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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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?
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.
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.
By what measure, as demonstrated in what references, are our affluent children receiving a poor education? I am honestly curious.
Setting that argument aside, what is your excuse for the failure of the Republican Party to resolve the problem?
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.
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.
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.
It would make sense. Did it happen that way (i.e. what is the evidence that this was the process)?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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!
Nothing you’ve done so far has proven your point. But let us move on.
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.
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:
Why did you do that, I wonder?
Again, it is blind stupidity to suggest that anyone does not care about divorce and single parenthood. Knock it off.
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:
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.