, depression, and social isolation, which in turn leads not only to psychiatric disease but also to strategies for coping with hardship which include excess use of tobacco and other health-damaging substances. Evidence to support these psychological and social mechanisms has been found in relation to lone mothers in > the UK. Most Swedish lone-parent households, however, cannot be considered to be in financial hardship in the same sense that their UK counterparts are, even in relative terms. In a study comparing Britain and Sweden, less than 10% of > Swedish lone-mothers were poor (measured as below 50% of median income, standardised for family size). Most were working, but even among those who were not, only a few were classed as poor by this measure. The Swedish welfare system largely protected lone mothers from poverty and unemployment, in stark contrast with the UK situation, in which most lone mothers were still poor, even with the help of welfare benefits. Under these conditions, poverty and worklessness, in subsequent analyses, explained much of the health disadvantage of lone mothers compared with couple mothers in Britain but little or nothing of the equivalent health gap in Sweden. The search continues for what it is about the economic and social experiences of lone parents in Sweden that is ultimately damaging to their own health and that of their children. Whitehead & Holland (2003). What puts children of lone parents at a health disadvantage? Lancet, 361, p. 271. Again, divorce and single parenthood are not desirable things. However, casting them as causal of problems is not supported by the current evidence. Casting them as a moral failing is bullshit. Casting them as something ignored by the political left is stupidity. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-and-the-institution-of-marriage/249910/73 "2004-06-15T18:46:38Z")
I had to use the commercial site because the Gallup Poll is an even more commercial site. You have to pay to read poll results. The Gallup Poll is also a research organization used for marketing, so they look at all sorts of things. But I have to ask, **Hentor** , why I’m the only one coming up with citations here. Do you really thing affluent students are doing well? The blank stares my brother gets from some of the rich kids he teaches might suggest otherwise. You are aware, surely, that most colleges and universities have instituted remedial programs in recent years to teach students what they should have learned in high school? [This example from California State University, Northridge shows that 60 percent of freshmen there needed remediation in English or math.](http://sundial.csun.edu/sun/02s/020602ne5.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-and-the-institution-of-marriage/249910/74 "2004-06-15T18:53:47Z")
Major apologies, **Hentor** , as you’re doing you’re share of citing. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-and-the-institution-of-marriage/249910/75 "2004-06-15T22:11:41Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > The Gallup Poll is also a research organization used for marketing, so they look at all sorts of things. Yes, they may poll about many many things, but that does not mean that the results can support a charge that the educational system is not educating children in affluent areas well. > [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Do you really thing affluent students are doing well? I have no reason whatsoever to believe that the educational system is not educating children in affluent areas well. I would like to see some evidence to support the charge. I have searched a number of databases, but have simply found nothing to suggest that this is the case. I have found nothing that focuses on the functioning of children of affluence, unless it is to demonstrate that they are doing much better than disadvantaged children. > [@Mr. Moto](#): > > You are aware, surely, that most colleges and universities have instituted remedial programs in recent years to teach students what they should have learned in high school? > > [This example from California State University, Northridge shows that 60 percent of freshmen there needed remediation in English or math.](http://sundial.csun.edu/sun/02s/020602ne5.htm) Were those students from affluent areas? I don’t contest that children in general are not doing well academically. But you claimed that affluent children are not doing well. I can only assume that this is to divert the discussion from the nature of funding of public education, and the disparities that exist between racial and socioeconomic groupings. Since it is my belief that these disparities are the root of the problems with public education, I am asking you to support the contrary charge you have made. Again, you must present evidence that specifically identifies children of affluence and demonstrates that they are doing worse academically. This is your claim, which you have described as being beyond question. Surely there must be ample evidence. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-and-the-institution-of-marriage/249910.md?page=3)