There's a big difference between a two-earner/two-parent family and a SAHM, breadwinner family. From a child's perspective, a SAHM can be almost like a single mother, just with more cash.
I believe similar maps have shown that women are much more likely to take economic responsibility for themselves in northern states.
I'd like to see a study of where men take personal responsibility for their children (i.e. equally pay for child care or do it equally themselves, equal parental leave from work).
A patriarchal family with a SAHM is a far-cry from the actual two parent family where kids now have a huge leg up.
I believe similar maps have shown that women are much more likely to take economic responsibility for themselves in northern states.
I'd like to see a study of where men take personal responsibility for their children (i.e. equally pay for child care or do it equally themselves, equal parental leave from work).
A patriarchal family with a SAHM is a far-cry from the actual two parent family where kids now have a huge leg up.
6
what about divorce in which the parents have joint custody?
2
Certainly this article seems to indicate that hypocrisy and male-dominated far right ideologies, both religious and political, guarantee bad outcomes for children. Jeb Bush's suggestion that women should be shamed for unwed pregnancy is beyond outrageous (as mentioned in one comment), but typical of the way the ultra right demonizes and demeans women.
17
So you have to be married, biological parents to be a "stable family?"
Nonsense. I'd use a different word, but you wouldn't print it.
Nonsense. I'd use a different word, but you wouldn't print it.
4
Rob in Az said "Aren't politicians from the states that have higher rates of single parent homes the ones lecturing us on "family values?" I have no idea how these people keep getting elected because they do not represent their constituents at any level"
I suspect that those politicians represent the self-hate of their constituents. The guilt-ridden religious believers who feel they are bad and wrong. They believe they SHOULD hate themselves and SHOULD feel guilty. That's what's so sad about it. They agree with the politicians who say they are terrible people...
I suspect that those politicians represent the self-hate of their constituents. The guilt-ridden religious believers who feel they are bad and wrong. They believe they SHOULD hate themselves and SHOULD feel guilty. That's what's so sad about it. They agree with the politicians who say they are terrible people...
16
Association is not the same as causation. Of course higher incomes help people stay together. There is less stress, and less to fight about. And more resources available for the children (time and money). What exactly is the conclusion, here? That geography matters? Does it still, if you control for income? How about age of the parents? Do people have children younger in the South? How does that interact with poverty?
Lastly, as to the remarks that relationships between unmarried but cohabiting people do not last, let's see the data. I suspect there is not much of it. Until recently, the norm was to marry if you got pregnant (or separate if that was undesired). Where is the data on couples who chose to have children while also choosing not to marry? (Scandinavia; that's where it is.)
Lastly, as to the remarks that relationships between unmarried but cohabiting people do not last, let's see the data. I suspect there is not much of it. Until recently, the norm was to marry if you got pregnant (or separate if that was undesired). Where is the data on couples who chose to have children while also choosing not to marry? (Scandinavia; that's where it is.)
5
How interesting that the lower percentage southern states are also some of the most restrictive states for personal freedoms, such as pregnancy choice, voting rights, physician-patient confidential relationships, educational opportunities, and worker rights. Thanks for the article because now I'll research the facts about what I observed from the graphic and read in the article.
23
Horrifying statistics, even at the high end. Two parents mean more time can be devoted to the kids and more time can be devoted to earning a living to help support the kids. The difference in the relative well being of children in two parent homes versus one parent homes was made strikingly obvious to me when I taught elementary school in Brooklyn 20 years ago when the statistics weren't so bleak and the one parent family kids were a smaller fraction. Politics aside, the unvarnished truth was so in-one's-face obvious in the classroom. Children from two parent homes are much much better off emotionally.
14
The study is inherently flawed. The purchasing power of a dollar of income varies greatly across and within the several States. The study needs to control for these differences in relative costs of living to be more meaningful - or simply focus on differences in family structure within a specified geographic/economic area.
4
There is a common thread between blue state and red state models of two parent households: Education and religion are two forms of disciplined thinking. Looking at our evolutionary heritage, when humanity moved away from hunter-gatherer era into a settled agricultural one, there was a need for discipline to make our primitively-formed minds compatible with realities of civilized life. Religion was the first form of discipline that provided that. Then in the industrial age, much of what religion did was supplanted with discipline that good education provides. A large section of today's society does not have proper access to either.
10
Change only comes from within a community. As long as Southern state residents continue to tolerate the lowest scores on every measure of societal wellbeing, we will see maps like this.
I lived at various times, beginning in 1976, in a very poor, troubled, socially and religiously conservative country, and in 2000 I founded, with a family member, a women's vocational and literacy center in a particularly conservative city dominated by fundamentalists and where the divide between rich and poor was stark. Our first center was on our street; we opened a second in the city's commercial district so more women had access to it, and closed the first. The community asked us to reopen it, and we told them we felt it was an unsafe neighborhood for our all-female staff and students. The men of the neighborhood promised to guarantee our safety; we rented a building in the heart of the poor community and the local men, with their own labor and at their own expense, added barbed wire to the top of the compound wall and built a room for the watchman to live in.
We were more successful in our work than many foreign NGOs with more educated staff and fancy boards, because we made clear that the community had to prove its own commitment to education and opportunity for its own women.
Please tell me why the people of a place like Mississippi can't do what I did. Their disadvantages are laughable compared to the people I worked with.
I lived at various times, beginning in 1976, in a very poor, troubled, socially and religiously conservative country, and in 2000 I founded, with a family member, a women's vocational and literacy center in a particularly conservative city dominated by fundamentalists and where the divide between rich and poor was stark. Our first center was on our street; we opened a second in the city's commercial district so more women had access to it, and closed the first. The community asked us to reopen it, and we told them we felt it was an unsafe neighborhood for our all-female staff and students. The men of the neighborhood promised to guarantee our safety; we rented a building in the heart of the poor community and the local men, with their own labor and at their own expense, added barbed wire to the top of the compound wall and built a room for the watchman to live in.
We were more successful in our work than many foreign NGOs with more educated staff and fancy boards, because we made clear that the community had to prove its own commitment to education and opportunity for its own women.
Please tell me why the people of a place like Mississippi can't do what I did. Their disadvantages are laughable compared to the people I worked with.
17
I can't help but connect a few dots.
The South = conservative evangelical "family values" = hypocrisy.
The South = conservative evangelical "family values" = hypocrisy.
31
"The land of Mendacity and Hypocrisy." (Victor Hugo)
2
One factor not mentioned. Climate.
In the northern states you have to plan for winter. You have to make a commitment to prepare. Raising children is more expensive and life in general requires a little more planning. Into that you can throw living together is cheaper than living apart. That makes a couple more committed.
In the northern states you have to plan for winter. You have to make a commitment to prepare. Raising children is more expensive and life in general requires a little more planning. Into that you can throw living together is cheaper than living apart. That makes a couple more committed.
8
Quite the politically correct tiptoe around race. Three-fourths of black babies are born out of wedlock. And the majority of those are with no father in sight. White births out of wedlock are one in four, with most of them being to cohabiting couples.
But those would be mere facts, and we can't have facts in today's New York Times, now can we?
But those would be mere facts, and we can't have facts in today's New York Times, now can we?
41
To take the white black divide on this issue and make political statements out of it is beyond trifling. Among blacks there are also many diverse groups. There are blacks who are middle,upper middle and higher class based on income level. There are Native American blacks, Hispanic blacks, Jamaican blacks, Trinidan and Tobagan blacks, Hatiian blacks and then there are quite a few blacks with various ethnic mixture. Then there are heterosexual and LGBT blacks. There are Christian, Muslims, Buddhists, Agnostics and atheists among black people. I am sure if you look at the numbers carefully you would find Caribbean blacks and Hispanic blacks much more likely to be married and practice traditional family values. I think you will also find the higher the economic achievement of individual blacks the more likely they are to marry or actively seek someone to marry.
5
I was thinking it must have something to do with mean temperature or latitude or distance above or below the Mason-Dixon line.
4
If there were equality in two parent families across states, then there would be equality in income too. it is easy to see from the maps of this article that in general states with higher two parent families have higher income.
the government needs to fix a quota for two parent families in each state. states with higher percentage of two parent families should force couples to split up, and vice versa. then we will see true equality in income and parenting as well.
the government needs to fix a quota for two parent families in each state. states with higher percentage of two parent families should force couples to split up, and vice versa. then we will see true equality in income and parenting as well.
1
It is clear that this article and research do not put much value on step parents. Just because they are not your kids biologically does not mean they are not your kids.
21
It's "Two Parent" households. Why wouldn't a birth parent and a step parent qualify?
6
The article stated teens living with both both biological parents.
I also suspect they wanted to look at longevity. Looking at 3 years still being with their parents is not the same as 14 year olds being with bio parents.
I also suspect they wanted to look at longevity. Looking at 3 years still being with their parents is not the same as 14 year olds being with bio parents.
2
Pervasive teaching of abstinence as the only form of sex education in both public and private schools contributes this. Pregnant teenagers commonly marry the fathers and have their babies, but both parents are ill-equipped to support a family, either emotionally or economically. Those marriages are particularly prone to break-up.
37
Some time ago I saw a report on a northern doctor who was working on how to deal with pellagra. One of the ways in which he studied it was to go to an orphanage in the south. He found that rather than being a transmit able disease, the children at the orphanage uniformly had pellagra while the adults who ran the orphanage did not have pellagra. The answer was diet, the kids were essentially being starved, while the adults were eating enough protein, etc to be healthy. The issue went to the US Congress where it ran into a roadblock. The southern representatives did not want to admit that they were not properly feeding orphans. In any event, the mystery was solved and people knew why the kids had pellagra. When I read the article and some of the comments I see why there has not been all that much progress in the past 100 years. Blaming and shaming does not make for a healthy society. Some people see every discussion as a vehicle to blame minorities. It appears to me that every survey shows southern states are behind. Why don't they do something about it?
49
This study is inherently flawed by its use of the definition of a two-parent family. There is no reason that the parents need to be the "biological" parents. Do the authors have any substantive evidence that a two-parent adoptive household is in any way weaker than a two-parent biological household? I think not....
14
This is known as Moynihan's Law of the Canadian Border, from “Defining Deviancy Down,” by Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan [D-NY], American Scholar, Winter 1993:
“A few months before Barton`s study appeared, I published an article showing that the correlation between eighth-grade math scores and distance of state capitals from the Canadian border was .522, a respect- able showing.
"By contrast, the correlation with per pupil expenditure was a derisory .203. I offered the policy proposal that states wishing to improve their schools should move closer to Canada. This would be difficult, of course, but so would it be to change the parent-pupil ratio.
"Indeed, the 1990 Census found that for the District of Columbia, apart from Ward 3 west of Rock Creek Park, the percentage of children living in single-parent families in the seven remaining wards ranged from a low of 63.6 percent to a high of 75.7. This being a one-time measurement, over time the proportions become asymptotic.
"And this in the nation`s capital. No demand for change comes from that community–or as near to no demand as makes no matter.For there is good money to be made out of bad schools.
"This is a statement that will no doubt please many a hard heart, and displease many genuinely concerned to bring about change. To the latter, a group in which I would like to include myself, I would only say that we are obliged to ask why things do not change.”
“A few months before Barton`s study appeared, I published an article showing that the correlation between eighth-grade math scores and distance of state capitals from the Canadian border was .522, a respect- able showing.
"By contrast, the correlation with per pupil expenditure was a derisory .203. I offered the policy proposal that states wishing to improve their schools should move closer to Canada. This would be difficult, of course, but so would it be to change the parent-pupil ratio.
"Indeed, the 1990 Census found that for the District of Columbia, apart from Ward 3 west of Rock Creek Park, the percentage of children living in single-parent families in the seven remaining wards ranged from a low of 63.6 percent to a high of 75.7. This being a one-time measurement, over time the proportions become asymptotic.
"And this in the nation`s capital. No demand for change comes from that community–or as near to no demand as makes no matter.For there is good money to be made out of bad schools.
"This is a statement that will no doubt please many a hard heart, and displease many genuinely concerned to bring about change. To the latter, a group in which I would like to include myself, I would only say that we are obliged to ask why things do not change.”
14
I wonder how they determine if parents are married. In the 90s, when I had my children, I noted a report that stated that parents with different last names were assumed to be unmarried. That made me a married, unmarried mother. I hope that this crude approach has changed.
11
This comes from census data, which includes questions about marital status.
3
This is a good article and neat research, methodological limitations aside. A couple thoughts:
-I'd urge many fellow commenters to lay off thumbing noses at the south. I too loathe certain southern politicians' (and their supporters') pontificating on "family values" to the rest of the country. But it's more than just explicit social policies that impact this divide. Employment law, the justice system, education quality, and the impact from the last ~20 years' structural shifts to the economy, among other factors, all help to decide how certain states ranked according to this study.
-If we really want to talk about alleviating inequality, it is going to get really uncomfortable. This author diplomatically addresses the balance of honoring single parents efforts' while recognizing the significantly greater chances of higher quality of life, long-term, for children raised by two parents. There are probably dozens more similarly uncomfortable issues/policy areas that we need to dismantle, diagnose and repair if we want to get anywhere. We, as a nation, need to put on our collective big-boy and -girl pants and decide that acknowledging certain life decisions' statistically significant differences in likely outcomes shouldn't be construed as vilifying anyone's lifestyle, values, or religion.
-Family stability, and policies supporting such, should be a priority for anyone who claims to desire a strong economy.
-The "best" state topping out at 57% is so, so disheartening.
-I'd urge many fellow commenters to lay off thumbing noses at the south. I too loathe certain southern politicians' (and their supporters') pontificating on "family values" to the rest of the country. But it's more than just explicit social policies that impact this divide. Employment law, the justice system, education quality, and the impact from the last ~20 years' structural shifts to the economy, among other factors, all help to decide how certain states ranked according to this study.
