do I really have to say it???
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 ...
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.
do I really have to say it???
“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.
HECK NO!!!!!
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.
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.