The New Normal: Singleness in America

BreakPoint ^ | 11 Dec 03 | Chuck Colson

[Mr. Silverback]

A pair of magazine articles recently revealed some intriguing facts about marriage and singleness in America. U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT notes that Americans are getting married later in life. And, according to reporter Michelle Conlin in BUSINESS WEEK, "The U.S. Census Bureau's newest numbers show that married-couple households . . . have slipped from nearly 80 percent in the 1950s to just 50.7 percent [of the population] today. That means that the U.S.'s 86 million single adults could soon define the new majority . . . What many once thought of as the fringe is becoming the new normal."

As a result, the way we view many things -- singleness, marriage, friendships, and institutions -- is changing dramatically. For instance, U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT's article focused on the so-called "Tribal Culture," in which single friends form highly organized groups that serve as a kind of substitute family. One such group, in Denver, has 110 members. But that number pales in comparison to some of the groups that are forming online at websites like Friendster.com where literally thousands of people meet to form social networks.

The existence of these "tribes" and these statistics tell us something about ourselves, the way we're wired. We are social beings: We need family and community -- even in a culture that prizes autonomy above all things. But BUSINESS WEEK's reporter sees a quite different meaning in the trend she calls "the new normal." Conlin argues that benefits like insurance and Social Security, which have always gone to married couples, should also be extended to singles, cohabiting couples, and homosexuals living together. She writes, "Just because matrimony is good for society doesn't mean that outmoded social benefits are."

Now, first let me say that it's important for Christians, when examining this trend, to avoid pointing fingers or acting as if singles are somehow inferior to married people. Surrounded by a culture fearful of commitment and more interested in "hooking up" than dating, even those who are interested in getting married often have a hard time finding anyone who shares their interest. Also, as Paul teaches in the New Testament, not everyone is called to be married.

However, there's a genuine cause for concern when people cite widespread singleness as an excuse to promote policies that denigrate traditional families. The benefits we give to two-parent families should have nothing to do with how many families there are. It's a recognition of the great importance of a stable family structure to our society, in all kinds of areas -- the strength of the workforce, the emotional health of kids, and even the physical health of adults. These benefits are one way that we encourage standards that reflect the way we were designed to live -- standards like lifelong faithfulness to one person and a committed mother and father for every child. The more we insist on ignoring these standards, the weaker our culture becomes.

Marriage already has enough strikes against it in a culture that largely considers it just one more "lifestyle choice." We don't need to discourage it even more. "The new normal" so-called may change a lot of things, but it shouldn't change the way we look at a God-ordained, time-tested institution. Tribes may have their place in the chaos of postmodern culture, but they are no substitute for marriage and the family.

[RosieCotton]

Um...I don't drink or party NOW, so I doubt I'm gonna miss that much. As for the rest of your post...I'm gonna just ignore it rather than getting ticked off at your judgement of me. You don't know me, and you obviously have a very jaded view of women if you're convinced we're all exactly like that.

And truthfully, I think I'm a good deal happier than you are.

[Gabz]

Off the top of my head I do not recall it's name - but there was a group I knew of in Delaware that did get some changes made and kept others from happening.

I'm not sure if it was a Delaware group or a state chapter of a national group.

Just like anything else when it comes to changes in laws, it takes prsistence, and money helps a lot also. Unfortunately as another poster said, most people don't care until it happens to them.

[NeoCaveman]

And another reason that much of the blame can be laid at the feet of the men is that most lawmaking bodies (legislatures) and law interpreters (lawyers and judges) are made up of MEN. they inflicted these laws upon themselves.

This is true. Of course the majority of voters are WOMEN. The men they elect are masters at keeping other men down for the benefits conveyed upon them (like re-election) by women.

Alpha males, wether politicians or baboons (small difference), succeed by keeping their fellow males down which keeps the females happy*

*Naturally this is all broad generalization, while true almost everywhere there of course can be exceptions (/disclaimer off)

[Jim Cane]

Burned a few dozen times? Impressive. Is anything left of it?

Well...mabye not a FEW dozen - less than twelve, and more than a handful

...of times burned.

[SaveTheChief]

Well after a generation of if it feels good do it, what do we expect really? There were some really bad seeds of selfishness sown and we are just reaping the harvest. There's hope, but it will require hard work and a deliberate move back to traditional family values. We have to step up to the plate if we want to change things.

You're right, and I think I basically said the same sort of things in my post. A kind of revolution needs to happen. Enough people need to stand up and let their elected representatives know that they have had their fill of the nonsense of the past thirty or more years. Every day I read a story here which illustrates the demise of family values, of simple human rights, and a ridiculous display of PC run amok. It has to start by cleaning out the court system. It HAS to come to the point where Americans stand up to proclaim "We are mad as hell, and we aren't going to take it any more!"

