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 ...
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.
A lot of people just want to make stupid choices, instead of smart ones. Some, perhaps, simply don’t have any experience in thinking about consequences, rather like people who were never taught about healthy diets.
Nope. You are absolutely correct. I think you have a fine solution there.
The only problem is, many of them are going to spend whatever money they can borrow, hustle, or steal (forget "work" for) on crack, booze, and wide screen TVs instead of their kids and then the hue and cry will be for the government to step in again - for the sake of the children, of course.
Frankly, I think if they refuse to support their kids, we should bring back the whipping post, stocks, and dunking stool. Perhaps a bit of real pain and social opprobrium would do some good? At least if it didn't, we could get some entertainment out of our tax monies!
Babymamadrama ping.
It’s also about four generations worth, and no sign of abating.
How can you extol the virtues and benefits of being married when your mother and grandmother were single mothers?
It’s little wonder this nation is in the trouble it is in. No disrespect to women, but my father was the one who gave me my work ethic. He was around in my life daily to do it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.