Jason DeParle of the New York Times:
"...The economic storms of recent years have raised concerns about growing inequality and questions about a core national faith, that even Americans of humble backgrounds have a good chance of getting ahead. Most of the discussion has focused on labor market forces like falling blue-collar wages and lavish Wall Street pay.
But striking changes in family structure have also broadened income gaps and posed new barriers to upward mobility. College-educated Americans like the Faulkners are increasingly likely to marry one another, compounding their growing advantages in pay. Less-educated women like Ms. Schairer, who left college without finishing her degree, are growing less likely to marry at all, raising children on pinched paychecks that come in ones, not twos.
Estimates vary widely, but scholars have said that changes in marriage patterns — as opposed to changes in individual earnings — may account for as much as 40 percent of the growth in certain measures of inequality. Long a nation of economic extremes, the United States is also becoming a society of family haves and family have-nots, with marriage and its rewards evermore confined to the fortunate classes."
15 Comments
All the more reason why the New York Times aggresively supports marriage equality.
Then I have to wonder why states with marriage protection amendments already in their state constitution are our top performing economic states, Doug. And the top 8 U.S. cities for future job growth are all in states with marriage amendments. New York and Massachusetts, both tolerant of same-sex marriage, usually rank at or near the bottom of states in which to do business.
The facts prove that the notion that SS"M" is good for the economy is pure bunk.
You clearly didn't read the article. The article stated that two-parent households, with dual incomes and two persons to raise children, do better. It wasn't about which states are top performing economically.
That's right Doug. Anytime that the Times, or the media in general, talks about marriage in these terms, without clearly specifying man-woman, they are priming the public toward the idea of “benefits” given to the society when including same sex marriages.
Insidious work this whole calculated affair has been, from a to z.
But I wouldn't call it a day of celebration when the powers that be, with their media monopoly, can so easily manipulate a whole nation right out of the most individually liberating, (and independent from state), institution that there is: the man-women marriage and its biological family; through the devaluation, and intentionally created vulnerability of said institution, by denying it a single word to identify itself.
The article implies the need for fathers and mothers, though it only expressly speaks to 2-parent households. Like this part in which the mother, Mrs. Schairer, converses with her son about her boyfriend moving in and the son expresses an inherent need for a role model:
“I’m not the only boy anymore; we’re going to do boy stuff!” Ms. Schairer recounts him saying.
“What’s boy stuff?” she asked.
“We’re going to play video games and shoot Nerf guns and play Legos,” he said.
“We do that now,” she said.
“Yeah, but you’re not a boy,” he said."
"The article stated that two-parent households, with dual incomes and two persons to raise children, do better."
In that case, why wouldn't they do even better in a three-parent household - or a four parent household - or five - etc...?
The numerical standard used clearly refers to man - woman unions, no matter how either you or the NYT spin it. Such pairings consist of the two great halfs of humanity united together to bring out the best in both genders.
We all know how drastically different life is for children raised their married parents and those raised by a single mom. It's a sad state of affairs.
This article, however, made the situation seem worse by putting a face on the statistics. It was so sad reading how the Faulkner boys are involved in two sports each, take a Disney cruise each year, and enjoy Boy Scouts activities with dad, while Steavon's mother struggles to provide for him, has to drag him to her job before school, and unintentionally dashed his hopes for male bonding by hooking up with someone who the police had to extract from her house.
Poor Steavon expected games with a new father figure; but the guy was only interested in what he could get out of mom, as is, unfortunately, what happens when a man doesn't marry a woman before having children *with her.* When they told the story about Ms. Schairer's attempt at a birthday party for Steavon, which only resulted in his tears, it almost brought me to tears. I could see that she is trying her best.
I see these differences for children play out in real life. But at least Ms. Schairer is a loving mother. I have single mothers in my family who are real witches...but only to their kids. They love adults, but the kids are a scourge to them. Imagine the hardships of disadvantage and fatherlessness being topped with a bitter, hostile, self-absorbed witch who serves as your mother.
I was a little confused about this statement from DeParle:
"While many studies have found that children of single parents are more likely to grow up poor, less is known about their chances of advancement as adults."
Mounds of statistics show that children of single moms are at greater risk of incarceration, unwed childbearing, etc.
But regardless of the nature of the research, we can be sure that single motherhood is not good. So, when can we stop talking about these problems, and instead, transfer the knowledge into practical solutions for reviving marriage? I hope we can do so soon.
@Overcame, great point. Doug is the one who needs to read the article. It's sad how people like him have to seize any topic for themselves. This article is talking about unwed procreation and the ensuing fatherless, poverty and inequality between classes. It's not focused on ssm; but that won't stop SSMers. You could post a story about children dying of cancer and they'll make it into an argument for ssm. They can't think of anyone but themselves.
So, families of the marriage equality type do better economically than families of the single parent type?
Seems to be the outcome of the article.
Every article on the benefit of marriage cannot be automatically spun to make it seem like it's conclusion excludes families of the marriage equality type.
I know NOM stand for National Organization For Marriage, but since is was formed to oppose marriage equality, and wouldn't be in existence without that aim, it really doesn't fit with the mission of the organization to post article about the positives of marriage and then try to put an anti marriage equality spin on them.
Do your own research.
Oh, but it does fit with the mission of the organization. I was thinking of the mission that implied by its orwellian moniker.
The Olympic games favor same-sex couples because they don't ever have surprise babies that may impede their sporting vocation.
Unlimited sex without procreating is within the Olympic housing rules. Gay marriage rights activists don't feel you are being discriminated against because procreation and sex are two different things to them, which is why they won't stand up for your right to procreate. To them and the Olympic officials, hetero marrieds are "breeders" that have no place in the Olympic Village.
@Reformed,
Nice try, but just in case you actually believed your tripe I refer you to the following from the subject:
"But striking changes in family structure have also broadened income gaps and posed new barriers to upward mobility."
Now would someone in the class like to identify the most striking change to happen to the family structure in all of recorded history...? That’s right; “the push for the redefining of marriage to include a reference to committed unrepentant sexual deviants.”
To which Reformed unwittingly identified yet another reason why the meaning of the word marriage should not be changed in order to accommodate same gender companions; income disparity.
I will spare you the lecture on the birds and bees for now.
Randy E King
It get why you put quotes around the snippet from the article about striking changes.
But, why did you put quotes around "the push for the redefing of the word . . . etc." Is that a quote from the article, or just spin?
@Ash
I felt so sad for the little boy who wanted a father with whom to play legos. Kids need both a mom and a dad, and marriage can provide them with both. SSM just institutionalizes motherlessness and fatherlessness. So sad for children who cannot advocate for themselves.
That really cuts close to home for me, I live near there. I can see the differences between two parent and single parent families like this but no one ever seems to get at a root cause in these situations. Women should NOT be having premarital sex AT ALL. Think how Jessica's life would have inproved in every way if she had not had sex before marriage. Neither should men but apparently they have no self control and need to practice discipline by dating and increasing number of abstinate women in the dating pool.