The New York Times has two related articles profiling the increasing trend of single parenthood in the industrial town of Lorain, Ohio which serves as an example of Charles Murray’s “Fishtown”. The articles indicate that Murray’s book is serving its intended purpose:
Still, the issue [single motherhood] received little attention until the publication last month of “Coming Apart,” a book by Charles Murray, a longtime critic of children born outside of wedlock.
Murray carries on the legacy of Daniel Patrick Moynihan whose warnings of the “tangle of pathology” within the black community has increased across all races and among the lower classes. The Times touches on all aspects of this development – cultural, technological, and economic:
The forces rearranging the family are as diverse as globalization and the pill. Liberal analysts argue that shrinking paychecks have thinned the ranks of marriageable men, while conservatives often say that the sexual revolution reduced the incentive to wed and that safety net programs discourage marriage.
…
Meanwhile, children happen. (emphasis mine)
The articles’ authors interviewed several dozen of these “Fishtowners” including one Amber Strader:
Amber Strader, 27, was in an on-and-off relationship with a clerk at Sears a few years ago when she found herself pregnant. A former nursing student who now tends bar, Ms. Strader said her boyfriend was so dependent that she had to buy his cigarettes. Marrying him never entered her mind. “It was like living with another kid,” she said.
When a second child, with a new boyfriend, followed three years later – her birth control failed, she said – her boyfriend, a part-time house painter, was reluctant to wed.
…
Today, neither of Ms. Strader’s pregnancies left her thinking she should marry to avoid stigma. Like other women interviewed here, she described her children as largely unplanned, a byproduct of uncommitted relationships. (emphasis mine)
I’m torn between interpreting single motherhood as immaculate conception or comparing it to drunk driving. Just as it would be improper to excuse people for driving while drunk, it is improper to ignore the negative consequences of normalized single motherhood. Despite the existence of alcohol, bars, streets, and cars, drunk driving doesn’t just “happen” in a vacuum. Nor are post hoc rationalizations developed to prevent judgment of the behavior. Though plenty of people do still drink and drive, nobody displays pride in such behavior and nobody is hushed for discussing the scourge as such.
Likewise, the existence of horny men and women is not an excuse for single motherhood. Births happen, but that they happen doesn’t mean that we have to adopt a defeatist attitude towards the happening. If we’ve come to understand the drawbacks to drunk driving – and if we’ve adopted laws to curtail it – perhaps we need to have a similar conversation about single motherhood without the stigma against victim blaming.
And which is a bigger burden to society? When you consider that children raised by one parent are more likely to commit crime or have lower income and worse education outcomes or create even more illegitimate children, the calculus seems to suggest that single motherhood is the greater scourge. Oh, and on the topic of drunken driving, being raised by one parent has been found to lead to a greater likelihood of drunk driving in adulthood.
So much is being obscured in this debate. Yes, it seems true that men are increasingly being crowded out and alienated in the transition from a manufacturing to a service-based economy. In general, men are struggling to adapt to this structural change. While men’s incomes and jobs are on the decline, women are more self-sufficient. But as David Brooks pointed out, just because manufacturing jobs aren’t coming back doesn’t mean that dropping out of high school is a good idea. Likewise, just because men aren’t able to get good jobs doesn’t mean that couples should create children with very low ROI. Murray – with Herrnstein – wrote in The Bell Curve:
All of the problems that these children experience will become worse rather than better as they grow older, for the labor market they will confront a few decades down the road is going to be much harder for them to come with than the labor market is now. (italics theirs)
If it is so horrible to be a poor Fishtowner with limited job prospects, then why should we perpetuate the cycle? Why should we not start regulating the streets with the parental equivalent of DUI check-points?
So we have women who are, as we know, gate-keepers. They determine (in 99.9% of the cases) when sex occurs and, thus, whether conception occurs. They know, as indicated in the NYT articles, that they wouldn’t want to raise children with these men, yet they continue to have sex with them without being cautious enough about the outcomes. They are creating another generation of children who start behind the curve.
Norms should adjust accordingly, but they are being prevented from fully adapting because of the welfare state and the widespread cultural fear against victim blaming. People who are perceived as victims are inoculated against judgment which merely perpetuates the cycle. In a better culture, perhaps marriage rates decline, but safe sex practices and caution would increase at a similar rate. Instead we have a decline in marriage (for cultural or economic reasons) but an increase in risk. But that risk is absorbed by the society – either by the society or by taxpayers.
Either they are able to earn the income to provide for themselves and their child(ren), or the government steps in to help them. But the government only provides money; it does not provide guidance, discipline, morality, or ethics. It is a sugar daddy when what children need cannot be bought.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Mr. Rudd,
The first place to start is to discard with the idea that there actually exists a thing called “single motherhood.” As in, there are actually no mothers who “singularly” raise their children. None. And it is in perpetuating this incredible lie (not accusing you, of course) that we then as a society come to tolerate a falsehood that claims that these females are raising their kids ALONE when in reality they are doing everything in their power and given every opportunity to spread the burdens of motherhood onto all those around them.
There is no such thing as a “liberated mother,” but that is exactly the goal.
Chuck everyone he is acting rationally: The women are passing on their genes. The men are passing on their genes. Family formation is dead and thus the children will only be influenced by the state schooling system. The government is hiring more people to pretend to fix a problem they created in the first place. It’s nothing but win, win, win, win.