-If we really want to talk about alleviating inequality, it is going to get really uncomfortable. This author diplomatically addresses the balance of honoring single parents efforts' while recognizing the significantly greater chances of higher quality of life, long-term, for children raised by two parents. There are probably dozens more similarly uncomfortable issues/policy areas that we need to dismantle, diagnose and repair if we want to get anywhere. We, as a nation, need to put on our collective big-boy and -girl pants and decide that acknowledging certain life decisions' statistically significant differences in likely outcomes shouldn't be construed as vilifying anyone's lifestyle, values, or religion.
-Family stability, and policies supporting such, should be a priority for anyone who claims to desire a strong economy.
-The "best" state topping out at 57% is so, so disheartening.
25
Oklahoma is 72% white.
5
What share of Oklahoma's single-parent families are white?
2
Oklahoma: 41st in per capita income. It is among the top ten states in term of POVERTY and poverty is known to correlate with single parent families.
12
It would be interesting to compare this map to one showing which states have passed laws that make abortion essentially impossible...
20
There is difference between North and Southern or Red and Blue States, the single family or twin parent’s parenthood and economic stability in later years for the children. The single most effective way that change the current dynamics is perhaps use communication revolution, Facebook and twitter to produce change from Red to Sky blue and things would be different. Race, Religion, Type of Industrial Complex, Tradition and heritage, Political affiliation and above all lack of understanding about religion itself, may cause blind faith and following of a party or thought. Education not in school sense but in literal sense is the key that would change anything and everything for the Southern as well as Northern states.
Once passing through Massachusetts, the License Plate Slogan, the Sprit of America, fascinated me. Yes, it is but lost to military industrial complex in many ways, from voter base to education and politics. No other country knows better than Americans how to create the most beautiful creation of a nation, The Bill of Rights, just implement and it will bring justice in economic domain and race relations, would uplift poverty and restore family values based on equality and financial stability and two parents paradigm to raise children with prosperous future, just a friendly thought from your neighbor.
Once passing through Massachusetts, the License Plate Slogan, the Sprit of America, fascinated me. Yes, it is but lost to military industrial complex in many ways, from voter base to education and politics. No other country knows better than Americans how to create the most beautiful creation of a nation, The Bill of Rights, just implement and it will bring justice in economic domain and race relations, would uplift poverty and restore family values based on equality and financial stability and two parents paradigm to raise children with prosperous future, just a friendly thought from your neighbor.
3
Seems like everyone is zeroing in on religion, race or politics as the root of this issue. With a few exceptions, these lists mirror the state rankings for median household income. The rest is pretty self explanatory.
13
"Mirroring" is correlation. It says nothing about which is cause and which is effect. THAT is the question.
These statistics shed a different light on why right-wing politicians try to appeal to their base with the phrase "family values".
Is the secret hope of the ultra-conservative anti-government voter actually the unspoken dream that elected officials will some how work magic that will heal their broken families? (Kind of a sad and creepy idea, but it sure calls to mind Nancy & Ronald Reagan, doesn't it?)
Is the secret hope of the ultra-conservative anti-government voter actually the unspoken dream that elected officials will some how work magic that will heal their broken families? (Kind of a sad and creepy idea, but it sure calls to mind Nancy & Ronald Reagan, doesn't it?)
4
Like others who've commented, I find the ironies here rather striking: apparently the alleged northern/northeastern liberal anti-family agenda is not nearly as devastating as we're told it is, while the southern pro-family/pro-values thing isn't working out so well. Lots of other variables are at play -- notably, poverty -- but this is still a really useful article.
At the same time the map is a little misleading: like red-state/blue-state political maps it tosses out a ton of variance by aggregating at the state level; moreover, the intervals chosen -- just a few percentage points one way or the other, taken out of the middle of the distribution, for each color grouping has the effect of exaggerating rather modest differences...
At the same time the map is a little misleading: like red-state/blue-state political maps it tosses out a ton of variance by aggregating at the state level; moreover, the intervals chosen -- just a few percentage points one way or the other, taken out of the middle of the distribution, for each color grouping has the effect of exaggerating rather modest differences...
7
Well, at least we now know the real reason why Southern conservatives are always talking about "family values"... They're tired of raising their grandkids!
22
Why is the article titled "two parent families" but the statistics only show % of children living with "married, biological parents". This excludes two parent families who live together but where the parents happen not to be married, for one reason or another.
2
Am I the only one who finds it depressing that only 51% of teens in the highest-percentage states are being raised by both biological parents? In other words, almost half of all teens in even the "best" states aren't being raised by the mom and dad who brought them into the world.
I wonder how today's 51% would compare with the highest states' percentages 25 or 50 years ago.
I wonder how today's 51% would compare with the highest states' percentages 25 or 50 years ago.
37
Those figures don't tell the whole story, since they apparently excluded (e.g.) families who adopted their children, families where the parents are divorced but are sharing custody (or where one parent has frequent visitation), families with a biological parent and step-parent in the home, same-sex couples with children, etc.
I find it odd that the article doesn't seem to think that these groups are that statistically significant, given how common divorce and remarriage are these days. It seems like they must be missing a whole lot of people.
Just anecdotally, MANY of the kids I know have parents who are separated, divorced, or remarried, but both biological parents are still very much a part of the kids' lives. Even if they're not living under the same roof, they both support the child and share parenting responsibilities. Those kids are still being raised by both parents, even if it's not being captured by the study's methodology.
I find it odd that the article doesn't seem to think that these groups are that statistically significant, given how common divorce and remarriage are these days. It seems like they must be missing a whole lot of people.
Just anecdotally, MANY of the kids I know have parents who are separated, divorced, or remarried, but both biological parents are still very much a part of the kids' lives. Even if they're not living under the same roof, they both support the child and share parenting responsibilities. Those kids are still being raised by both parents, even if it's not being captured by the study's methodology.
The Deep South needs comprehensive sex education and easily obtainable contraceptives. Cultures (and states) do not benefit from a predominance of single parent poverty stricken families. This is not rocket science.
29
What is also not rocket science is how to prevent single-parent households. Comprehensive sex ed and easily obtainable birth control will prevent this ONLY if ignorance of how babies are conceived and inability to obtain BC are the problem. If people choose to have babies out of wedlock, all the sex ed and BC in the world won't stop them. And that might very well be what is happening.
9
Agree. I think that is exactly what's happening. According to the CDC, teen births have declined pretty much continuously over the last 20 years, reaching the lowest levels on record in 2013. Yet single parent households have continued to rise over the same period. I personally know a number of single, professional women who decided to stop waiting for a husband and had kids, in a couple of cases through adoption and in another case, with a boyfriend. They are all well educated and have solid jobs in law and finance. Whether their financial security will be enough to insulate their kids from the negative impacts of not having a dad in the house, I don't know.
1
To fully account for what's happening in modern families, there should have been a mention of single mothers by choice, who tend to be educated and older when they have children. These families might not (yet) be statistically significant, but deserve to be recognized in any survey of family structure trends.
8
True-- if you broke down the data for single parents (by income, level of education, etc.), I'd be very surprised if there were any significant differences in long-term outcomes between the kids of those well-educated, professional "choice moms" and those of married parents.
There are so many thought-provoking aspects about these statistics which are obscured by the politicized headline.
As a single mom, the first thing that struck me was how very few children are being raised by 2 biological parents *across our nation.* Yet as a single mom, I am constantly made to feel invisible--in ads, movies, media analysis, you name it. Schools, medical care, any number of critical social institutions, are set up with the presumption that there are 2 parents to care for the kids, & that one can take significant time off to go to meetings, call health insurance.
The other striking thing here is the assumption that it's "two biological parents' that are somehow critical. Many commentators are focusing on the predictable attack on the women who make sacrifices to raise their children while the men skip out.
But what isn't being said is how many families function beautifully without 2 biological parents--gay parents, grandparents, adoptive parents, stepparents, not to mention caring coaches, teachers etc.
In my own case, the biological father skipped out & hasn't paid a penny in years. Who will you shame? Me. Who will you ignore in ads? Me. Who will you ignore in social gatherings? Me. Who else will you ignore? My brother, who has been like a father.
I say shame on the media for ignoring the real news: Cheers to all the successful ways to raise children that have nothing to do with 2 biological parents.
As a single mom, the first thing that struck me was how very few children are being raised by 2 biological parents *across our nation.* Yet as a single mom, I am constantly made to feel invisible--in ads, movies, media analysis, you name it. Schools, medical care, any number of critical social institutions, are set up with the presumption that there are 2 parents to care for the kids, & that one can take significant time off to go to meetings, call health insurance.
The other striking thing here is the assumption that it's "two biological parents' that are somehow critical. Many commentators are focusing on the predictable attack on the women who make sacrifices to raise their children while the men skip out.
But what isn't being said is how many families function beautifully without 2 biological parents--gay parents, grandparents, adoptive parents, stepparents, not to mention caring coaches, teachers etc.
In my own case, the biological father skipped out & hasn't paid a penny in years. Who will you shame? Me. Who will you ignore in ads? Me. Who will you ignore in social gatherings? Me. Who else will you ignore? My brother, who has been like a father.
I say shame on the media for ignoring the real news: Cheers to all the successful ways to raise children that have nothing to do with 2 biological parents.
81
@dcl: So true. And heaven help you if your children have any behavioral issues at school (thankfully mine didn't), because of course it's because they're from a broken home. As a single parent you are always under higher scrutiny and fair game for criticism.
12
Well said. However, the fact is that in today's economy it's very tough indeed for single parents to manage financially and for those who struggle it has an adverse impact on the child(ren). Our poverty rate for children in this country is shocking and one of the worst among advanced nations; it is surely no coincidence that the region most dogged by single parenthood, the South, is also the most impoverished overall when it comes to children.
3
You are totally missing the point. What's optimal is a two parent family. A lot of times it doesn't turn out that way and things still go well, but if we want to focus on giving children the best chance in life, that does not include advocating for low-income single parenthood.
4
Congratulations, you have identified one of the consequences of poverty. This article points out the obvious.
On a related note, the scale on the map overemphasizes small differences.
On a related note, the scale on the map overemphasizes small differences.
10
Yeah, but the New York Times *chooses* to characterize it as a North-South divide as opposed to a divide along income and racial lines.
2
MOST children grow up in two parent families. The statistics apply to two-parent HOUSEHOLDS, eg where both parents reside together with the children. It is derogatory to the millions of families doing their best to parent through divorce and separation. The children most emphatically still have two parents.
15
I would be interested to see this further broken out by racial groups. I would imagine there is a large disparity which further exacerbates inequality.
9
Asians are 91% two parent homes. Whites 75%, blacks 33%...and guess what party the families identify as....
1
just ignore the racial breakouts. else you will be called "racist".
since no data has been presented for different races, we can comfortably conclude that there exists no difference across race!
since no data has been presented for different races, we can comfortably conclude that there exists no difference across race!
Social conservatism is nothing more than hypocrisy.
Social conservatives Imagine they are superior to others for shallow self-referential reasons. And then, because of that imagined sense of superiority, they suffer for the sin, and I mean the concept of sin literally and biblically, of excessive pride.
Shallow easy judgments make you vain, and therefore, ironically, morally inferior in the end.
Social conservatives Imagine they are superior to others for shallow self-referential reasons. And then, because of that imagined sense of superiority, they suffer for the sin, and I mean the concept of sin literally and biblically, of excessive pride.
Shallow easy judgments make you vain, and therefore, ironically, morally inferior in the end.
7
"Shallow easy judgements make you vain, and therefore, ironically, morally inferior in the end." Very well put. Now, have you tried looking in the mirror?
4
I'm surprised that there is no mention of race in this article. Most of the states in the bottom have high proportions of blacks. Of the exceptions, New Mexico and Oklahoma have high proportions of Native Americans who have lower rates of marriage, which may reflect a focus on the extended family rather than marriage in some cultures. Nevada, which is dominated by Las Vegas, is a special case unto itself.
On the other side, nine of the top ten states with two-parent households have a below average proportion of blacks. (New Jersey, at 12% is right at the national average.)
On the other side, nine of the top ten states with two-parent households have a below average proportion of blacks. (New Jersey, at 12% is right at the national average.)
22
Yet, if race were really such a huge determining factor, would there be such a profound difference between Vermont (99% white) and West Virginia (99% white)? Clearly the apparent influence of race is largely corollary to poverty.
3
With the exception of Nevada, all to the states with the fewest two parent families are either among the top ten in terms of percentage of Black population or bottom ten in terms of income.
At some point in the distant future, all along the way attempting to demonize the right and anyone they disagree with, the left will realize that gay marriage isn't the only marriage worth fighting for.
10
Aside from making sure that people have the legal option to marry, what does "fighting for marriage" mean, in practical terms? You can't force people to the altar. It's a matter of individual choice.
Marriage is not some kind of magic cure-all for socioeconomic problems. I live in a Rust Belt city with a high poverty rate, where there are serious underlying economic problems that have been building up over decades (e.g., huge job losses in the manufacturing sector, lack of affordable higher education and job training, etc.)
For folks here, if you grew up in poverty and you don't have a college degree or particularly good prospects for a decently paying job, then marrying someone in the same boat probably isn't going to change your economic situation significantly. Even if you could somehow incentive people to get married, then what? They still can't find jobs.
Marriage is not some kind of magic cure-all for socioeconomic problems. I live in a Rust Belt city with a high poverty rate, where there are serious underlying economic problems that have been building up over decades (e.g., huge job losses in the manufacturing sector, lack of affordable higher education and job training, etc.)
For folks here, if you grew up in poverty and you don't have a college degree or particularly good prospects for a decently paying job, then marrying someone in the same boat probably isn't going to change your economic situation significantly. Even if you could somehow incentive people to get married, then what? They still can't find jobs.
