Skip to comments.OP-ED: The single-mom catastrophe
Posted on 06/03/2012 6:46:35 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The single-mother revolution shouldn't need much introduction. It started in the 1960s when the nation began to sever the historical connection between marriage and childbearing and to turn single motherhood and the fatherless family into a viable, even welcome, arrangement for children and for society. The reasons for the shift were many, including the sexual revolution, a powerful strain of anti-marriage feminism and a "super bug" of American individualism that hit the country in the 1960s and '70s.
The single-mother revolution has been an economic catastrophe for women. Poverty remains relatively rare among married couples with children; the U.S. census puts only 8.8% of them in that category, up from 6.7% since the start of the Great Recession. But more than 40% of single-mother families are poor, up from 37% before the downturn. In the bottom quintile of earnings, most households are single people, many of them elderly. But of the two-fifths of bottom-quintile households that are families, 83% are headed by single mothers. The Brookings Institution's Isabel Sawhill calculates that virtually all the increase in child poverty in the United States since the 1970s would vanish if parents still married at 1970 rates.
Decades of research show that kids growing up with single mothers have lower scholastic achievement from kindergarten through high school, as well as higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse, depression, behavior problems and teen pregnancy. All these factors are likely to reduce their eventual incomes at a time when what children need is more education, more training and more planning. The rise in single motherhood was ill-adapted for the economic shifts of the late 20th century.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
save for later
Conservative view: Duh. Told you so. This is the result of a moral breakdown.
Liberal view: Single moms should get checks and tax breaks.
The slimes actually published this.... wow.
>The single-mother revolution has been an economic catastrophe for women.
Well DUH! What other possible outcome could there be?
From this: Imagine an America with 70 percent fewer juvenile delinquents, 70 percent fewer teenage births, 63 to 70 percent fewer teenage suicides, and 70 percent to 90 percent fewer runaways and you will appreciate what the sainted single mothers have accomplished.
Soon it will be single gay parents. Get your kid early so you can start hormone treatments.
“The slimes actually published this.... wow.”
Now I might actually be impressed if they (and the rest of the lib press) apologized for crapping all over Dan Quayle back in the day.
Dan Quail was right.
The single-mother revolution shouldn’t need much introduction. It started in the 1960s when the nation began to sever the historical connection between marriage and childbearing and to turn single motherhood and the fatherless family into a viable, even welcome, arrangement for children and for society.
Translation: Social enginering once again, via OPM, broke up the family (particularly the black family) and turned otherwise healthy and productive people into dependent sadsacks.
Probably created hirer crime rates because people have a justification. Its other rich people’s fault I am poor..etc
It’s not just a catastrophe for them- when the government subsidizes this, it becomes a catastrophe for all of us. Most of these single moms get welfare benefits and get to bring up their offspring with crap like WIC. If they have enough kids and compound it with some ‘disability’ then they can approximate a salary easily equal to many full-time jobs. And yet somehow it is impossible to be a fiscon and a socon....bs.
Hell might be a few degrees cooler, but it hasn't frozen over yet.
Lots of information, but it's a pity the author didn't bother to mention the number one reason for the so-called single-mother revolution:
In the 1960s, the government implemented many welfare programs that in effect paid women many benefits to have children out-of-wedlock. A kid out-of-wedlock soon became the ticket to a government financed, lower middle class lifestyle. More and more takers ever since.
"So, how's mah "Great Society" workin' out for ya, Phadnah?"
Candice Bergen Agrees with Dan Quayle (July 11, 2002)
There are a lot of single parents struggling to do whats right.I’ve worked with many of them. I won’t lump them in with the single parents who just do what they want and let the grandparents and the government worry about their children.
Now I might actually be impressed if they (and the rest of the lib press) apologized for crapping all over Dan Quayle back in the day.
Dan Quayle was a victim of the Crapping ON Americans (and America) “Revolution”.
All in the name of the left’s grand sense of social fairness and justice that they exclusively pocess.
We can’t expect them to ever take responsibility for the unintended consequence of their actions.
= millions of lives ruined in the name of saving the few (=ObamaCare of late)
Anyhow, they are beyond reproach.
Besides they’re far to busy profiting off other’s misery.
I deal with these people all the time.
