Kearney says she wants to grab the attention of both conservatives who say they care about children's well-being and progressives reluctant to talk about family structures, because the link between single parenting, inequality and mobility in America is too strong to deny.
This last paragraph is the most important.
This is basically the GOPs fault. 40+ years of trickle down economy. No money for schools, healthcare and other important things.
Marriage has nothing to do with any of this.
Rather disingenuous to blame politics for lack of personal responsibility. If you make your bed, be prepared to lie in it. For some, it is growing up in a bad family environment, but that can be mitigated if you have the will and desire to do so. For many others, it is the bitter and toxic culture of "strong women don't need a man". There is hope for the former, but none for the latter.
Well, when women can do what they want, it turns out that many, especially lower middle class, don't want to get married, even if that decision leaves them in poverty. And lower middle class men have had earnings and employment fall since 1980 in part because of the destruction of unions and manufacturing employment as a share of the workforce due to Ronald Reagan.
Well, when women can do what they want, it turns out that many, especially lower middle class, don't want to get married, even if that decision leaves them in poverty. And lower middle class men have had earnings and employment fall since 1980 in part because of the destruction of unions and manufacturing employment as a share of the workforce due to Ronald Reagan.
You are blaming Ronald Reagan for the state of affairs today? What were all the presidents after him doing? The true decline is in taking personal responsibility. There are several developing countries where folks have a lot less than we do, yet they struggle and make it work. I am not saying it is moral or right for anyone to struggle to make ends meet, but there is some merit to having the grit to rise above your circumstance.
Obama did nothing other than model a healthy, two parent African American family in which education was a priority. Oh, and have a two term, corruption-free presidency. Yet, conservatives are loyal to Donald J. Trump, probably the most corrupt, sinful man we have seen in public life in this country.
Obama did nothing other than model a healthy, two parent African American family in which education was a priority. Oh, and have a two term, corruption-free presidency. Yet, conservatives are loyal to Donald J. Trump, probably the most corrupt, sinful man we have seen in public life in this country.
Feminism? I thought we discussed this 50 years ago.
It's over the past 50 years that this has all developed.
The author of even says that her findings isn't what a lot of people want to hear, but she is simply stating the facts of the numbers.
"There are a lot of folks who are uncomfortable with the idea of prioritizing one family type over another," says Kearney, whose research and work as an economist at the University of Maryland focuses on issues that most would consider progressive: poverty, inequality, family and children. "I'm not prioritizing one. I'm just recognizing the data and the evidence and the reality."
Matt Bruenig wrote a really good reply to Kearny's book. The problem with Kearny's book is that she makes a number of big mistakes in her analysis. Mainly, piling everyone into the same bucket is the critical mistake. Kearny does not distinguish between the quality of the relationship between parents and the demographics and socioeconomics of each family. It turns out that in the US there are very high rates of poverty among two parent families due to the incredibly terrible US social benefits for families compared to other countries and lack of labor unions, etc. And there is no comparison between children whose parents divorced due to an acrimonious relationship, which resulted in a more stable home life in the single parent household versus parents who stay together for the kids or religious reasons but have a horrible relationship and are always fighting.
Don't forget that the conservatives in our country want to legally force single motherhood on women. They will restrict contraceptives next if allowed to stay in power and also continue to ignore male moral and fiscal responsibility for impregnations.
Out of wedlock birth rates were far lower before Roe and before widespread availability of contraceptives. Back then, there was community pressure to get married if a woman became pregnant (now we are confused about what a woman is), people had fewer sexual partners and there was a stigma surrounding being born out of wedlock. The current out of wedlock birth rate has huge economic repercussions and will continue to fuel the divide between the haves and the have nots. Republicans didn’t create this crisis. Democrats did with their free love, free drugs, imagine there’s no heaven or religion philosophies and policies.
Yes. The USA went from a 5-7% out-of-wedlock birth rate in the early 1960s when direct abortion was illegal to about 41% today when direct abortion is legal and widespread. This is the exact opposite of what proponents for artificial contraception and abortion predicted.
Even advocates for abortion say it has had dire consequences. Economists George Akerlof, Janet Yellen and Michael Katz published a paper in 1996. Akerlof went on to share the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics in 2001. Michael Katz was a professor at UC Berkeley and Janet Yellen, who is married to Akerlof, was Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve and is now in the media almost daily as US Secretary of the Treasury. All three identified themselves as supporters of legal abortion. Yet they concluded in this paper that the widespread availability of (artificial) contraceptives and (direct) abortion has created a technological shock and disarmed the "shotgun marriage" which has increased the out-of-wedlock birth rate and increased poverty among women and children.
Out of wedlock birth rates were far lower before Roe and before widespread availability of contraceptives. Back then, there was community pressure to get married if a woman became pregnant (now we are confused about what a woman is), people had fewer sexual partners and there was a stigma surrounding being born out of wedlock. The current out of wedlock birth rate has huge economic repercussions and will continue to fuel the divide between the haves and the have nots. Republicans didn’t create this crisis. Democrats did with their free love, free drugs, imagine there’s no heaven or religion philosophies and policies.
Yes. The USA went from a 5-7% out-of-wedlock birth rate in the early 1960s when direct abortion was illegal to about 41% today when direct abortion is legal and widespread. This is the exact opposite of what proponents for artificial contraception and abortion predicted.
The US poverty rate is like half of what it was in the early 1960's. Seems like there is a negative correlation between out of wedlock births and poverty:
This is the culture that Obama wanted. We need to start to realize how damaging his presidency was.
You have some serious mental issues if you actually believe what you just posted.
I think in fairness Obama spoke out about the negatives of single parent homes. A fair criticism might be that he did not use his bully pulpit often enough on this issue, but that is a difficult standard to measure.
I am the product of a difficult divorce. The problem was that my father was a really abusive and violent guy who engaged in all kinds of vices which were not conducive to family life and it was a blessing when he left. He was very well known in track circles. The problem wasn't the government, or Democrats or Republicans or social policy or the absence or presence of religion - he simply wasn't a good family person by any definition. It was a blessing when he abandoned the family even though poverty hit very hard. I am not sure how anything like this can be legislated or regulated but one can speak out about the culture and values which at times drive this behavior. I have empathy for Kennekuk Jack above and his desire to do the right thing. That is what matters, although outcomes certainly can be trying and uneven.
Well, when women can do what they want, it turns out that many, especially lower middle class, don't want to get married, even if that decision leaves them in poverty.
Lol at “when women do what they want.”
So we should, what… force women into marriage? Create a demographic that relies upon men for survival?
Lets face it: this isn’t a one-party issue, look around you. It’s the country. Opportunities have been dwindling for a few decades now. And the average American male from middle America who still lives with his parents isn't exactly someone worth marrying, these days.
Well, when women can do what they want, it turns out that many, especially lower middle class, don't want to get married, even if that decision leaves them in poverty.
Lol at “when women do what they want.”
So we should, what… force women into marriage? Create a demographic that relies upon men for survival?
Lets face it: this isn’t a one-party issue, look around you. It’s the country. Opportunities have been dwindling for a few decades now. And the average American male from middle America who still lives with his parents isn't exactly someone worth marrying, these days.
While the phrase that you highlight is quite striking, I do not think that zxcvcvxz was trying to make the point that you are suggesting. Take a re-read of his multiple posts - I don't think he/she is suggesting that women should go back to basically a servant status.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