1
Many children are raised in two parent households but their parents don't marry so their mother can claim single parenthood for the economic benefits. This has been going on since the much needed welfare system was set up. I can't say I blame the parents for trying to play the system, but it makes our society different than it really is.
10
There's a lot of correlation here, but causation remains elusive. Some gems:
Children in some states are more likely to grow up in households that include married biological parents. But the state with the highest rate is just at 57% and the state with the lowest is at 32%, so even if the most important variable is the state (assuming the 2-parent household is a Golden Ticket in life), a fetus couldn't even double his chance of success of having a two-parent family by being born in Utah rather than Mississippi.
Such households are more likely to be stable - but there's lots of unstable 2 biological parent families and a lot of single parent families are the product of instability in a two parent family.
Children usually benefit from growing up in such households. But not always, and many kids growing up with single parents (or remarried parents) do just fine. Like POTUS and Professor Wilcox.
States with more such households have higher rates of upward mobility. Chicken, meet the egg.
More educated, higher-earning people tend to marry and stay married. As if the Walmart checkout girl could just say "I should have gotten that MBA and taken the $1M salary as a banker!"
People with 'deep normative and religious commitments to marriage and raising children within marriage' tend to marry and stay married. It can't hurt, can it?
And then we have a helpful anecdote for poor black kids:
A black child may grow up to be President with a single parent, as long as she's white.
Children in some states are more likely to grow up in households that include married biological parents. But the state with the highest rate is just at 57% and the state with the lowest is at 32%, so even if the most important variable is the state (assuming the 2-parent household is a Golden Ticket in life), a fetus couldn't even double his chance of success of having a two-parent family by being born in Utah rather than Mississippi.
Such households are more likely to be stable - but there's lots of unstable 2 biological parent families and a lot of single parent families are the product of instability in a two parent family.
Children usually benefit from growing up in such households. But not always, and many kids growing up with single parents (or remarried parents) do just fine. Like POTUS and Professor Wilcox.
States with more such households have higher rates of upward mobility. Chicken, meet the egg.
More educated, higher-earning people tend to marry and stay married. As if the Walmart checkout girl could just say "I should have gotten that MBA and taken the $1M salary as a banker!"
People with 'deep normative and religious commitments to marriage and raising children within marriage' tend to marry and stay married. It can't hurt, can it?
And then we have a helpful anecdote for poor black kids:
A black child may grow up to be President with a single parent, as long as she's white.
2
This affirms my suspicion that poverty and income inequality is having a profoundly negative effect on family formation.
5
Well, I've lived in the deep South and there were as many single white mothers raising children as single black mothers. There are a lot of people commenting that it's a problem only among minorities. I live in a town right now that is almost 100% white and there are plenty of white fathers who haven't stuck around for moral or financial support.
Here is a problem I've seen in both the South and in Oklahoma. Most of the population belongs to the same fundamentalist denomination and it teaches that women are to serve men and that women are, basically, nothing without a man. I've seen mothers tell their toddler daughters that they can't say no to men and they have to obey men. Can you imagine being two years old and told you can never say no to a man? I've seen too many women who think they have to settle for any kind of unstable guy they pick up in a bar because they're raised to believe any man is better than no man. Thus, they end up with kids with no fathers. And then they do the same thing all over again. What they need is to feel like they are good people who can accomplish things and not taught by their society that the only thing matters is having a man in their lives.
Here is a problem I've seen in both the South and in Oklahoma. Most of the population belongs to the same fundamentalist denomination and it teaches that women are to serve men and that women are, basically, nothing without a man. I've seen mothers tell their toddler daughters that they can't say no to men and they have to obey men. Can you imagine being two years old and told you can never say no to a man? I've seen too many women who think they have to settle for any kind of unstable guy they pick up in a bar because they're raised to believe any man is better than no man. Thus, they end up with kids with no fathers. And then they do the same thing all over again. What they need is to feel like they are good people who can accomplish things and not taught by their society that the only thing matters is having a man in their lives.
61
Linda, you just made this up. You have no empirical evidence to support your premise and your personal "observations" are hardly a proper basis to draw any conclusions on.
It's becoming more and more clear that the Republican agenda has more to do with addressing problems in the evangelical community than society as a whole. Somehow they want the rest of us to be punished for their failures.
9
This series of single variable analysis of complex issues is very manipulative on the part of the researchers (and/or by reporters). African Americans have been reported to have lower two-parent family rates than other groups, but the reporting of the analysis fails to provide any statistics on how this affects the results, besides "race is hardly the only explanation". Does this mean race is the primary explanation? If so, is this a story on how single parenthood is geographically distributed without showing the primary factor by which it is distributed?
8
And there is no mention of a common modern scenario: a two parent family in which the parents were divorced and re-married(a 4 parent family?)
2
I think just the fact that you can survive easily in the South without much in the way of shelter or accomplishments is the common thread. If you have either real winter, or real desert conditions, it focuses the mind on achievement and family unity for the purpose of survival.
5
Real desert conditions? Look at Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico.
1
This is a compelling problem for which there doesn't seem to be a solution, simple or otherwise. And while politicians, and their supporters on the right and left will hurl arguments with each side blaming the other, there is no legislative solution.
How do you decide to whom you're going to spend the rest of your life and raise children? For me, it was a matter of maturity, and quite frankly, I was in my mid-thirties before I got married. If I had married almost anyone I had a relationship with prior to that, it would have been a disaster for all involved, because I wasn't ready for a commitment, which means I was mostly seeing other people who also weren't 'grown-up' enough to be ready either. I got lucky and won the lottery. But I could have just as easily lost.
The solution can't be legislated, nor would you even want to try. Scientists are great at dissecting problems, but they seem to be unable to offer a solution. That's too bad, because nobody else can either.
How do you decide to whom you're going to spend the rest of your life and raise children? For me, it was a matter of maturity, and quite frankly, I was in my mid-thirties before I got married. If I had married almost anyone I had a relationship with prior to that, it would have been a disaster for all involved, because I wasn't ready for a commitment, which means I was mostly seeing other people who also weren't 'grown-up' enough to be ready either. I got lucky and won the lottery. But I could have just as easily lost.
The solution can't be legislated, nor would you even want to try. Scientists are great at dissecting problems, but they seem to be unable to offer a solution. That's too bad, because nobody else can either.
3
The two researches featured prominently in this article are college professors with PhDs. Referring to them as Mr. and Mrs. is inappropriate.
14
The style guide for most newspapers calls for the use of Dr. only when they are a medical doctor. I have a PhD, but don't expect people to call me Doctor.
2
most PhD's I know don't like being referred to as Dr, they'd rather that honorific was reserved for Medical Doctors.
My father worked at a prestigious college; professors with PhDs were always referred to as Mr. and Mrs. “Dr.” is for physicians, dentists, and other medical practitioners. People with PhDs who refer to themselves as “doctor” tend to be seen as self-aggrandizing.
7
How about a desire to maintain traditional gender roles plus an unskilled workforce divide it by globalization... equals southern chaos.
8
I retired to Mississippi ten years ago and it's fine for me, but I would never consider raising children here. Their idea of family values is very skewed, and there is not the general morality here that I have seen in both New York and California, where I spent most of my life. Here, single motherhood, multiple divorces, girls and women in slutty clothing and shiftless, trifling men are more the norm than anything else. Perhaps if they started to educate themselves and stopped listening to jackleg preachers who spout nonsense, their morals might improve.
34
Why do you choose to live in a state for which you have so little respect of the population? Is it because it make you feel superior?
We just subsidize poor behavior now. I bet most of those people have never been inside of a church in their lives! I'm not a christian, but the culture of poverty is pretty awful. Nowadays we're not supposed to talk about it, everything is supposed to be relative, but American culture in general is pretty low.
Folks,
I am waiting for Charles Blow to publish an editorial citing other sources that contradict findings in this article. :) For example, sentences like "Nevertheless, the sharp rise in single-parent families has contributed to sky-high inequality and deserves discuss" would keep Charles up at night.
I felt that the red-state and blue-state models were interesting and broke against "conventional assumptions" re: family stability in those states. I'm better off having read this article.
I am waiting for Charles Blow to publish an editorial citing other sources that contradict findings in this article. :) For example, sentences like "Nevertheless, the sharp rise in single-parent families has contributed to sky-high inequality and deserves discuss" would keep Charles up at night.
I felt that the red-state and blue-state models were interesting and broke against "conventional assumptions" re: family stability in those states. I'm better off having read this article.
4
Widowhood is another way that a household can go from a two parent home to a single parent home -- with a wide range of outcomes. While it is possible this distinction would not affect the data (similar to families with adopted children and families with same sex parents), it is still worth mentioning.
1
"The data does have one obvious shortcoming."
Yeah, but it's not the one that I think it has overlooked: Race.
For reasons traceable to the breakup of families under slavery, the percentage of two parent homes in heavily African/American areas of the country has persisted.
The Great Migration to the industrialized North probably contributed to the phenomenon of successful families like that of the First Lady. Economics and Race are intertwined in America, like it or not.
Moreover, as many conservatives have argued, the availability of public assistance to poor mothers is diminished if there is a man in the house in many jurisdictions.
Yeah, but it's not the one that I think it has overlooked: Race.
For reasons traceable to the breakup of families under slavery, the percentage of two parent homes in heavily African/American areas of the country has persisted.
The Great Migration to the industrialized North probably contributed to the phenomenon of successful families like that of the First Lady. Economics and Race are intertwined in America, like it or not.
Moreover, as many conservatives have argued, the availability of public assistance to poor mothers is diminished if there is a man in the house in many jurisdictions.
6
Black illegitimacy rate in 1940 was around 14%.
Given this, I don't think the family breakup in days of slavery is really a reason today's illegitimacy rates
Given this, I don't think the family breakup in days of slavery is really a reason today's illegitimacy rates
1
While all the self-righteous blue-staters revel in the idea that the south is everything they see in the movies, the fact remains that it is rural and less affluent and is populated by large groups of minorities and immigrants, both legal and illegal needed as farm labor. Over 75% of black families are single parent and, and all across America the young millennials of any color eschew marriage but embrace having children out of wedlock. For those looking for causes, look west to Hollywood illusions and east to political policies out of Washington that reward and encourage the breakdown of traditional family units.
2
There are large groups of immigrants in the North and West ... and those populations are more ethnically diverse than immigrants in the South!
It is absurd to blame either Hollywood or Washington for the South's problems ... most of those are self-inflicted or the result of GOP policies in recent decades.
It is absurd to blame either Hollywood or Washington for the South's problems ... most of those are self-inflicted or the result of GOP policies in recent decades.
1
What about personal responsibility?
1
Boy-oh-boy, those liberal blue states sure are bad for living a decent, dignified life based on the core family values of faith, guns, voter suppression and, what was it? Oh yes, grits.
6
Gee! And I thought that family values was dominate in the South!
2
Gee, Michael.
Poverty and a high proportion of African-Americans in the population are more prevalent in the South. In case you did not know, both the poor and the Blacks are plagued with a higher parentage of single parent families.
Poverty and a high proportion of African-Americans in the population are more prevalent in the South. In case you did not know, both the poor and the Blacks are plagued with a higher parentage of single parent families.
What a bizarre piece. The studies looked at kids who lived with both of their "biological" parents, and the authors note that that does leave out same-sex families and kids who are adopted. They refer dismissively with families where a child lived with a biological parent's "partner" for a long period of time, noting that such partnerships don't last.
I don't get it. What about step-parents? Is that really irrelevant? It must be quite common for a child to be raised by one biological parent and the second spouse of that parent. How can you have a study like this and not evaluate those families?
In addition, I would really like to see these stats broken down by demographics, including ethnicity and race.
I don't get it. What about step-parents? Is that really irrelevant? It must be quite common for a child to be raised by one biological parent and the second spouse of that parent. How can you have a study like this and not evaluate those families?
In addition, I would really like to see these stats broken down by demographics, including ethnicity and race.
7
The article needs to be titled, "The Red-Blue Divide on Two-parent families" because that is what I am deciphering from the data. Is Nevada a Northern state? Is it a Southern state? I don't think so, but, it is definitely a Red state.
One thing that surprised me when I moved to the south is that families put a lot of pressure on their kids to get married very young. I never encountered up north students in college that were married or had kids. Here in the south is very common. Since the brain is still developing in the early twenties, getting married at this age, generally, leads to wrong decisions. Hence, the higher divorce rate. In the south, having a family is more important than educational and professional goals. And raising a family at an early age interferes with the pursuit of those goals.
19
No explicit break out by race. Need numbers, not just the trend.
Race matters greatly in the percentage of children being born to unmarried mothers and being raised in single parent families.
Adjust for race and the difference between Red states and Blue states becomes much more about educational levels and household incomes where Blue states definitely have an advantage.
Race matters greatly in the percentage of children being born to unmarried mothers and being raised in single parent families.
Adjust for race and the difference between Red states and Blue states becomes much more about educational levels and household incomes where Blue states definitely have an advantage.
4
This research is very enlightening but I would like to add that there are many many factors at work including income, education, race, religion, where you were born, what age you married and how you met your spouse. Many of these results turn out to be counter-intuitive to what Americans believe or are taught as American values. For example, American are often aghast when they learn that arranged marriages are more successful than where the couples date each other for a while or that marriages where the couples cohabited are in fact less successful than those where the couples did not. This only highlights the value of an open mind.
3
I found the graphic misleading. The boundaries between the colors are very tight (40/45/48%). The fact that they are non-uniformly spaced implies that they were chosen to make a point. The article focuses on "two-parent families" but the chart specifically excludes remarriage. It is limited to families where both parents are the biological parents. Overall sloppy research reported without question.
7
Yes, I wonder why they left out families with adopted children.
