The Collapse of the Traditional American Family

Townhall.com ^ | August 5, 2020 | Star Parker

[Kaslin]

The Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress has just produced an important new study titled "The Demise of the Happy Two-Parent Home."

The report exhaustively presents data showing the shocking collapse of marriage and the traditional family in America and then explores possible explanations for why it has happened.

In 1962, 71% of women ages 15-44 were married. By 2019, this was down to 42%.

In 1962, 5% of women ages 30-34 had never been married. By 2019, this was up to 35%.

In the 1960s, less than 1% of couples living together were not married. Today, it is over 12%.

And the percentage of births to unmarried women has risen from 5% in 1960 to 40% in 2018.

In 1970, 85% of children lived with two parents. By 2019, this was down to 70%.

The relevant questions are: Why should the collapse of marriage in the United States concern us? And why is this happening?

Regarding the first question, it depends on your values. To the large but dwindling number of Americans who care about traditional biblical morality, the collapse of marriage and family and the openness to other lifestyles prohibited by biblical standards is of concern. It is not a healthy sign about what is happening in our culture.

For those whose concerns are more secular, the collapse of marriage is of concern because its practical results are negative.

A large body of research exists showing the social benefits of traditional marriage and family as well as the social costs of their collapse.

There is the oft-quoted observation of Brookings Institution scholar Ron Haskins that American adults who follow three rules — finish high school, get a full-time job, and wait until at least age 21 to get married and have children — have a 2% chance of being poor and a 75% chance of being a middle-class wage earner.

In a recent interview, Nobel Prize-winning University of Chicago economist James Heckman observed: "The main barriers to developing effective policies for income and social mobility is fear of honest engagement in the changes in the American family and the consequences it has wrought. ... The family is the source of life and growth. Families build values, encourage (or discourage) their children in school and out. Families — far more than schools — create or inhibit life opportunities."

Why has traditional marriage and family so dramatically collapsed?

The report examines several possible factors, a major one being the dramatic growth in the welfare state supporting female heads of household.

According to the report, "The value of the safety net for single-mother families is 133 percent higher today than in 1940, and 56 percent higher than in 1960."

Nevertheless, changes in behavior reflect changes in values. Why do values change?

Since 1952, Gallup has been asking, "How important would you say religion is in your own life — very important, fairly important, or not very important?"

In 1952, 75% said "very important." In 1970, this was down to about 60%, and by 1978, it dropped to 52%.

It was in this environment of Americans' dramatic drop in a sense of the personal importance of religion that, in 1973, the Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion.

A wave of court decisions banned religion from the public square. In 1962, prayer in public school was banished.

In 2002 Gallup polling, 45% said having a baby outside of marriage was morally acceptable. By 2015, this was up to 61%, and by 2019, it was up to 64%.

What seems clear is that the collapse of marriage and family that has been occurring in our nation is not occurring in a vacuum. Values are changing.

For those who are worried about the situation, who want to see marriage and family strengthened again, the beginning must be awareness of the problem. To this end, the Joint Economic Committee report provides an important service to the nation.

[DIRTYSECRET]

2 late

[2banana]

The government had replaced the father.

For the votes of the mothers.

[a fool in paradise]

The goal of radical Marxist lesbians at NOW

[MeneMeneTekelUpharsin]

Momma always said, “Sooner or later, everyone has to sit down at a banquet of consequences.”

[EEGator]

Yea Feminism.
Enjoy your careers, box wine, and cats ladies.

Honestly, it’s rather sad.
How women were convinced motherhood is slavery, and men were having a great time at work is beyond me.

[CharlesOConnell]

BLM is heavily represented by alientated, sexually and politically radicalized white women who are ultimately indebted to the individualist Swiss-French philosopher J.J. Rousseau for their outlook. Rousseau had 5 children, out of wedlock, whom he abandoned to foundling institutions, and who are considered to have starved to death. He asserted that, rather than man having an intellect darkened to the truth and a will weakened to the good, man is essentially good in his nature and all ills stem from society imposing its hangups on us, therefore, radical individualism without obligation to others. is the proper course.