Getting married is just part of the deal. You want kids, you have to be monogamous. Why should a mother get to live like a single woman?
Monogamy takes self discipline.
What is the race of the Sears clerk and the house painter?
The only reason I’m not more jealous of single mothers, is that they rarely are able to get high quality men.
This is letting men off the hook. Kids are cute and fun, and love their dad. It is his wife who often becomes unpleasant over time.
Interesting that 2 of the 3 women profiled from Ohio are Hispanic.
Why would any white follow the example of blacks? The pathology of blacks is very apparent to all. Drugs, crime, black ghettos,school drop outs, welfare, kids with no parents being raised by a relative or in a foster home, and much more.
It is the US government forcing this on us all.
Because basically all women have the sensibilities of lower class women regardless of their actual class. These women often would agree with you about the pathology of the black community but that doesn’t translate into not chasing ‘gina tingles into the sunset.
“So we have women who are, as we know, gate-keepers. They determine (in 99.9% of the cases) when sex occurs and, thus, whether conception occurs. They know, as indicated in the NYT articles, that they wouldn’t want to raise children with these men, yet they continue to have sex with them without being cautious enough about the outcomes. They are creating another generation of children who start behind the curve.”
I don’t understand why this paragraph says “women” and not “men”. It applies equally to men, with the added and extremely important fact that *it is the men* who gallivant off and ignore the parental responsibility.
If you’re looking for someone to take responsibility for single parenthood, blame the parent who isn’t there.
This should be obvious, and is entirely elementary, but the culture of slut-shaming is strong.
Did you literally not read the article? The woman featured says she couldn’t imagine marrying the father of her child. So no, it’s not the man. She chose to get pregnant with a man who she had no intention of letting actual be a husband and father to the family. He didn’t gallivant off; she did.
You have some wild theory and when presented with evidence, women expounding upon their life choices, that contradicts it you ignore it. Furthermore you clearly don’t understand sexual dynamics if you don’t understand what is meant by women being the ‘gatekeepers’ of intercourse.
Even if men were abnegating on their duties it is still women choosing to have children with irresponsible men ultimately. Her second child was with a man she knew didn’t want to marry her, and probably didn’t have any interest in fathering her children. So again she chose to be a mother without a father for the child.
He didn’t gallivant off; he was never there in the first place. She could have forewent pregnancy or had an abortion to avoid being a single mother. She could have been more circumspect with her mate choices, but she wasn’t. When and if a woman chooses to be a mother is almost entirely a female choice, as we are told over and over again.
The choices of women are not the responsibilities of men.
I looked at the pictures accompanying the article. These women are not young and attractive. I doubt they get much in the way of male attention.
Tybalt—
This bit of traditional social-con thinking is usually rubbish, as many or most in the game and manosphere have come to realize.
By far most of the time the man didn’t want to have the kids but the woman did, consciously or subconsciously. I’m convinced most “accidental” pregnancies are “ooopses”. When girl REALLY don’t want to have kids, such as when they’re in good colleges, they very very rarely do.
All but one of the reversible methods of birth control are within the girl’s sole knowledge and control, and the one that’s joint is the one that greatly diminishes sexual pleasure. Guys should still use if of course for casual sex and before they get to know the girl well. But when she swears she’s on the pill and they’re in a relationship, most couples stop using pills. If she then “forgets” to take the pill a bunch of times, forgets to take plan B, and refuses to have an abortion, who should be shamed then?
Her and only her.
In fact I don’t think in such a case the guy who didn’t want to be a father should have to pay her child support=also stealth alimony.
If that became the law it wouldn’t take long before the number of out of wedlock birth plummeted.
Tybalt:
“I don’t understand why this paragraph says “women” and not “men”. It applies equally to men, with the added and extremely important fact that *it is the men* who gallivant off and ignore the parental responsibility.
If you’re looking for someone to take responsibility for single parenthood, blame the parent who isn’t there.
This should be obvious, and is entirely elementary, but the culture of slut-shaming is strong.”
As Kyle points out below your comment, these articles are full of women who say that they can’t find good men anywhere. Did the women only come to believe that after they got pregnant, or were there not signs that these men were worthless before a sexual relationship ensued? And if they know that a shotgun marriage is not a feasible or desirable option, the same question holds. Why would these women take that risk with the knowledge that the men will not be around to help? Could it be that they know a.) that they won’t be judged for it, b.) that the government will help them out of their jam, and c.) that they’ll gain status and purpose within their little bubble full of similarly single mothers?
If you’re having a child with a man you’re not even married to you’re a fool.
Where’s the responsibility in making sure you have a man who’ll be there to support you when you bring another child into the world ?
Oh and this had me lmao…
“Amber Strader, 27, was in an ON-AND-OFF RELATIONSHIP with a clerk at Sears a few years ago when she found herself pregnant. A former nursing student who now tends bar, Ms. Strader said her BOYFRIEND WAS SO DEPENDENT that she had to buy his cigarettes. Marrying him never entered her mind. “It was like living with another kid,” she said.
So this is how Advocatus Diaboli came about
Pingback: Randoms « Foseti
Babies just happen.
Yup.
Pingback: Katie Roiphe Defends the Indefensible « Gucci Little Piggy
Pingback: An Audacious Display « Gucci Little Piggy