A study that doesn't take race and racism into account worthless.
5
Another case of the strange "family values" argument.
8
The emphasis on "family values' in the south encourages people to jump early into relationships and child rearing. First marriages happen earlier as do children, when people may be less prepared for them.
In the north, the emphasis is on waiting until you meet the right partner and trying to time children better with respect to financial stability and careers. Yes, people get married later and have children later, but at least they are more prepared, mature and less likely to divorce as a result.
Of course this is all on average, and the main drivers of family stability are still income and education.
In the north, the emphasis is on waiting until you meet the right partner and trying to time children better with respect to financial stability and careers. Yes, people get married later and have children later, but at least they are more prepared, mature and less likely to divorce as a result.
Of course this is all on average, and the main drivers of family stability are still income and education.
16
I'd like to see this overlaid with data on the average age of (first) marriage. Don't know whether there would be a meaningful correlation. What I do know about small town Ohio and urban/suburban NYC is that the former still has large pockets of people who marry in order to be able to be open about having sex and in the longer run are more apt to divorce; the latter not so much. It's a modern paradox - puritanical religious standards beget divorce. (The probable exception would be Utah.)
16
What drives me nuts about these family-composition studies is that they use MARRIAGE as a proxy for two-parent families. In Europe and now increasingly in the US, people are forming stable families outside the bonds of matrimony. Just because they are not married does not mean that the two parents are not in a committed, co-habiting relationship. I do not trust any sociologist who fails to recognize this basic fact.
4
In the article, they claim that there are so few of those unmarried-but-committed long-term couples that including them would be statistically insignificant.
I have some trouble reconciling that with my own anecdotal experience, since those couples seem to be increasingly common here. I know quite a few such couples who've been together for 10-20 years or longer.
European data certainly suggests that there's nothing magical about a marriage license, and that children of these unmarried/cohabiting couples have the same long-term outcomes as children of married couples.
I have some trouble reconciling that with my own anecdotal experience, since those couples seem to be increasingly common here. I know quite a few such couples who've been together for 10-20 years or longer.
European data certainly suggests that there's nothing magical about a marriage license, and that children of these unmarried/cohabiting couples have the same long-term outcomes as children of married couples.
As stated, much of the outcomes stem from income and education. Is it time for our barbarian nation to accept that it should learn from others and provide paid parental leave and guaranteed paid sick leave and vacation time? Many other nations actually pay people to have children.
By the by, religion is the handmaiden to right-to-work and austerity, aka class war.
By the by, religion is the handmaiden to right-to-work and austerity, aka class war.
4
Most single parents don't actually set out to be single parents but along the way they either don't find a suitable marriage partner or do not delay pregnancy until they do find a suitable marriage partner. Just telling people to get married is silly and stupid because most women already want to get married. The question is, what factors are at work in making single parenthood a more likely outcome even for people who really do value marriage and want to get or be married? I suspect there is a whole range of answers -- access to contraception and abortion, underlying economic prospects for men, and a lot else besides.
5
Looks like families are strong in those western dens of iniquity, California, Oregon, and Washington.
8
To my mind it might have been more valuable to assess how 'well' children do within non-single parent families - defined as households with two or more related adults raising children. There are an awful lot of multi-generational families in those Southern and Western states - Grandmothers and Mothers and children - Grandfathers, Mothers and children - Aunts and Sisters and children... Assuming that we were searching for information on how children fare in various social arrangements rather than determining that a married male and female presented the best outcome for all children.
3
If one could prove (and it should be easy enough) that providing adequate supports to poor people -- food, housing, health care, decent public schools -- actually encouraged people to stay married and exhibit other desirable social behaviors, would Republicans rally behind providing adequate supports? I'm sure not. In service of providing "liberties" to those who can afford to exercise them, hundreds of thousands of lives are thrown under the Red Bus.
11
Without addressing poverty rates and racial disparities between the "Red and Blue" states as it were this article is a joke. Did the researcher have none of that in his study or did the author simply leave it out. I suspect the latter.
1
Add this to the long list of shortcomings in the bible belt, highest rates of divorce, obesity, diabetes, lung cancer, cardiac, cancer in general, domestic violence against women and children. What has bible belt religion wrought but profound human misery.
15
Religion: Why We Can't Have Nice Things.
1
You left out alcoholism, drug abuse, and high school drop outs.
Was this story sponsored by Fox News? The point you are trying to make is not supported by the facts. The percentages in the high states are rather low. I expected the high percentages to be at least in the mid 60s and was surprised that the lowest high was 57. Perhaps Utah should be excluded from this analysis because it is unlike any other state on this issue given the high Mormon population and the sister-wife phenomenon. The only thing going on here is the continued dismantling of the 1950s era two-parent families which is happening faster in certain parts of the country. Sorry but this trend will continue to happen because the culture has changed. Women can support themselves, men no longer wish to marry women and become breadwinners with no say at home, gays wish to marry and some people (gay or straight) just don't want to marry or have children at all. Maybe the NYT should stop trying to force outmoded forms of living on American people.
I'm guessing the percentages would have been significantly higher if they had included (e.g.) families with a parent and step-parent in the same home, given how common divorce and remarriage are these days. They excluded "blended" families from the analysis.
There would be more "sister wives" down in Colorado City, Arizona. Most the middle-class Utah Mormons I know strongly resemble middle-class couples in Washington, Wisconsin, or other northern states I've lived in.
Interesting factoids noted from an earlier NYT topics, class size in public schools. Washington State has the third largest average class size in the nation. It’s own Washington State Supreme Court has ordered the Washington State Legislature to properly fund its schools.
Washington State also has the Boeing, Microsoft and other related businesses which have highly paid college educated employees.
A real negative here is a regressive tax system based on sales tax but no state income tax on those very nice Boeing, Microsoft etc salaries.
More from the west: Arizona has large aerospace presence because Calif. pushed polluting industries out for air quality and lost its monopoly on Colorado River water.
The 80% or so of these western states covered by agriculture & forestry pay provide minimal incomes for families but better than neighboring states and countries.
There seems a constant theme, the GOP Conservative Politicians would do well selling used cars or insurance.
Washington State also has the Boeing, Microsoft and other related businesses which have highly paid college educated employees.
A real negative here is a regressive tax system based on sales tax but no state income tax on those very nice Boeing, Microsoft etc salaries.
More from the west: Arizona has large aerospace presence because Calif. pushed polluting industries out for air quality and lost its monopoly on Colorado River water.
The 80% or so of these western states covered by agriculture & forestry pay provide minimal incomes for families but better than neighboring states and countries.
There seems a constant theme, the GOP Conservative Politicians would do well selling used cars or insurance.
I wonder if all the recent articles on the civil war and reconstruction if the issues here are just another unsolved issue from our tragic past. I also wonder how other countries with tragic civil wars have had similar long lasting issues like those in this article. I would guess that they have. The benefits of peace and the disaster of war seem to be self-evident.
It is not unexpected how many of the comments blame one parent families in the South (and all the economic negatives it entails) to Conservatism, Republicans, and religion. The article deliberately skips over Race as a factor. Since Race is attributed as the dominant, if not the only factor, in jobs, arrests, income, SATs, etc. why not in this case? The answer is to obvious to require explanation.
12
The data are freely available for you to explore this issue. As has been well documented, bad outcomes among poor whites are just as prevalent as bad outcomes among poor non-whites.
Southern states, with the largest black populations, have had 150 years to deal with racial disparities. They have had about 35 years since they turned GOP in the Reagan revolution. If you look at the southern states that have been most consistently GOP, you see the biggest and continuing racial disparities. It is not just blacks in those states contributing to the problem, it is the politicians who lead their states and represent them in the congress. As long as the GOP keeps getting re-elected in the south, the problems will remain.
Some commenters would like to turn this broad-brush analysis of the effect growing up in a one or two parent family has on a state's children into a question of "which came first the chicken or the egg": Are two parent families a product of a more secure family economic position or does economic security provide more support for the two parent family model?
Certainly the lack of safety nets for families found in the "southern tier" of states makes it more difficult for families to remain intact throughout a child's life. Greater rates of imprisonment, earlier deaths and more people affected by the legacy of not allowing slaves to marry or to retain custody of their children are probable factors, too.
The "northern tier of states have not been without challenges to meet in supporting all families. Many states have welcomed significant numbers of refugees from failed nations or allies from failed wars; many states are still struggling to assimilate the significant percentage of Native Americans often confined to isolated tribal lands without adequate services. Educational progress leading to economic progress has been uneven at best.
It is, however, troubling to watch states like Kansas and Wisconsin turn their backs on what contributed to supporting strong families as voters are seduced by an ideology which promises what it has not delivered elsewhere.
Choosing effective policies to support healthy communities and families of all sizes is today's serious challenge.
Certainly the lack of safety nets for families found in the "southern tier" of states makes it more difficult for families to remain intact throughout a child's life. Greater rates of imprisonment, earlier deaths and more people affected by the legacy of not allowing slaves to marry or to retain custody of their children are probable factors, too.
The "northern tier of states have not been without challenges to meet in supporting all families. Many states have welcomed significant numbers of refugees from failed nations or allies from failed wars; many states are still struggling to assimilate the significant percentage of Native Americans often confined to isolated tribal lands without adequate services. Educational progress leading to economic progress has been uneven at best.
It is, however, troubling to watch states like Kansas and Wisconsin turn their backs on what contributed to supporting strong families as voters are seduced by an ideology which promises what it has not delivered elsewhere.
Choosing effective policies to support healthy communities and families of all sizes is today's serious challenge.
7
"Certainly the lack of safety nets for families found in the "southern tier" of states makes it more difficult for families to remain intact throughout a child's life."
WHY? Why would a lack of safety nets for families make families break up? If your life is hard financially, does divorce seem like an option that would improve your financial situation? Why not the other way around -- when the life is hard, people tend to stick together because that makes things easier than having to do it alone? I don't claim to know which of the two versions happens in reality (both do, probably) but I would not start by saying that "certainly" the first one dominates.
Also, one of the major ways children end up in single-parent households is not by a two-parent family breaking apart, but rather because there never was a two-parent family. I wish this study (and others dealing with this issue) distinguished between the single parents who got that way because a two-parent family broke apart (divorce, widowhood) and the single parents who had child(ren) without ever getting married in the first place.
I would love to see the data on the relative size of these groups -- are single-parent families mostly the two-parent families that did not make it or the parents who never bothered getting married? Knowing this matters for the policies we might want to design to address this problem.
WHY? Why would a lack of safety nets for families make families break up? If your life is hard financially, does divorce seem like an option that would improve your financial situation? Why not the other way around -- when the life is hard, people tend to stick together because that makes things easier than having to do it alone? I don't claim to know which of the two versions happens in reality (both do, probably) but I would not start by saying that "certainly" the first one dominates.
Also, one of the major ways children end up in single-parent households is not by a two-parent family breaking apart, but rather because there never was a two-parent family. I wish this study (and others dealing with this issue) distinguished between the single parents who got that way because a two-parent family broke apart (divorce, widowhood) and the single parents who had child(ren) without ever getting married in the first place.
I would love to see the data on the relative size of these groups -- are single-parent families mostly the two-parent families that did not make it or the parents who never bothered getting married? Knowing this matters for the policies we might want to design to address this problem.
Another issue would involve military families. If a spouse is absent on military duty, but the couple is married, the spouse present in the household would not be counted as present and the marital status of the spouse present at data collection time would not be classified as married. Think I am right on this.
1
Articles such as this can be dangerous, as the obvious implied takeaway from this is that two parents are 'always?' better than one. There are stable two-parent families and there are two-parent families that are one big mess. There are single-parent families (usually run by a female) where the well-off mother made a calculated decision and had a plan, on how to successfully raise a child on her own. There are other single-parent families where the children were produced out of women's lackadaisical liaisons with one or more loser men. You can't paint all two-parent or single-parent households with one brush.
All other things being equal, kids fare much better with a single parent who had a plan from the outset on how to raise that child, who has a stable job, savings, a network of family and friends to assist them, no 'drama' in their life, etc., versus having two parents who are at each other's throats, don't have enough income, didn't 'plan' for the baby, have lives full of drama, etc.
All other things being equal, kids fare much better with a single parent who had a plan from the outset on how to raise that child, who has a stable job, savings, a network of family and friends to assist them, no 'drama' in their life, etc., versus having two parents who are at each other's throats, don't have enough income, didn't 'plan' for the baby, have lives full of drama, etc.
6
Not when you put it in context with other social data such as crime, teen pregnancy rates or a strict doctrine of family values garbage.
California may be a blue state, however I suspect the large number of hispanics, who may vote Democratic but are not your stereotype liberals, is a factor in the lower divorce rate.
2
Blue states have lower divorce records in general and the bluest have the lowest. Mass takes the cake I believe. Blue states tend to be more educated and more educated people tend to marry later. Those are the two factors that have consistently correlated with lower divorce records. In the end liberals tend to be more educated, marry later, and stay married.
Just wondering about the ages of the children included? Also, the source of the estimates, the American Community Survey, by definition excludes children living away from home a school under certain conditions as it tries to emulate the rules used in the Decennial Census.
Um - this seems to imply that the reason most "red" states shout so loud about "family values" is because they don't have many. Perhaps, then, if they started acting and voting like the "blue" states they might get more of what they're shouting for.
45
You might consider that they more vigorously espouse traditional family compositions and "family values" because they see and experience the devastating results that a lack of same cause more acutely than States that have higher numbers of two parent households.
Reading the headline I expected exactly the opposite...
1
This is very clearly a socioeconomic issue. Where there is more poverty, there are more children born to unwed mothers. There is a tremendous difference between a child who has two supportive and loving parents that just happen to be divorced, and a child who doesn't even know who his father is or has very little contact with him (and, as a result, little or no contact with or support from the father's extended family). It's more of an issue of whether both parents are in the child's life vs. whether both parents live together.
