Posted on 08/20/2013 8:33:34 PM PDT by NotYourAverageDhimmi
Throughout Europe, births to single mothers more than doubled between 1990 and 2010 (from 17.4 to 38.3 percent, 1). Imagine if it were to increase at the same rate for the next two decades! Such rapid changes are very unusual historically. They cry out for explanation from social scientists.
This steep rise in single parenthood is found in most developed countries, including the U.S. Here, single parenthood increased from around 5.3 percent in 1960 to 41 percent in 2009 (2).
The surge in single parenthood in Europe
Change was even more rapid in some European countries. Births outside marriage increased by a factor of 21 in Ireland between 1960 and 2011 (from 1.6 to 33.7 percent, 1) and a factor of 23 in Belgium (from 2.1 to 49.2 percent). These are not the most rapid growth rates either. Single parenthood increased by a factor of 32 in the Netherlands (1.4 to 45.3 percent) and Malta (0.7 to 22.7 percent).
Nor is the growth in births to single women likely to stabilize at these levels. In some countries the proportion of non marital births exceeds marital ones. These include Bulgaria (56.1), Estonia (59.7), Slovenia (56.8), Sweden (54.3) and Norway (55).
Plausible reasons for the surge in non marital childbearing
Perhaps the simplest reason is the decline in marriage. The average age at marriage for women increased worldwide from 23 to 29 between 1970 and 2005 (3), reflecting greater entry by women into higher education, paid employment, and careers.
Women are marrying later and their marriages are much more likely to end in divorce. Of course, more women are forgoing marriage altogether. So women spend far less of their reproductive lives in the married state and are thus have a lower statistical probability of producing children in marriage. According to my unpublished analysis of 35 countries in the Eurostat database, low marriage rates account for 45 percent of the differences in out-of-wedlock births. There are also economic explanations for single parenthood.
Economic reasons
Poor women in the U.S. constitute most of the single mothers whereas there has been a negligible increase in non marital births to middle-class women (4). This phenomenon is fairly easily explained in terms of declining wages for unskilled workers. Poor men no longer earn enough to be economically qualified for marriage and single women raise children with the help of their relatives instead.
Circumstances are quite different in Europe, however, and the surge in non marital births is not due to increased poverty there. Indeed, thanks to a well-developed welfare state, there is little poverty in countries like Sweden that have high single parenthood ratios.
Despite low poverty rates, welfare states increase single parenthood by reducing marriage rates (5). Mothers are so well protected by the welfare state that being married provides little further economic advantage. They are better able to raise children independently if they so wish.
Female breadwinners
The period of rapidly rising single parenthood in developed countries was accompanied by a steady rise in female labor participation and enrollment in higher education. Moreover, my analysis of Eurostat data found that female labor participation rates accounted for 48 percent of the country differences in proportion of births outside wedlock (an effect that was independent of the marriage rate).
Why might single motherhood increase with the number of women participating in the labor force given that this reduces poverty? One obvious connection is that obtaining an education and getting established in an occupation takes time and postpones marriage. Another is that women who earn as much as men do not have to depend on a husband to raise a child although most might prefer not to bear the burden alone.
Either way, it seems clear that single parenthood is no longer associated with poverty in Europe (as it is in the U.S.) given that more than half of births are to single mothers in some countries.
Given the changes in Europe over the past half-century, marital births could virtually disappear in some countries in another 50 years.
But those single women are having fewer children, so they can’t replace the population on their own.
Meanwhile, Muslims surge in numbers by having large, intact families.
Great point.
You’re actually more likely to get rejected and dumped if you want marriage.
Nice guys. OK
Used to be nice guys would never include those who would have marital relations or of wedlock.
That’s the source of the problem - reliance on birth control. Not to be confused with its fruit-abortion
The women, instead of taking charge of the situation,give into it like slaves and lead everyone to Hell with them, including the culture
We Catholics are indeed familiar with the stories, in this case wimpy Adam and that silly, lusty, destructive Eve, of the Bible - even the OT
Correct. But what’s the beginning of the story of promiscuity having taken over for the past half century?
My money is on the decline of civilization. No morals.
a surge in single mothers is a surge in the number of people that will end up in poverty in the next generation
a surge in single mothers is a surge in the number of govt dependent voters
a surge in single mothers is a surge in the demand for cradle to grave govt
a surge in single mothers is a surge in socialism
Bingo! There is no longer any stigma to sex outside marraige or to illegitmate births. In fact, it is all celebrated.
It's more than a "bad thing," it's a CATASTROPHE.
Maybe it's a bit of a generation gap here (Grandpa was WWII, I was born in the 70's and I'm in my mid-30s). I couldn't do that. Without going into things that ended up with me needing to go to confession. I came this close to proposing about 3 years ago, but deep down I knew it wouldn't work out for a few reasons I'm not going to get into here.
The lady I'm dating now, we'll see. I'm thinking positive here, if she can get past the age difference (I'm younger) :)
Is it such a sweet deal. Short term, yeah, in my early-mid 20's. Frankly, it was there in my dad's day and probably grandpa's day too, although neither would admit to it. Long term? No. Too many people like how I used to be.
So why are men "arming" their "enemies"?
Here in No. Calif I know several young women who are in what seem to be committed “partner” relationships (yes, with men), who have young children and have been together several years. Both parents have jobs and they live lower middle class lifestyles. Yet there is NO RING. Why?? I don’t know them well enough to grill them on this but I just don’t understand. I think that not getting married has been glamorized to the point where getting married seems like an old fuddy duddy thing. Sigh.
No listing of anti-male family law as a reason for declining marriage rates? Imagine that!
That’s because divorced fathers are one of the political underclass groups. To point out those policies and how they are implemented might diminish the well crafted imaged of divorced dads being akin to nazis who hate puppies and kittens. And these dumbasses still scratch their heads and wonder aloud why men aren’t going out of their way to start families.
Immorality.
Destruction of the family ; I would say a deliberate agenda.
Deliberate attempt to make government father, mother, aunt, and uncle.
You’re ignoring the pragmatic. You’re asking why they aren’t married when you may want to ask why should they get married instead. Why should people who are just getting by worry about getting into a legal arrangement that more or less just pre authorizes a guy in a long black dress to redistribute their assets after a bad enough argument?
The comparision with the 1940s is inaccurate.
In the 1940s marriage and the church were respected by government. In many cases a divorce required approval by the church. And child support was only ordered by the state as terms of a divorce and alimony. This arraingement favored marriage for both men and women.
Today child support and state benefits are granted without a requirement for marriage. In addition not marrying provides both the man and woman more finacial advantage than marrying in the case of separation. So there are substantial financial incentive for both men and women for not marrying, particularly for men and wage earning women. For many women it’s a choice of single parenting or no parenting so more women have children out of wedlock.
Even in a bad economy bills have to be paid and kids taken care of.
Take the government out of marriage, child rearing and church and the situation will right itself.
Why not just do what you feel like doing?
vaudine
“But what’s the beginning of the story of promiscuity having taken over for the past half century?”
That is not an easy answer but it starts with fdr and his welfare programs or if you want to look at more recent events then it is lbj’s welfare programs that made the gov’t an ‘easy mark’ for welfare moms to get checks.....the more illegitimate children they have, the larger the checks.
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.