[Gabz]

It was politically convenient only because there was no outcry of opposition.

[Orangedog]

where were the men lobbying against these laws?

They didn't care because they never thought that any of them might be used against them. Afterall, these laws were only supposed to apply to the louts and wife-beaters...just like the income tax was only supposed to apply to "rich people."

[Nea Wood]

I wonder how many men on threads like this realize that they are merely feminazis in reverse? Yeah, yeah, the system is set up against you, men are discriminated against, women are selfish, greedy pigs, men are noble and superior. I'm sure you feel justified in saying all these things, but the feminazis feel equally justified when they spew the same nasty, bigoted, unfair things in reverse. Maybe you've been hurt by the opposite sex in the past, but so have most feminazis. Yet I bet you'd protest that that does not excuse or justify their nastiness, while it excuses yours.

[NeoCaveman]

Now there's a man who lives in Ohio!

Bwahahahaha.

[Jim Cane]

That has to be one of the most distasteful, disrespectful comments I've ever heard.

You should get out more.

[gipper81]

DWM, mid 40s, Phoenix, looking for a good conversation...

[Campion]

Rather than continue to be serially cuckolded, doesn't it make sense for a man to himself become a rogue male?

Shaft or be shafted, huh? Wow, what a wonderful world you live in ... NOT!.

Believe it or not, if you marry a girl with the morals of a horny rabbit when she's dating, she'll still have the morals of a horny rabbit after the wedding. Ditto for girls marrying amoral guys.

Nobody's ever promiscuously fornicated themselves to lasting happiness. Those rules are in that Book for a reason.

[Orangedog]

I am unaware of any significant 'mens' movement for any political, legal or custody issue. If they exist, they certainly do not get the press coverage that women's groups currently receive.

They exist but anytime a man complains about his treatment in public everyone calls him a deadbeat, manipulater, wife-beater, etc, etc. The message gets through to them pretty loud and clear...pay up and shut up. These groups never grow in size because by the time their kids grow up and the system lets go of them, they just want to get on with whats left of their lives and not be bothered with trying to help change things for the newcomers to the system. Mostly because prior to the divorce, a lot of those newcomers were part of the crowd telling them to just shut up.

[Gabz]

So what was it about your previous husbands that caused you to marry them in the first place?

Naivete, for lack of a better word, stupidity, immaturity. Pick a word.

I can not honestly say I remember why I married him. But 15 years after I divorced, I remember every single reason why I did that.

[Question_Assumptions]

No one ever said I was desperate!

You don't have to be desperate. Not everyone that uses a dating service is desperate. Think of it like using a recruiting firm to hire a new employee. Companies don't necessarily use recuiters because they are desperate to find employees. Sometimes they simply use them to pre-screen applicants so they don't waste time on duds. Same idea.

[Gabz]

LOL!!!!!

so when we gettin' together, I'll make sure hubby is safely at home taking care of the yung'un????? (just kidsing)

[Gabz]

They didn't care because they never thought that any of them might be used against them.

Nuff said.

[Gabz]

Very well put.

[quack]

I can not honestly say I remember why I married him.

Well,go ahead and say it dishonestly then :)Sorry,sorry....I'm enjoying reading this from the sidelines.

[Hodar]

Does it matter what kind of woman or group of women affected the laws? Does it matter if men signed the unfair bills into laws? Does it matter if you find a woman you believe will be a super wife, who says that she is opposed to the laws currently on the books?

No, no and no. Because the laws are in place, the legal precidents have been set. If you marry today to the perfect wife; and in 1-25 years later she decides she wants out, the laws will favor her - whether she likes it or not. Marriage is a risk, but nearly all the risk falls on the backs of the male.

When you marry, you may agree to postpone having children for 2 years. However, your wife has the right and ability to ignore your request and actively deceive you from day 1. She may consciously decide not to ever have kids, despite what you agree to today. You do not get a vote either way. Your voice is without weight; legally or otherwise. If she decides that work is too 'hard', she has the choice of simply staying at home. If you complain, you are a mean and hateful man. If you try the same stunt, you are a bum and a worthless individual.

If she decides to have kids immediately, instead of waiting; you are expected to support her unilaterial decision. Now, you have not only forfeited your decision making process, you have forfeited your income for the next 18 years. Your wife may decide how many kids she wants to have, or whether you will even be the father. As long as she is married to you, *you* assume childsupport payments for as many kids as she wants to have. She is in the legally supported role of determining how many children she will raise, how much she should work, and how much of your income she is entitled to. Should she file for divorce (for whatever reason she desires) she is likely to get your house (but you will continue to pay the mortgage), the car (you get the payments), the kids (you can fight to see that visitations are met, but we both know the likelihood of that), and in some states (noteably, not Texas) you can pay her a portion of your paycheck until she decides to marry some other schmuck.