I'd like to see someone pose a question about these numbers to the horde of Republican candidates in the upcoming Fox TV debate and see how the Red Wingers explain them. I wouldn't be surprised to see the candidates question the data, rather than address the issue.
I didn't see anyone mention the possibility that the family numbers for the Confederacy are lower because the father is in prison. Incarceration numbers are also quite different in the deep South than in the rest of the country.
I didn't see anyone mention the possibility that the family numbers for the Confederacy are lower because the father is in prison. Incarceration numbers are also quite different in the deep South than in the rest of the country.
5
The strongest correlation is by race, not state. Clearly, the states with the highest percentage of races that have single parent households will also have have the highest percentage overall of single parent households.
See http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/Bar/107-children-in-single-parent-f...
See http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/Bar/107-children-in-single-parent-f...
6
Since northern states are quite diverse, what is your point?
It's not only in the South, but keeping people poor denies their children an education, which affects all of the country. An underclass becomes larger, and the rest of the country (world?) is denied possible scientists, thinkers, artists, people who may help humanity, but whose brains are left wasted among the poor, not to mention among the bible hucksters who sell the concept of the meek (poor) inheriting the earth.
It sounds like jobs and education are the best medicine for what ails us - a middle-class trait. Do you here that, GOP?
It sounds like jobs and education are the best medicine for what ails us - a middle-class trait. Do you here that, GOP?
1
So the region that proclaims itself as the paragon of religious family values is actually shot through with dysfunction and irresponsibility. I.e. it's all spin. Why, I'm just shocked, _shocked_.
17
These results are in line with those is cussed in Phil Zuckerman's book "Society Without God." He discovered that those places that were the most religious trailed those that were least religious in almost every category. The more religious areas had the worst education and poverty, highest divorce and crime rates, and we're economically behind the more secular places. Also, the more secular areas had happier populations. It seems that only the continued decline in religious affiliation in this country will provide the south with any real hope for the future
30
Yet another stat showing the religious, conservative South doesn't live up to its rhetoric. They should allow gay marriage and adoption to drive up this stat.
5
why are such a high proportion of African Americans impoverished, relative to other ethnic groups? A lack of two wage-earner families? and why is that? Why are so many African American men unable to earn decent wages? Social norms? Or how about institutional racism: mandatory sentencing, punitive bail conditions, stop-and-frisk, predatory loans, neighborhoods segregated by federal housing policies? Or how about institutional impoverishing policies: lack of public transport, lack of decent child-care? Racism and poverty are deeply intertwined.
6
So would someone please explain why the South drives national politics and public policy on everything from healthcare to guns to the environment/climate change? Why does the least successful and most dysfunctional part of the country dominate the rest?
184
One reason is gerrymandered congressional districts, ironically created when many of them were Democratic, before the Civil Rights Act.
1
You are right on mark!
Use communication revolution, Facebook and twitter to produce change from Red to Sky blue and things would be different. Race, Religion, Type of Industrial Complex, Tradition and heritage, Political affiliation and above all lack of understanding about religion itself, may cause blind faith and following of a party or thought. Education not in school sense but in literal sense is the key that would change anything and everything for the Southern as well as Northern states.
Once passing through Massachusetts, I was fascinated by the Licence Plate Slogan, the Sprit of America. Yes, it is but lost to military industrial complex in many ways, from voter base to education and politics. No other country knows better than Americans how to create the most beautiful creation of a nation, The Bill of Rights, just implement and it will bring justice in economic domain and race relations, would uplift poverty and restore family values based on equality and financial stability and two parents paradgom to raise children with prosperous future, just a friendly thought from your neighbour.
Use communication revolution, Facebook and twitter to produce change from Red to Sky blue and things would be different. Race, Religion, Type of Industrial Complex, Tradition and heritage, Political affiliation and above all lack of understanding about religion itself, may cause blind faith and following of a party or thought. Education not in school sense but in literal sense is the key that would change anything and everything for the Southern as well as Northern states.
Once passing through Massachusetts, I was fascinated by the Licence Plate Slogan, the Sprit of America. Yes, it is but lost to military industrial complex in many ways, from voter base to education and politics. No other country knows better than Americans how to create the most beautiful creation of a nation, The Bill of Rights, just implement and it will bring justice in economic domain and race relations, would uplift poverty and restore family values based on equality and financial stability and two parents paradgom to raise children with prosperous future, just a friendly thought from your neighbour.
In a word, gerrymandering.
Besides, poor white people's anger can be easily harnessed.
Besides, poor white people's anger can be easily harnessed.
1
And yet these southerners see it fit to lecture us on family and marriage.
28
So, does the north--south disparity in two-parent vs. single parent households imply that the deeply religious, God-fearing, generally anti-gay marriage people of faith are really just against marriage in general and that we Godless social-liberal commies are the real family values people? Just askin'.
10
I would guess it is an economic problem. Those states in the chart with the lowest rates of two parent households are also the states with the lowest minimum wage, the lowest rate of employer health plans and the lowest and shortest unemployment benefits.
I guess the south is exempt(gets a pass from God) from healthy two parent families since they are morally superior in thought and word on every social issue.
7
The author confusingly refers to the "two-parent family" compared to the single-parent family but the map legend refers to "Children who live with both of their married, biological parents". What about unmarried parents, and what about patchwork families? If the argument is that two parents are better than one, it shouldn't matter whether they are married (fun fact: unmarried couples in Sweden tend to stay together than married American couples).
2
The article cites researchers who state that couples that fit descriptions other than "married, biological parents" are less stable and less likely to go the distance. Those things matter over the course of a long-term, large population observational study.
And fun facts aside, Sweden has vastly different predominant religious practices, history of racial relations, economy, employment law, and social safety net than the US. It's important to be cautious when trying to make US-related inferences based on how things are in Sweden.
And fun facts aside, Sweden has vastly different predominant religious practices, history of racial relations, economy, employment law, and social safety net than the US. It's important to be cautious when trying to make US-related inferences based on how things are in Sweden.
1
I'm extremely bewildered on how some of the commenters are making this about African Americans who make up only only 12- 13% of the population. Overall, MOST AMERICAN Children of ALL RACES do NOT live in 2 parent homes. The scapegoating is PATHETIC.
34
That's the point -- African-Americans make up a much greater percentage of the population in the states with the highest level of single parent households. In Georgia, the African-American population in 2013 was 31% according to the US Census Bureau, and an estimated 67% of African-American children live in single-parent households (compared to 25% of white children). Obviously, Georgia will have a higher percentage of single parent households than a state, such as New Jersey, which contains the national average of 12% African-Americans. It's not scapegoating, it's simple fact.
Lots of comments here about how the geographic distribution of African Americans explains this data. Yet even a cursory look at Census demographics seems to contradict this. Lots of states with low rates of two parent families - Nevada, Oklahoma, Arkansas - have African American populations at or well below the national average. There appears to be something going on here beyond where African Americans live.
11
It is economics. The govt pays a single mother more than if she had a husband. And the govt pays her more each month for every additional child she has.
Paying single mothers to have children? What kind of society do you think we will have?
Paying single mothers to have children? What kind of society do you think we will have?
7
Could you share the actual amounts that people receive? I'm curious. Is this really true, that women have more children for the money it brings in the household? This is a common claim, that it pays to have children. Yet, having reared two children, it seems unlikely that the government benefits would cover the real costs of daily living.
1
"Paying single mothers to have children? What kind of society do you think we will have?"
A fictitious one, as this rarely happens, but hey, go on harping on it and ignore reality. Some military families are on public assistance, even with 2 parents and at least 1 working for the military. How does that fit your rubrik?
A fictitious one, as this rarely happens, but hey, go on harping on it and ignore reality. Some military families are on public assistance, even with 2 parents and at least 1 working for the military. How does that fit your rubrik?
1
There is no paying women to have children. That's an old chestnut from the "welfare queen" rhetoric that led to welfare reform. It wasn't reality even then. It was a PR campaign of the 1980s.
Under welfare reform (called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) enacted in the 1990s women on the program must either be in education programs or some sort of work. In most states, the woman can be on the program no longer than 5 years. Having children is not a ticket to more than 5 years of this kind of assistance.
Under welfare reform (called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) enacted in the 1990s women on the program must either be in education programs or some sort of work. In most states, the woman can be on the program no longer than 5 years. Having children is not a ticket to more than 5 years of this kind of assistance.
4
Obviously the reason? We lost The War of Northern Aggression?
Could it have anything to do with the higher Black population in the South?
Just a guess.
Could it have anything to do with the higher Black population in the South?
Just a guess.
2
I guess you can't read, or won't - the article clearly states that whites in the south also fit this pattern. It's more socio-economics, which is also highly correlated with race.
Ivanhead2, let ME guess. You want to blame African-Americans and the South's losing the Civil War for the South's present woes. Then, be consistent. If you are going to look at history, then look more deeply: not a 5-year war, but 2 centuries of slavery. Families torn apart. Husbands from wives. Children sold like cattle. Young enslaved girls used as concubines. 200 hundred years of stolen labor and stolen lives! So you want to blame the South's present woes on a segment of the population whose ancestors were brought here by force and sold in slave markets. Plus, you might notice that the authors found that "in the Deep South, single parenthood is common among both whites and blacks." Keep working on your guesses.
1
Or perhaps it the racism and inability to live in the present exhibited by your comments that lie at the core of this situation... The North, Midwest and West have higher levels of education and income across the racial lines than the South.
1
The article implies that common law couples are still counted as single parent families. If so the numbers aren't very meaningful.
Is there a poll, survey or study that Mississippi doesn't rank among the lowest, poorest or least educated? How much writing on the wall does "Old Miss" need to take action to benefit its citizens?
4
I make the assumption that their citizens are as well versed in what they wish as, oh say, the citizens in PA are. Why do you assume different?
This does paint with a very broad brush. Where I live our metro area of two cities points up the tail of an affluent city and a poor city and guess what. Poverty wrecks homes and it has causality across generations. I should add that both areas are largely white. And this too is a general analysis as both cities have wealthy and poor components. And as usual the less affluent mainly vote Republican.
2
God, Guns, Grits and Gravy!
7
The South is home to many more African-Americans proportionately, compared to other regions. Without breaking down the findings reported here by sub-culture (so-called "race"), one can't know the significance of geography alone. Mississippi, for example, the state cited here with the lowest rates of children in two-parent households, is also home to the highest proportion of African-Americans of any state. This is a time when just about everything in the American media carries racial tags. (I just read that "three whites" were kicked off the Holmes jury, a trial that has nothing to do with race.) So, why this strange omission in a report on family structure, which actually does vary according to subculture? As a Northeastern progressive, I can't help thinking there's a bias here against the South.
6
? The article mentions that the authors mentioned race in the south, but that the whites in the south also fall into the pattern.
First the article addresses this: "Mr. Wilcox and Mr. Zill also point out that two-parent families tend to be more common in states with predominantly white populations. But race is hardly the only explanation for the patterns. White single-parent families have become much more common in recent years. And in the Deep South, single parenthood is common among both whites and blacks."
Second, your reaction seems to imply, strangely, that black residents of the South are not really Southern, or legitimate parts of those states, and should somehow be counted differently than whites. Why? Are not black people in Mississippi just as much a part of the culture of that state as white people? They reside in large numbers in these states quite frankly because their forebears were enslaved there. It is not like they landed in flying saucers out of no where and suddenly adversely affected the marriage rates.
Second, your reaction seems to imply, strangely, that black residents of the South are not really Southern, or legitimate parts of those states, and should somehow be counted differently than whites. Why? Are not black people in Mississippi just as much a part of the culture of that state as white people? They reside in large numbers in these states quite frankly because their forebears were enslaved there. It is not like they landed in flying saucers out of no where and suddenly adversely affected the marriage rates.
1
It's called Institutional racism. It isn't going away soon but more are becoming aware of it.
Call me silly, but I would love to know how many single parent families moved to the less expensive South in order to raise their children. Perhaps differences in childrearing are more relatable to cost of living expenses? I'm sure that most sociologists follow migration patterns for studies like this; it would be nice to see migration stats for this report.
4
Move to the less expensive South? The South also has the lowest wages and benefits. It also has the poorest social welfare programs. Only people like me who are retired and have a good retirement income can do well in the South.
It would be really useful to have a link to the study referenced by Mr Leonhardt.
Children who live with both of their married, biological parents do better in life. Forget for a moment all the arguments about political partisanship, or black - white racial disharmony. Think about the kids the rest of us have brought into or will bring into this world, ... our legacy as it were to them.
Say it again. Children who live with both of their married, biological parents do better. So too, do their parents and their extended families for the simple reality that such families bestow upon themselves a harbor in which to ride out life's issues.
You want to fix poverty and social dysfunction? Start with controllable factors. "Start" does not imply sole fix; the economy among other issues weigh heavily in the discussion. But think about personal accountability in the matter.
Children who live with both of their married, biological parents do better ... that is a controllable factor available to every individual. That simple reality does not in any way, shape or form diminish what single caring parents have been able to accomplish for their children. It's just that, for the vast majority, two parent families work better.
Data like that of Mr Leonhardt's should be used by all of us to bridge the gaps that divide us as a national people.
Children who live with both of their married, biological parents do better in life. Forget for a moment all the arguments about political partisanship, or black - white racial disharmony. Think about the kids the rest of us have brought into or will bring into this world, ... our legacy as it were to them.
Say it again. Children who live with both of their married, biological parents do better. So too, do their parents and their extended families for the simple reality that such families bestow upon themselves a harbor in which to ride out life's issues.
You want to fix poverty and social dysfunction? Start with controllable factors. "Start" does not imply sole fix; the economy among other issues weigh heavily in the discussion. But think about personal accountability in the matter.