What truly gets me angry is that the WIC girls bring their boyfriends/husbands to the store and pull out their WIC checks and get their free items while the guy is just standing there smiling. Many times the girl asks HIM if he’s sure he wants apples INSTEAD OF oranges OR strawberries. She then pulls out her EBT card to pay for pop, chips, steaks for bbq, shrimp, cake, icecream, ETC. The guy buys himself 2-3 cases of beer and they leave smiling from ear to ear. There are hundreds like them.
Why work when the Gov is paying you to sit on your fat useless lazy a$$ and so nothing! It’s the taxpayers the Gov is crapping on until we all wake-up and change the way things are.
There are over 100 comments posted on the LATimes site, almost all of them proving that this country is beyond hope.
Surprised to see this in the LA Times. I live in the inner city and it is almost a rite of passage for a women to get pregnant, and then start on welfare, and have a boyfriend move in.
Present Costs of the War against God: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html
That's true. However, in most cases, the fact that these are pretty much decent people genuinely doing their best doesn't change the economics. A single mother, especially a never-married mother, is overwhelmingly likely to be in poverty and receiving benefits.
Good intentions also don't much affect the social and educational outcomes for their children, in the aggregate. The single mothers who model and enforce an intense work ethic and academic drive for their children are few and far between.
These biological parents raise offspring with statistically higher rates of incarceration, drug abuse and illegitimacy. And the cycle repeats generation after generation. Growing like stray cats.
The comments on this article at the original site are so incredibly stupid they make my hair hurt.
They are worse than those at the WaPo.
Really pathetic people and Obama voters to a man/woman undoubtedly.
I had hoped that this type of big government conservatism nonsense had been beaten down with the removal of Dubya. Here we go again.
Yes single moms aren’t ideal and often are a drain on the economy & society IF repeat IF the woman only has high school degree or less. A factoid that the author of this piece leaves out is that single women with a BA or higher have the educational background to provide a middle class lifestyle for their kid(s) which does not necessitate the use of government bennies.
The unspoken reason that the “compassionate conservative” buffoon leaves that out is to trumpet and demand a big government solution - alter Federal policy to increase marriage levels. Once again, big government does not work! Leave me and my family alone. Keep your hands off of my firearms and my pocket book.
Were there any penises involved or was it a one person crime?
Just think what social engineering is doing to the US military.........
Same type of effects, mostly negative. IMHO
USMC 1970- 1981
Why on earth wouldn't a woman get a divorce if she was bored with a perfectly faithful and non-abusive husband? She doesn't have to prove infidelity or abuse, and the husband is powerless to prevent her from achieving a divorce if she wants. She's almost guaranteed to get the house, the kids, and if the husband is making a decent salary, thousands of tax-free dollars a month in child support. A discontented woman has zero to lose, except a husband she's gotten bored with.
If "family law" (an oymoron in the U.S.) changed the laws so that, for example, there was a cap on child support of say, $600 a month no matter the husband's income, or that "shared custody" wasn't the scam it is today but was actually "shared" in that the kids spent equal amounts of time with dad as with mom, or that mom (who gets custody about 90% of the time) was required to prove that she actually spent the child support on the kids ... THEN I think we'd see a significant reduction in single moms and fatherless homes. But right now, women bored in their marriages have nothing to lose by getting divorced.
“Courage is the foundation of all the other virtues.”
Major Products of the War On Poverty:
1 - Cost of the War On Poverty now estimated at almost $20 Trillion dollars (in inflation-adjusted dollars) In comparison, all the military wars in U.S. history have cost a total of $6.4 trillion
2 - Since the War began, up to 85% of black children have been raised in single-parent, mother-child homes.
3 - Poverty rate for black children is 3 times higher than the national average
4 - Blacks constitute only about 13% of the population but account for more than 30% of the abortions.
5 - The abortion rate for blacks is about 3 times the US abortion rate.
6 - Black women are more than 5 times as likely as white women to have an abortion
7 - On average, 1,876 black babies are aborted every day in the United States
8 - Estimated number of black babies aborted since 1973 = about 16 million. Total black population in 2010 census = 39.3 million (12.6% of US total) That means that almost 30% of the potential black population has been lost to abortions in the last 40 years.
“On the other hand, those who opt for single motherhood are hurting not just themselves but their offspring. “
And there lies the problem. Single, poor mothers don’t give a crap about their children. It’s just another check as far as they are concerned.
It would be interesting to know what percentage of single mothers are single mothers due to divorce, and due to out-of-wedlock births. Those are really two entirely different sets of circumstances, and the women in each group probably have a very different mindset and outlook.