[Roman_War_Criminal]

Yep!

Americans let GOV replace GOD and the mothers/women who have zero to no morals let it roll.

Minority families are destroyed with no hope of every seeing the light of day until they swallow the red pill and own up to their responsibilities.

Whites are tumbling down the same course as well.
Sign of the times.

[Dilbert San Diego]

And why do politicians seldom talk about these family issues?

Remember how Dan Quayle got crucified for criticizing a TV show with a character having a baby out of wedlock? He was pilloried by the liberals so badly, that I think that politicians are afraid to say anything about the decline of the family.

This decline is most acute in the black community, where about 70% of babies are born out of wedlock. But as with other issues, if we mention that, we are condemned as racist. So the subject becomes a taboo subject which we dare not mention.

[datricker]

G.K. Chesterton wrote about the false choice between the basing societies economic model on the trader (capitalism) or the state (marxism) he had a third idea is that the model should be driven by the the family - he called it some terrible name something like Distributionism? - the name alone probably killed the theory from ever having a chance be as I recall it had lots of good ideas.

I thing we all need to read more Henry George, he seems interesting

[knarf]

SEX

No one wants to talk about it unless it's a crime or dirty laundry, but America's problem is sex.

Kids today seem to be primarily asexual ... always digging their faces into the phone or out doing things to break the boredom.

Those that PROBABLY would like something normal oftimes have been scrambled with 57 brands of unGodly sex.

Those that DO have a modicum of normal sexuality, USE it, rather than HAVING it as a part of their existence.

On a whole, they don't (want to) marry.

There doesn't seem to be any white picket fence or Leave it To Beaver dreams for either boys or girls and without those long term dreams, the entire concept of family doesn't exist.

No one has children .... they have kids.

I'm glad i'm in the October of my years

[Varda]

It goes beyond politicians. Christians completely dropped the ball. Nobody wants to talk about the earthly consequences of sin.

In my church you get pushback from both sides. The leftists virtue signal about “taking care of the poor” ie subsidizing illegitimacy and the pro-life group tells the children keeping your out of wedlock child is great.

[Ge0ffrey]

Hollywood and the proliferation of pornography.

[Guenevere]

Isn’t it!

When my husband was in ‘grad school’......we were married with child

This women’s lib nonsense started around then.......and naive me went to one of their meetings.
....as a conservative wife/mom I was shocked at their suggestions. ( which were a tad mild then, but not to me).....Get rid of your husband’s name.....
....put the baby in daycare and get a job.....they were pro abort.....and a few more....
..they made it sound so cool..

I never fell for it.......came close with the job/ daycare thing, , but wisdom prevailed

I had a friend from high school who chose differently......it has not been an easy life for her

[deadrock]

Let us not forget, the other big change is that there is no incentive for men to marry and there is an incentive for women to divorce.

[Ouchthatonehurt]

“Sooner or later, everyone has to sit down at a banquet of consequences.”
That’s a good one!

[grey_whiskers]

Yea Feminism.
YEnjoy your careers, box wine, and cats ladies.

Honestly, it’s rather sad.
How women were convinced motherhood is slavery, and men were having a great time at work is beyond me.

It is literally Marxist.

The Communists knew (or were literally told by diabolical spirits) that societies collapse without stable families.

They tried forbidding marriage in the Soviet Union...and had to beat a hasty retreat. You can read about it (if it hasn't been pulled) in a (yes, less than 10 years after the glorious October Revolution of 1917) 1926 edition of The Atlantic.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

To their credit, that TV show did appear to deal with the difficulties of single mommery, even with a character as prosperous as Murphy Brown.

[Mr. Jeeves]

The nation has to survive the upcoming November Revolution before trying to figure out how to put society back together. If it doesn’t, then none of the concerns expressed in this article will make much difference in post-Constitutional America.

[Responsibility2nd]

Years ago I had this as my tagline: “As goes the American Family, so goes America”.

It was true then. It is true now.