Children who live with both of their married, biological parents do better ... that is a controllable factor available to every individual. That simple reality does not in any way, shape or form diminish what single caring parents have been able to accomplish for their children. It's just that, for the vast majority, two parent families work better.
Data like that of Mr Leonhardt's should be used by all of us to bridge the gaps that divide us as a national people.
2
He did provide the link. Here it is:
http://family-studies.org/red-state-families-better-than-we-knew/
http://family-studies.org/red-state-families-better-than-we-knew/
Take any "research" of W. Bradford Wilcox with a huge grain of salt. He's a militant right-wing activist who manipulates social science for ideological ends. One of his recent projects was using the institute he directs to funnel right-wing money to another militant right-wing activist, Mark Regnerus, to concoct a "study" purporting to "find" that gays are bad parents despite not studying gay parents. Wilcox has no credibility as a researcher.
6
If the reason for obvious shortcomings regarding adopted and same sex parent children are true, then this study also excludes children who never LIVED long enough to reach their teenage years as well. The CDC tracks and publishes accidental death, suicide and injury rates (and I'm guessing violent crime deaths as well) for children, and the map that data provides hints that there might be some tantalizing correlation at least as far as states like New Jersey and Massachusetts suggest...might it be worth including those children?
So basically, almost all the Bible Belt states that freeload off the Blue States while espousing small government and high moral values.
123
I doubt much of the TARP bailout went to Kansas, and deep blue Maryland is awash in federal 'workers' who live of the rest of our taxes. Next time you buy a loaf of bread, remember the wheat it's made from doesn't grow in Manhattan.
1
Use of the word "intact" is inappropriately normative in a society where, even if statistically significant differences exist, the range of variation is fairly small and "approximately" half of families are not two-parent biological households. Additionally, the associations pitched in this article are not demonstrably causal at this point (based on any of the data cited) so to make the linkage between rates of inequality and family structure is only ideological and not scientific. A somewhat more sophisticated misuse for of statistics for journalistic impact than usual but not much more.
3
One of the key modern indicators of trouble in marriages is economics. Men without steady employment, or employment that can assist a family in improving their economic conditions, lose their marriages. While it is interesting to know that single parent families are more abundant in the southern, Republican states, what we actually need to know is why.
Lower wages, lack of educational attainment or advanced training could be one reason that many men in the southern zone find it more difficult to sustain themselves in jobs. Plus, the region generally has pay scales that are lower than in the northeastern or far western states. Lower pay often results in financial difficulties and we know from prior data that the southern states have the highest number of people with serious credit problems.
In measurable terms, things are not good in the southern states. Payday loans, pawn shops, buy here-finance here used car loans and other exploitive practices abound in the south. So do higher arrest rates for minor crimes. Non-judicial foreclosure on houses, where banks can seize property without going to court, is also common.
Modern marriage is under assault by a lot of forces and the interesting contradiction is that this usually shows up most frequently in the Bible belt. Those who believe they are making things better there, from preachers to politicians and academics, need to come up with some answers as to why.
14
The paragraph expressing caveats about what the data misses (adopted children, etc.) should also address the fact many grandparents raise their grand children in the South (at least in Arkansas). It's means that one biological parent might be listed on a survey, whereas two different parental figures are actually raising the child.
2
The state data is a big brush that does not really analyze and inform since it dose not reference other characteristics of the populations under study such as age distribution, race, family size, and cultural background. Utah one can assume is still primarily Mormon and has larger as well as more intact families so more children are in them is a reasonable assumption. State data is a bad model for this kind of study but surely plays into how we think of states without thoughtful analysis. I don't find it particularly enlightening to be informed once again that healthy, educated children are ultimately higher earning as are their parents.
In addition to a need to look more closely at connections with race and poverty, it would be interesting to see how this compares with incarceration rates / the "1.5 Million Missing Black Men" featured in the Upshot in April (as the densest areas of missing black men were the Southeast).
3
I find it interesting that the "Bible Belt" for the most part shows single parent households. I also find it interesting the "South" pretty much scores last in almost any study when it comes to education, obesity, divorce, racism, etc. Being a native Atlantan but having lived many other places, the South continues to lag behind in progress. Once you leave Atlanta, the lack of progress and progressive thinking becomes apparent. Education and family values are clearly lacking though these areas claim to be religious.
4
Those hung up on no premarital sex, no abortion, the Bible, church and no sex education are more likely to raise children who are not educated or upwardly mobile, in single family households with a parent who produced a child out of wedlock or who divorced. All talk and no walk--that's the South of the US. Keep em poor, keep em ignorant and waiting for Godot--that's Republican ethos.
37
Studies that conclude intact families breed more successful children typically base research on limited variables. If two parents are engaged with the children, the children fare as well as children with married parents. If two parents are married but the environment is stressful and acrimonious, the children may not fare as well. To divide everything as black and white is not accurate and stigmatizes divorce. This writer makes some pretty sweeping generalizations about unmarried couples who cohabitate, for example. I would like to have seen a variable added for age of parents. Perhaps in states where parents are slightly older, the children are more likely to be successful. Economics are probably a stronger indicator than anything. We are basing assumptions on the stereotypical impoverished and harried single mother. Does the traditional model of two parents, stay at home mom impact outcome? There are far too many variables to draw conclusions about the impact and we rely on no scientific conclusions.
4
I would love to see two overlays with this map: one showing just education levels and one showing just income levels.
The greatest factor must be economic, not political.
The greatest factor must be economic, not political.
5
They are not mutually exclusive.
Very interesting but you or the study missed what I think is has to be one of the biggest factors in this trend. The states wight eh lowest rate of two parent families are also the states with the most restrictive abortion laws and the ones that shun anything more than abstinence only sex education. Clearly there are exceptions such as the Dakotas, but I would think these factors play a significant role in this data.
14
Did you really say "much more likely" in your first paragraph? Your data simply don't support that narrative.
2
I really think all this geographic analysis of data, while interesting, is very misleading. The main indicators for education, marriage and children's success are economic. This has been called "class". It really doesn't matter WHERE you live, what matters is your socioeconomic class.
8
I think I'm not the first to wonder if the 800 lb. gorilla in all this - "ethnicity" - puts "the data team" in the difficult-to-impossible position of being politcally incorrect (see C. Blow's misguided recent piece) or ... doing their job.
I'm not slamming "Upshot" as much as I'm asking whether one can EVER expect journalists to "see where the data takes them," as scientists MIGHT. (There are plenty of examples of scientists taking more heat than they would have dreamed possible in similar situations, and I'm sure there are a couple of 'tenure denied' instances that show what touching even an 'academic' third rail feels like.)
Mr. Blow - with likely even greater visibility than "Upshot" - did an enormous dis-service to his community by trying to be the anti-Cosby (basically, looking for positives where that's just insane.)
At least "Upshot" put out there topics like "odds of rising into the middle class," because until "the good guys" realize that since the Koch brothers [and allies] will outspend us 50-to-1, with results too obvious to state, things like "personal responsibility" and educational efforts in that vein are of the highest priority!!
Yes, those efforts may have an occasionally nasty "control yourselves" tone, but that's a small price to pay, in that - if successful - they might mean the difference between another generation lost and continued mass incarceration or something at least a little less awful.
I'm not slamming "Upshot" as much as I'm asking whether one can EVER expect journalists to "see where the data takes them," as scientists MIGHT. (There are plenty of examples of scientists taking more heat than they would have dreamed possible in similar situations, and I'm sure there are a couple of 'tenure denied' instances that show what touching even an 'academic' third rail feels like.)
Mr. Blow - with likely even greater visibility than "Upshot" - did an enormous dis-service to his community by trying to be the anti-Cosby (basically, looking for positives where that's just insane.)
At least "Upshot" put out there topics like "odds of rising into the middle class," because until "the good guys" realize that since the Koch brothers [and allies] will outspend us 50-to-1, with results too obvious to state, things like "personal responsibility" and educational efforts in that vein are of the highest priority!!
Yes, those efforts may have an occasionally nasty "control yourselves" tone, but that's a small price to pay, in that - if successful - they might mean the difference between another generation lost and continued mass incarceration or something at least a little less awful.
5
"The effects vary greatly, and many children raised by just one parent thrive, including the current president of the United States."
The President returned to Hawaii (from Indonesia) to live with his grandparents when he was 10 years old and remained there until he graduated from high school. His mother stayed behind in Indonesia. So he wasn't really raised by a single parent.
Also, I'm not sure becoming President of the United States automatically means you are 'thriving'. It might also mean you are deeply insecure and searching for something you never had as a child.
The President returned to Hawaii (from Indonesia) to live with his grandparents when he was 10 years old and remained there until he graduated from high school. His mother stayed behind in Indonesia. So he wasn't really raised by a single parent.
Also, I'm not sure becoming President of the United States automatically means you are 'thriving'. It might also mean you are deeply insecure and searching for something you never had as a child.
7
I agree with you about the false "Obama was raised by a single mother" claim. As for the rest, a lot of highly successful people have significant flaws; in fact, one could argue that their flaws are part of the reason for their success. So-called normal people rarely rise above the pack.
"Also, I'm not sure becoming President of the United States automatically means you are 'thriving'. It might also mean you are deeply insecure and searching for something you never had as a child."
Oh that is priceless. So people want to be POTUS because they are ....'insecure'?
Oh that is priceless. So people want to be POTUS because they are ....'insecure'?
1
CHARLES GIBSON: So did you think to yourself, 'Barack, what kind of hubris is this that I am thinking about being President?"
BARACK OBAMA: Yes. I think if you don't have enough self-awareness to see the element of megalomania involved in thinking you can be president, then you probably shouldn't be president. I think there's a slight madness to thinking that you should be the leader of the free world
Even the president understands this
BARACK OBAMA: Yes. I think if you don't have enough self-awareness to see the element of megalomania involved in thinking you can be president, then you probably shouldn't be president. I think there's a slight madness to thinking that you should be the leader of the free world
Even the president understands this
1
"Intact families are also more likely to produce children who are healthy, educated and ultimately higher earning." This is our country's most important economic issue and it can be easily improved with a change of mindset away from abstinence only education for young people and toward everything Planned Parenthood strives for (only 3% of all its health services are abortion services). Abortion should be thought of as the last means of action for anyone who wants to focus on career first before taking the huge responsibility of raising a human, and it should be an option for young girls and women no matter where they live. Research shows that the longer a woman waits to have a child, the more money they make. Which is because instead of having a person to have to care for at 18, they can allocate all their attention toward their career (or education for a high paying career).
6
The conclusions in this study should not be particularly surprising. Income and education levels are generally lower in the South and heading lower year by year. The political leadership in the South has traditionally been and is increasingly unwilling to adequately fund the services that would make life better for families: education, health care, and public education. Life is only going to get worse south of the Mason-Dixon line with the Republican takeover of almost all of the southern governorships and state legislatures.
37
So, the people in these banana-republic states are just unfortunate passive victims, unable to do anything to improve their lot?
Maybe we should give them the vote!
Oh, wait...
Maybe we should give them the vote!
Oh, wait...
1
Here's another interesting correlation: the states with the highest incarceration rates are at the bottom of the 2-parent family sort. LA, incarceration capital of the world, 847 people per 100,000 residents are locked -- and the vast majority of those people are African American men.
Similarly high rates of incarceration are found in most of the other states with low percentage of 2-parent households. Where NY's incarceration rate is 271/100,000 the incarceration rates in GA, MS, AL, OK range from 533/100,000 to 692/100,000 (the national average is 478/100,000).
(http://www.sentencingproject.org/map/map.cfm)
These stats don't count the numbers of prisoners who've served their time but are barred from public housing and student loan programs, and have a much harder time finding jobs. So, who are the women going to marry? Chalk up another casualty of our "war on drugs" and "tough on crime" policies -- the 2-parent family.
Similarly high rates of incarceration are found in most of the other states with low percentage of 2-parent households. Where NY's incarceration rate is 271/100,000 the incarceration rates in GA, MS, AL, OK range from 533/100,000 to 692/100,000 (the national average is 478/100,000).
(http://www.sentencingproject.org/map/map.cfm)
These stats don't count the numbers of prisoners who've served their time but are barred from public housing and student loan programs, and have a much harder time finding jobs. So, who are the women going to marry? Chalk up another casualty of our "war on drugs" and "tough on crime" policies -- the 2-parent family.
13
Your analysis presumes that had these people had not been arrested and sent to jail they would've settled down, gotten married, and been part of a two parent family. That's laughable considering the economic and social conditions many of they grow up in.
Yes, many are arrested for possession and getting a record but many are for worse offenses. For example, being involved in the drug trade is either directly or non-directly violent and in either case ruining the lives of people around them so yes, law enforcement and the legal system has a duty to arrest and prosecute these people. You might say the excessive enforcement is the cause of all the incarcerations? Well, say we legalize drugs. Drug violence might go down and so might incarcerations but do you think it is reality that in impoverished areas where people have no opportunity that they will just say no to drugs and become happy two parent family members?
Sorry, I don't buy that the war on drugs is a major driver of the lack of two parent families.
Lastly, just because there are high incarceration rates correlated with lack of two family households doesn't imply causation and posting such information presumes that forcing everyone else to debunk it as if it were true in the first place. The burden lies on the person making such an assertion. How do you know it wasn't poverty that caused the incarceration rate or many other factors?
Yes, many are arrested for possession and getting a record but many are for worse offenses. For example, being involved in the drug trade is either directly or non-directly violent and in either case ruining the lives of people around them so yes, law enforcement and the legal system has a duty to arrest and prosecute these people. You might say the excessive enforcement is the cause of all the incarcerations? Well, say we legalize drugs. Drug violence might go down and so might incarcerations but do you think it is reality that in impoverished areas where people have no opportunity that they will just say no to drugs and become happy two parent family members?
