A wedding ring is a woman’s license to steal. That’s how many men view it.
When you don’t teach children responsibility and raise them on welfare, what do you expect? It doesn’t take a genious to figure it out. Unless of course you want to make money on writing articles over and over and over. Yep, let’s do another study. Even though everyone knows the answer.
The answer is pretty simple - men don’t want to get married. Our society has spent years depicting marriage and children in a negative light and promoting sex as the be-all and end-all of life. Men no longer have pride in fatherhood, and they can get all the sex they want without being married or even having a permanent relationship with a woman, so what’s the incentive?
In fairness, there are probably women like this, too. But many if not most women do want children, but they’re having trouble finding men who want them as well.
Social engineering through government has made it too costly an endeavor to be married.
Yup, bastards raised in a bureau, the very definition of socialism. I’m grateful and happy that I got to grow up and live most of my life in an America which is now only a memory.
Riding the Santa Fe Superchief and flying in a Lockheed Super Connie are among my fondest memories.
I’m thinking the “Me-First” culture that we live in is a historical fluke born of prosperity... prosperity of western civilization in general, and the US in particular. What happens as we begin the big crunch and the coming generations do not enjoy as high a standard of living as we? Do they return to the basics?
I’ll take draconian divorce laws for half of everything I own, ever hope to own, and everthing once owned, Alex.
No American babies are born in wedlock anymore, because genuine marriage hasn't existed in this country since no-fault divorce was introduced. The best you get here anymore is wedlatch, not wedlock—a purely temporary and severable alignment of financial interests, like an LLC only with less paperwork. Wedlatch is almost completely meaningless when it comes to the permanent legal obligations of child-raising. So the real question isn't why more babies are born outside of marriage, but why any are still born inside it.
That being said, I can't imagine tackling the job without MGD. Had single parenthood thrust itself upon either one of us, we would have done our best, of course, but I wouldn't wish that voluntarily upon anyone.
Perhaps looking at the demographics will help. Those with the highest out of wedlock rates...hispanic women and black women. Also, married women are having fewer children, driving the percentage of out of wedlock upward.
The numbers are there. With the Caucasian birth rate below the ‘replacement level’ our ‘Euro central’ society will be overwhelmed within two or less generations, probably by Muslims.
Because women are finding that they end up raising the child anyway. Men then become only the sperm donor.
We are reaping the logical, natural consequences of the cultural and sexual revolutions.
Young men today, of all races and classes in America, are driven by the same imperatives as they have been throughout history; to have sex (not necessarily to be fathers).
Today's young American man (correction, male not man) is too self-involved and too immature to parent. This doesn't stop the young women from following the pull of nature.
It may be a woman’s right to choose to have a child out of wedlock, but I get REALLY bent out of shape when the welfare department rushes in with offers of financial help. That may have been OK when there were only one or two, and there was no reliable birth control, but now.......
I would completely support a law that says “You chose - no support for you. And if you have another, you go to trial and possibly jail. There must be a father somewhere - ask him, you ‘chose’ him!”
Government subsidized the production of bastards with welfare to sluts. When producing bastards became financially useful, many were produced.
What government subsidizes it get.
Being born and married in Nebraska some 27 years this is a story about a parallel dimension. I mean, I don't know what it's like now, but back then (and there) folks pretty much married for life. But, you were imbued with a pervasive sense of rural civic responsibility, which is broadly absent in cities on a comparative basis.
I suppose that the anonymity accorded in an urban environment is what allows much of this. That, and availability that is “unsupervised” by the local culture. The existence of a set of behavioral ethics is what holds the whole thing together. Combine all of this, and it is possible to hold one marriage together, raise kids, and do it all in one lifetime (even as an airline pilot).
It can be done, and it works very well. The kids from such environments are very different though. For one thing, there is a greater emphasis on education. When getting out of the “nest”, they're “odd ducks”. I have a niece that graduated “summa” in finance at a large midwestern university. At a Wall Street investment bank interview, the leading question was, “Is there anyone “normal” that comes from Nebraska?”.
Well, by urban standards, it's obvious that the answer is no. But normative standards may be quite dysfunctional, as we see in this case. Personally, I'd rather be the “odd duck”.
When a woman gets more and more wlfare money for each child—she only has the incentive to keep producing babies and not worrying about the cost to soceity.
She gets WIC-Food Stamps- Section 8 Housing, etc.
This gets repeated from generation to generation.
Wonder what Johnson would say if he could come back for a visit today?
He started the “War on Poverty” and set many of these programs into motion.
Now, all I see is a giant circle, with the item in motion coming back 5 fold to bite us in the ass.
Only in that marriage is no longer the requirement in order to protect children from insult and provide for them under law. When the ramifications of having a child outside of marriage were removed by society, then the reason to marry ceased ... end of story.