Alter Federal policy to stop spending taxpayer money to encourage, enable and finance:
- Out of wedlock births (especially multiple incidences)?HECK YES!!!!!
- Single parent mother/child homes?
- Sex as a form of entertainment?
The Rockefeller Foundation played the pivotal role.
Screw you Enemedia and Murphy Brown/Candice Bergen. Dan Quayle still looks pretty smart on the important stuff.
And not to spoil anyone's breakfast, but here's a timely reminder of why voting for cyanide in order to vote "against" arsenic is a big mistake. Mitt Romney is 100% FOR allowing gays to adopt kids, which really means that he is 100% for punishing adoption agencies if they refuse to allow homosexuals to adopt the children entrusted to them.
Those of you who are ABO and ready to vote for Romney against your better judgment, think about what you are voting for, and consider please a third alternative: to vote in order to dilute and make weak whichever poison wins: vote official on-the-ballot third party (better than a write-in because you don't risk invalidating your entire ballot). IF enough Americans disgusted with the amoral authoritarian big government of both Obama and Romney reject them by voting third party and whichever statist authoritarian wins ONLY gets, say, 38% of the vote because the remaining 62% split between his opponent and third party, he will enter office on the defensive, politically vulnerable, and weak.
Back to the topic at hand now!
That is also an issue independent of the economic and social outcomes of unmarried motherhood. By law, the woman has 100% of the power over child-bearing and child-rearing. Some commentators here have claimed that this means the participation of males is as irrelevant to the problems as if the women were impregnated by some unknown, random factor.
I recently met a very effeminate young man who was the 19 yr old son of a professor at a prestigious college and I sort of shrugged and thought, oh, well, gay is the latest liberal fad.
Then I discovered that “he” had actually been born a girl, and that “he” had already had the surgery and was receiving heavy hormone treatments (as another friend said, “he” should get “his” money back, because it wasn’t working). Since the kid was only 19, this means that all of this started when she was still a minor and that the parents must have permitted/encouraged this and had their insurance company pay for it.
That was the most disgusting thing of all. The poor kid was obviously a confused and unhappy person, and it wouldn’t have surprised me in the least if something strange in the family dynamic hadn’t impelled her into this. Many of these people, incidentally, try to have the process undone later on - or end up committing suicide.
I feel rabid irrational feminism is the root cause for the socio-cultural break down of morals, ethics, tradition, family....on and on and on.
The role of ‘mother’ has been so diminished and morphed into ‘I am Woman hear me roar for MY needs...to hell with sacrifice for family and children.
Single moms, drugs and crime, go together like a check on the first, a dime bag of crack, a forty, and a stolen flat screen.
The author of this piece says nothing about the latter but is cheer leading the former. Again this is a retread of that “compassionate conservatism” bs (hence no mention about your policy subscriptions) which I had thought was flushed down the toilet along with Bush.
I hear you loud and clear. Condoms are available. That alone would also cut down on abortion as well.
Plus, poor people, who suckled at the taxpayers' teat, were allowed to stay poor until they decided to get off their fannies and earn a better living.
Thanks for the ping.
Reisman is a valiant truth finder and teller.
(I’m off ping listing for a while, got too dark for me. Evern now and then over the years I’ve been doing them, I take a break.)
There should not be one fed dime given to unwed mothers, medical care, subsidized housing, energy assistance, food stamps, etcetcetc.
If every woman knew that if she got pregnant and was not married, she’d be 100% On HER OWN other than family/church/other private charity help, she’d think twice before slutting around.
50 years too late.
Except divorce is not the primary cause of single motherhood, it is the non marital birthrates exceeding 70% among blacks and hispanics.
Divorce is not the problem, it’s never being married in the first place.
I have the perfect solution to the “sadsack single mother issue”. For every child born out of wedlock, there is a daddy somewhere. Put a law into effect that states the new mother MUST determine WHO is the daddy by means of blood tests, paternity testing or just telling us. THEN HE and the new Mother pay for the upbringing of the child NOT me, NOT you. I only know of one immaculate conception and it wasn't these folks!
Also, offer them aid for say 3 months or so, but after that it's the daddy's and momma’s responsibility to raise the child and provide. NOT us. Especially NOT long term. AND if there is a second child out of wedlock..... NO MORE MONEY. End of problem.
Am I wrong here? I say no I am totally correct. I paid for my own children - so can they.