Sorry, I don't buy that the war on drugs is a major driver of the lack of two parent families.
Lastly, just because there are high incarceration rates correlated with lack of two family households doesn't imply causation and posting such information presumes that forcing everyone else to debunk it as if it were true in the first place. The burden lies on the person making such an assertion. How do you know it wasn't poverty that caused the incarceration rate or many other factors?
Thanks for the correlation. Not only is it prima faciie: it's rhetoric will frighten the judge on jury duty if you want to be excused. The judge might even become hostile.
Ah yes, yet another indication of how religion inculcates morals.
Here, in the good old bible belt, along with higher rates of gun violence, poverty, teen pregnancy and abortion, we have higher rates or single-parent families.
That's your family values at work, America!
Another reason to ignore the moralizing bloviators on the right when they drone on about the moral laxity of liberalism.
Here, in the good old bible belt, along with higher rates of gun violence, poverty, teen pregnancy and abortion, we have higher rates or single-parent families.
That's your family values at work, America!
Another reason to ignore the moralizing bloviators on the right when they drone on about the moral laxity of liberalism.
15
Perhaps, the family values preaching is a genuine response to the situation in the States with lowest number of two paren families. I do not mean that the family values rhetoric actually improves the situation, merely that it may reflect a recognition of a local problem.
2
There are no surprises her. States that are poor and with under educated people struggle.
1
How could these numbers be right --- that in the northern part of our country, the capital of Sodom and Gomorrah, is the home to father knows best --- who knew. Certainly not the Republican ticket right now, whose utopia is the same states that, let us say, need some moral help, and maybe work a bit on their educational systems --- which, for the states mentioned, are mostly all at the bottom of the achievement ladder.
2
Chicken or egg? The state with the most profound rural poverty, Mississippi, has the highest proportion of unmarried households with children. It also has the highest proportion of blacks in its population. It also has the worst educational system in the country.
2
Arkansas, West Virginia, Oklahoma and Tennessee are on that list.
They are lily white too... Care to comment on that?
They are lily white too... Care to comment on that?
It's probably due to the fact that whites (conservatives) are successful in suppressing the black vote. Republican values and the Bible, a sure recipe for success in keeping Mississippi so poor and ignorant.
It also has had one of the most consistent politically conservative political class in the country. Once the dixiecrats turned Republican (how many decades ago?), I can see no relative improvement in Mississippi compared to the rest of the country in anything. The best argument a conservative could have is that politics and policy do not matter.
1
So if even in Utah, 43% of children are in single-parent households, shouldn't the policy emphasis be on making it easier for those households to get along?
4
"It’s another sign that the North is faring better, on average, than the South today, whether the yardstick is income, education, life expectancy or family structure."
But, that can't be true. How could liberal, high tax, high benefit, (high quality of life) northern states be out competing low government southern states?
But, that can't be true. How could liberal, high tax, high benefit, (high quality of life) northern states be out competing low government southern states?
44
It's the humidity.
8
Seems like the pious people of the Bible belt should spend a little less time reading their good book and throwing stones and more time working on their family stability and the success of their children.
41
It would be helpful to run the numbers in ways that try to pinpoint the reasons, instead of generalizing. It could be religion, it could be race, it could be the percentage of immigrant population, I do not know. I could make guesses, but that is all they would be. I hope there is more research that tries to better quantify the reasons.
3
C'mon. Really. Is being a single parent "heroic"? Let's reserve the use of this word for specific actions, not someone's relationship status.
7
This article does an excellent job of fully describing the elephant in the room: single parenthood is not something to be envied or emulated. It's something to be endured. It's time we stopped glorifying it and making excuses for it. That goes for men as well as for women. Kids don't care about Mommy or Daddy's "independence" or "self-fulfillment". They care that someone will be there to love them, make sure they eat, go to school, and learn how to become grownups. And no one person can do everything. Perhaps no two people can either, but it certainly makes things easier.
As for the North-South divide in two-parent households, it's very interesting. And it's good that the researchers broke down the reasons for it. It's not exactly rocket science, education and wealth for some along with religion and culture for others, but it's good to know.
As for the North-South divide in two-parent households, it's very interesting. And it's good that the researchers broke down the reasons for it. It's not exactly rocket science, education and wealth for some along with religion and culture for others, but it's good to know.
7
This map is clear testament of religious hypocrisy.
Pro-life, anti abortion, anti gay marriage etc. plus all about religious rhetoric just expressing it self as unsustainable parenthood.
I suppose that what ever the cost they will stay on the course , apparently not.
That is my fellow citizens called southern BIGOTRY.
Pro-life, anti abortion, anti gay marriage etc. plus all about religious rhetoric just expressing it self as unsustainable parenthood.
I suppose that what ever the cost they will stay on the course , apparently not.
That is my fellow citizens called southern BIGOTRY.
6
Also this is not showing the difference between households with 2 parents and single parent households. As he left out 2 parent households where one is a step-parent. Those are also stable 2 parent households and should be taken into account for this kind of analysis. I wonder what those numbers show. And then there are the single parent households with a significant other in the household but they aren't married. And the households with a single parent and a second committed adult in the household such as a grandparent or sibling. So these are showing the worst case scenario and is an underestimate of stable 2 adult households with children.
This data may underestimate my state of MA in 2 ways. I know of many 2-parent adoptive families and many stable 2-parent gay married couples with children in my town alone.
5
I could be wrong but most of the single parent families appear to be Red states. So much for personal responsibility.
8
The advantages of children in two-parent families may be more genetic than environmental. Research has found that the children of widows do better than those of unwed mothers. People who get married before having children pass on different genes than those who do not. "Having a father in the home" per se may not make that much difference.
5
I read comment after comment from liberals/progressives/Democrats questioning why voters in red states "vote against their own interests." And it's getting old.
What are these voters' interests? Part of a person's interest is in maintaining their worldview, their personal narrative concerning how life works, how the world works, how relationships work - and how they OUGHT to work. We all have this kind of internal narrative, and it's central to our sense of who we are and how we believe we ought to behave. It's important, and having to change that narrative is painful and difficult. Most people don't want to do it.
Preserving that narrative - even though it might be harming your health and lowering your income - is important to people. Since changing that internal narrative is immediately painful, and the repercussions of failing to do so may not be immediate, it's not surprising that many red staters do things that seem self-defeating to those of us who don't share that internal narrative.
If progressives want to reach red staters whose personal narrative is more consistent with the kind of thinking embodied by the GOP, we need to understand and, yes, respect the importance to red state, conservative voters of what's truly important to them. And usually it's a lot more than dollars and sense issues, including things like healthcare. Those issues alone do not define a person's "self interest."
What are these voters' interests? Part of a person's interest is in maintaining their worldview, their personal narrative concerning how life works, how the world works, how relationships work - and how they OUGHT to work. We all have this kind of internal narrative, and it's central to our sense of who we are and how we believe we ought to behave. It's important, and having to change that narrative is painful and difficult. Most people don't want to do it.
Preserving that narrative - even though it might be harming your health and lowering your income - is important to people. Since changing that internal narrative is immediately painful, and the repercussions of failing to do so may not be immediate, it's not surprising that many red staters do things that seem self-defeating to those of us who don't share that internal narrative.
If progressives want to reach red staters whose personal narrative is more consistent with the kind of thinking embodied by the GOP, we need to understand and, yes, respect the importance to red state, conservative voters of what's truly important to them. And usually it's a lot more than dollars and sense issues, including things like healthcare. Those issues alone do not define a person's "self interest."
8
I have raised my teenagers as a single parent and I have no hesitation in saying that they would have been better off if my wife had been there to help me. It is easier for me to admit, as I am a widower, so I'm not criticized for my marital status, as divorced parents generally are. But I think if you can get past the defensiveness about the failure of their marriage, most single parents will admit they know they'd parent better with a partner. People getting married need to choose a partner for raising a family, not just a love-match.
33
"Public shaming"? That's sarcasm, right?
So the most pious areas of the country are the ones that don't live by the values they preach. Unsurprising.
7
The Midwest and Utah are rather pious, and are at the top or near the top of the chart. This is likely much more about racial differences than religiosity, though the article said that religiosity has a positive correlation with marriage, not a negative one.
Also worth pointing out that it looks like states with gay marriage have higher rates (on average) of two parent households than states that ban gay marriage. Conservative politicians take note: gay marriage is not lessening two parent households, but your education funding cuts are.
12
Those Southern states with the lowest two-parent families have deliberately chosen the public policy of depriving half or more of their citizens of basic dignity. Those same states have the worst public education, worst access to health, worst housing, worst wages. And won't stop shut up about it when they pitch their states to business.
Young people, black or white, cannot form families without adequate opportunities and basic living standards. Children are born anyways. States in the mid-west and mountain states with the same strict sexual morality didn't make that choice. (Though Kansas is trying these days) The White Southern political establishment and their supporters made that public policy choice.
Young people, black or white, cannot form families without adequate opportunities and basic living standards. Children are born anyways. States in the mid-west and mountain states with the same strict sexual morality didn't make that choice. (Though Kansas is trying these days) The White Southern political establishment and their supporters made that public policy choice.
19
"White single-parent families have become much more common in recent years. And in the Deep South, single parenthood is common among both whites and blacks."
What exactly is a single parent household anyway?
Is any household ran by one parent defined as single parent even if the other parent is paying child support and involved in child rearing ? Even if the parents never married, and the father could not provide child support due to poverty, but is involved in child rearing, should this family defined as single parent?
The definition of single parent households is never clear, and many times has a racial and class angle. America likes to go on and on about "broken" families and "missing" fathers in the African American community, and lo and behold, it turns out that half of white American households are "broken". Obama is mentioned as a product of a single parent household. Okay. Why not mention Bill Clinton? Bill Clinton never knew his father who abandoned him, and grew up in an unstable household in which his step father and mother divorced.
A singe parent family should be defined to mean families in which one parent is really not or barely involved in child rearing. With that definition, single parent families are rare, and the supposed harmful effects on children is moot.
What is harmful to children is poor household income.
Is any household ran by one parent defined as single parent even if the other parent is paying child support and involved in child rearing ? Even if the parents never married, and the father could not provide child support due to poverty, but is involved in child rearing, should this family defined as single parent?
The definition of single parent households is never clear, and many times has a racial and class angle. America likes to go on and on about "broken" families and "missing" fathers in the African American community, and lo and behold, it turns out that half of white American households are "broken". Obama is mentioned as a product of a single parent household. Okay. Why not mention Bill Clinton? Bill Clinton never knew his father who abandoned him, and grew up in an unstable household in which his step father and mother divorced.
A singe parent family should be defined to mean families in which one parent is really not or barely involved in child rearing. With that definition, single parent families are rare, and the supposed harmful effects on children is moot.
What is harmful to children is poor household income.
9
Marriage is important to all children, regardless of race.
So apparently marriage founded by God himself isn't so sacred in the Bible Belt! Apparently people who are seized by the spirit to evangelize are also goaded by that same impulse to spread their sperm rather liberally, and to the profound economic disadvantage of their offspring. I wonder if all of that opposition to choice does not reflect a latent disdain for women, and a sense of guilt about the consequences of such a remarkable lack of commitment to one's posterity.
6
I would doubt that the people having children without being married go to church all that much. I'm not a Christian, but it seems to me, anecdote in hand, that many people are not affiliated with any organized religion. It was important to us to give our children a Jewish education, but it seems many Christian's think their kids will get it by osmosis.
72% of African American births and 58% of Hispanic births are out of the wedlock. Blacks and Hispanics are a much larger percentage of the population in the South. There explains most of the discrepancy.
32
An obvious point not addressed by the article
Exactly as the original paper reports ( http://family-studies.org/red-state-families-better-than-we-knew/ ). This Upshot piece glosses over some of the other more nuanced findings in the original report to go for the more sensationalistic jugular.
Not entirely true. Note that Arkansas has a very high rate of single parentage but has a largely white population. Also, most of Appalachia is the same way. A county map would clarify this better but your assumption is only supported to a limited extent.
1
It is not so much a red state vs blue state divide. It is more dependent on how many Yankees and Scandinavians migrated there. The more of this you have, the higher the percentage of two parent households. That is why Minnesota and Utah are both there. Also, the states that have higher rates or married have higher rates of economic mobility than the states with lower rates of two parent households. Also, the states with higher two parent households pay relatively more into the tax system than they get back.
4
Yes - this article fleshes out what you just wrote:
"The 11 Nations Comprising the United States" http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-in-arms.html
"The 11 Nations Comprising the United States" http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-in-arms.html
So, being in the Bible Belt offers little, if any, familial advantage. Why am I not surprised?
24
Besides the 'family values" theme, one of the most divisive topics is the claim that the economic lower half are simply lazy and shiftless, and that children's futures could be improved by such things as having them scrub toilets. By helping children get a good start in life (without mandatory janitorial duties or the like) the "blue" states are supposedly squandering taxpayer dollars. But, it seems like they and the stable red states are on different tracks that might both lead to the creation of future taxpayers, rather than future tax dollar recipients.
So, how does this map compare to a map of the "taker" v. "payer" states? [net federal tax dollars received v. paid?]. And to a map of overall educational attainment?
So, how does this map compare to a map of the "taker" v. "payer" states? [net federal tax dollars received v. paid?]. And to a map of overall educational attainment?
2
This probably counts as 'stating the obvious', but which states have the largest numbers of Catholics, and which have the largest numbers of fundamentalists? I think it's interesting that religion doesn't even merit a mention here. Seems to me there's a likely correlation between two-parent families and the dominant religion of the region, whether it's Catholic, Mormon, or in the case of Minnesota, Lutheran. I was raised as a Southern Baptist, and "Do as I say, not as I do" always seemed to be the Eleventh Commandment.
4
Perhaps religious zealotry in the south doesn't promote family values after all.
13
Not until far down the article do we get 'Mr. Wilcox and Mr. Zill also point out that two-parent families tend to be more common in states with predominantly white populations.' and then it's treated as a throw away with no statistics. Further, no mention of the roll of education and income in single parenthood.
The rise of single parenthood is about far more than politics. Here are the actual statistics: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/local/census-report-on-unmarried-m...
The rise of single parenthood is about far more than politics. Here are the actual statistics: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/local/census-report-on-unmarried-m...
6
What's the news here? Seventy percent of African American households are single-parent, which is clearly reflected in the distribution of African American families across America. The breakdown of the family is why communities fail, it's why schools fail and why poverty persists. Fix the family!
14
Let's start by making sure that people have a living wage and access to affordable health care.
Actually, I think it may the other way around. That is, marriages don't form in environments where men can get jobs with reasonable pay and benefits. People don't delay child bearing in environments with little educational opportunity. I think if you provide real opportunity, families will probably fix themselves.
Interesting that Mississippi & Louisiana the 2 states with the greatest percentage of children being raised in single parent households, are also 2 places with some of the highest incarceration rates in the industrialized world.
Just one more example of why mass incarceration needs to stop in this country. Chances are, a lot of Mississippi & Louisiana children have fathers who are locked up. As a result, these children are now being raised in a single parent household. Children raised in single parent households, especially in high incarceration states, are much more likely to grow up to spend time in prison themselves.
Just one more example of why mass incarceration needs to stop in this country. Chances are, a lot of Mississippi & Louisiana children have fathers who are locked up. As a result, these children are now being raised in a single parent household. Children raised in single parent households, especially in high incarceration states, are much more likely to grow up to spend time in prison themselves.
14
Lies, damned lies and statistics.
-------------------------------------
Is the author stating that where one lives determines whether or not they have two parents? If that is not the case then why use something as arbitrary as state lines. This is just nothing more than fun with numbers and is as meaningless as meaningless can get.
-------------------------------------
Is the author stating that where one lives determines whether or not they have two parents? If that is not the case then why use something as arbitrary as state lines. This is just nothing more than fun with numbers and is as meaningless as meaningless can get.
6
Thank you. I was thinking along the same lines.
This is why they are red states. Lots of hate in single parents who are being told to be responsible, take care of kids and exes. People with dead end jobs, minimal educational resources, lots of blame toward people who are having trouble, attacks on minorities and blaming them for their own situation. Who would have thought it................
2
Graphs and statistics do not make science or make a discussion comprehensive. I'm struck by the lack of serious mention of where blacks fit into the picture, especially in the South, given the many social and economic difficulties they face.
It's now apparent that Mr. Leonhardt is promoting a theme in his writing, with frequency since beginning the Upshot, about disadvantages of single parent families. While there is truth there, frequently repeating the theme also feels like a slap in the face to many very responsible and successful parents who, for various reasons, some quite compelling, are raising children alone and doing so despite being financially challenged.
Given the challenge of being a single parent, a more useful discussion, rather than rehashing what's been known for years about single parenting, would be to discuss what's known about those single parents whose children, despite the challenges, are successful in their lives. Writing about those families is less preachy, validates the efforts of a group of parents and provides enlightenment for everyone.
It's now apparent that Mr. Leonhardt is promoting a theme in his writing, with frequency since beginning the Upshot, about disadvantages of single parent families. While there is truth there, frequently repeating the theme also feels like a slap in the face to many very responsible and successful parents who, for various reasons, some quite compelling, are raising children alone and doing so despite being financially challenged.
Given the challenge of being a single parent, a more useful discussion, rather than rehashing what's been known for years about single parenting, would be to discuss what's known about those single parents whose children, despite the challenges, are successful in their lives. Writing about those families is less preachy, validates the efforts of a group of parents and provides enlightenment for everyone.
8
The children of some single-parent families do well. They are the ones in families headed by women who have delayed childbirth or adoption until well after having gotten an education and stayed for years in a good job, and who have a stable extended family.
Or they are in families headed by men or women who have lost their spouses after a time -- implying that the parents got married and either wisely delayed having children until they got to know each other or lived in a stable environment for a fairly long time before death or divorce did them part.
Obviously, there are exceptions to every rule.
A good reason, nevertheless, to allow gay people to marry. Those who want children really do want them and, in addition, have the patience, doggedness, and determination to follow through and get past all the hurdles our society throws in front of them.
As opposed to people who have babies simply because they can and have none of the qualities required for good parenting.
Or they are in families headed by men or women who have lost their spouses after a time -- implying that the parents got married and either wisely delayed having children until they got to know each other or lived in a stable environment for a fairly long time before death or divorce did them part.
Obviously, there are exceptions to every rule.
A good reason, nevertheless, to allow gay people to marry. Those who want children really do want them and, in addition, have the patience, doggedness, and determination to follow through and get past all the hurdles our society throws in front of them.
As opposed to people who have babies simply because they can and have none of the qualities required for good parenting.
3
In another recent article, Upshot revealed there are 1.5 million missing black men, a gap also widest in the south, and driven mostly by incarceration and early death. Although some in our society would blame black men and their relatively higher rate of crime, I would blame it on deep-seated racism and the war on drugs that has law enforcement targeting vulnerable black and brown neighborhoods, putting men in prison for the same crimes like drug possession that white men in the north commit with impunity. This map is yet more proof that putting men in prison for petty crime is doing far more harm than good to our society, including causing broken, single parent families, and making it ever harder for black children to thrive.
11
Another parroting if the myth that black men are in prison for "petty" crime. This is simply not true!!
1
The premise of this article is what in science is called a "leap of faith" meaning it is not based on evidence. Whether the economic and societal status of single-parent households is worse because there are not two parents present versus whether there are not two parents present because of economic and societal status cannot be determined based on demographics. The relationship only shows that there is a systemic cultural effect, and begs the question, what is the cause?
2
What a weird scale for the graphic. 40, 45 and 48 ?? What happened to 50? What are the values on the ends? It's impossible to know from the 3 values presented. I wonder too if the change in the RGB color values matches the scale of the change in the numeric values...? A subtle means of editorialization.
12
Apparently, when you're looking to make an argument based on preconceived notions (but the numbers don't support it), you might need to "massage" the data a little.
I don't see the big difference that the writer does. His scale on the graphic only runs from 40% to 48% after all.
The table shows individual states ranging from extremes of 32% to 57%.
So, yes there are differences, but most states are in a relatively narrow band, as I perceive it.
The table shows individual states ranging from extremes of 32% to 57%.
So, yes there are differences, but most states are in a relatively narrow band, as I perceive it.
5
By viewing through a red state/blue state political lens, this analysis is missing the obvious. That's a map of the US poverty belt if ever I saw one.
5
It's the bible belt. Where hypocrisy reigns.
The difference between these states also rests on social capital. Those top northern states tend to have a lot of social capital, including the Republican states of Utah and Nebraska. Social capital is essentially strong community social networks and resources that people can tap into for resources. Northern states tend to be more community oriented. They spend more money on schools, libraries, and certain government services that assist families like better public transit. What's really strange is that these areas are more likely to have sidewalks! It's little things as simple as that. Sidewalks are almost like a signifier that "we care about people." They also have more non-governmental civic organizations and mutual aid groups. All of these tend to create more social stability that help families. Again, it's all an indication that these places "care about people."
15
This article is tremendously misleading because it does not control for race. Kids growing up in southern states are more likely to grow up with one parent, yes but this is almost entirely because a higher proportion of people in the south are Black. Out-of-wedlock births constitute about 29% of White births, but 72% of Black births (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr62/nvsr62_03.pdf, Table 1). Thus, even a modestly higher proportion of Black people in a state will lead to increased single-parent households. It might even be possible that Whites and Blacks each have lower rates of out-of-wedlock birth in the South, and that this fact is obfuscated by the ham-handed analysis of this article.
Look at it this way: suppose data shows that incidence of Alzheimer's disease is higher in Florida than in Minnesota. Before we start wondering what environmental conditions/social policies or cultural predilicitions might be responsible for this discrepancy, we have to ask: "wait, are there simply more old people in Florida?"
Anyone with even a passing knowledge of social science of epidemiology would recognize the importance of race when looking at any social phenomena in America.
Look at it this way: suppose data shows that incidence of Alzheimer's disease is higher in Florida than in Minnesota. Before we start wondering what environmental conditions/social policies or cultural predilicitions might be responsible for this discrepancy, we have to ask: "wait, are there simply more old people in Florida?"
Anyone with even a passing knowledge of social science of epidemiology would recognize the importance of race when looking at any social phenomena in America.
18
This article is tremendously misleading because it does not control for race. Kids growing up in southern states are more likely to grow up with one parent, yes but this is almost entirely because a higher proportion of people in the south are Black. Out-of-wedlock births constitute about 29% of White births, but 72% of Black births
===============
It's an amazing omission
===============
It's an amazing omission
1
Explain then why MD, with one of the highest percentages of blacks in the country (30%), has more two parent homes than its neighbor WV, one of the lowest (3%). Race is a factor but there are likely other factors, such as poverty, at play.
1
And what does "black" mean? Yes, we know there are racial differences. To state that without investigating causes seems as useless as ignoring it.
Did anybody look at the possibility that the mass incarceration of black men leads to more single parent black households? Since black people predominate in the South, it would make sense that the South has more single parent households.
5
I'm from the south and moved to NYC when I was 22. I have no interest in going back. While there are some good souls there, most of the people who wear their religion on their sleeve are huge hypocrites. It's all a veneer.
110
Interesting, but misses obvious points like economics. Most of the low two parent states have large proportions of African-Americans, but the exceptions include Oklahoma, which is easily the reddest state in the country. Race is, among other things, a proxy for poverty in places like the deep South and I don't see any attention that obvious variable. Marriage rates climbed among lower income people in the 90s, coinciding with a robust economy and modest gains by blue collar workers. Significantly, single parenthood brings poverty by itself, except at the upper end of the educational spectrum. Consideration of economic progress in the last generation (which can be generated geographically from census data) also would be a useful predictor to test.
Utah, because of it's large Mormon population probably can't be considered in the same way as other states. OTOH, many of the high two-parent states have large Catholic populations and the presence of proxies for Communitarian values like Catholic identity may also be useful predictors.
The obvious thing here is that "values" don't translate into behavior and indeed, it may be that dissonance that is part of what keeps the Red States so red.
Utah, because of it's large Mormon population probably can't be considered in the same way as other states. OTOH, many of the high two-parent states have large Catholic populations and the presence of proxies for Communitarian values like Catholic identity may also be useful predictors.
The obvious thing here is that "values" don't translate into behavior and indeed, it may be that dissonance that is part of what keeps the Red States so red.
3
I wonder how much of this has to do with the fact that people in the South marry younger, and expect to have kids younger, and are thus more likely to get a divorce. The group with the highest divorce rate is Christian evangelicals, because they are the ones who get married younger than 23 years old, and anyone who gets married that young has a much higher divorce rate.
The other factor, of course, is simply poverty and lack of education.
The other factor, of course, is simply poverty and lack of education.
22
Money and probably more so, Religion has corrupted the government and at this point there is nothing anyone can do.
Family values is now simply a fundraising cry, "Quick, send me a check so I can promote Family Values", my family not yours.....
Simple fear mongering and chasing down the uneducated.....
Who votes for these people?
Family values is now simply a fundraising cry, "Quick, send me a check so I can promote Family Values", my family not yours.....
Simple fear mongering and chasing down the uneducated.....
Who votes for these people?
3
I love how conservatives always instinctively blame black people for these numbers. Yet, there are very few blacks in conservative and dirt poor Appalachia and rural southern areas (hello, West Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas!)
79
There actually is a substantial correlation between the proportion of African Americans in the state and the proportion of single parent households. In fact, Mississippi and Louisiana are # 1 and 2 on both (and 6 out of the top 10 are the same). While just correlational, it does suggest a common underlying factor (poverty, lack of education, but perhaps also cultural factors) - factors that may also be shared by some of the poor white areas, such as Appalachia and rural Arkansas.
This reminds me of the time we spent in the Rocky Mountain Bible Belt of Colorado Springs, home to Focus on the Family and lots of evangelical fervor. We had plenty of neighbors and co-workers who prayed for our depraved secular souls while balancing the demands of their third marriage with Bible study and their 12 step programs. If the holy rollers kept them off the coke and in their marriage, then good for them. I never could figure out why that meant gays should be banned from housing developments and Darwin from public schools.
69
My mother was a widow at a young age, so I was raised for a good part of my youth by a single parent. I have known other single parents, and seen them struggle with little relief, between job and parenting. So I am offended by some of the moral judgment that I have read in a few comments.
Work is always lighter when it can be shared, and in some of these single family households, I suspect teenagers are asked to shoulder more of the work, to earn money for clothes and entertainment, if not to contribute to the rent. This work can steer a student away from academic success.
It is important that regardless of the parents decisions, or life's situations that we make a concerted effort to provide each child with an opportunity and support so they might find their own success in life.
Work is always lighter when it can be shared, and in some of these single family households, I suspect teenagers are asked to shoulder more of the work, to earn money for clothes and entertainment, if not to contribute to the rent. This work can steer a student away from academic success.
It is important that regardless of the parents decisions, or life's situations that we make a concerted effort to provide each child with an opportunity and support so they might find their own success in life.
7
The only thing surprising about this study is the "high" %rates for GA, AL, SC.
Just by watching the local news or volunteering with a community assistance organization (I have for many years) one could easily think it would be closer to 10%. So, I guess there is some good news, somewhere but it's hard to see.
Just by watching the local news or volunteering with a community assistance organization (I have for many years) one could easily think it would be closer to 10%. So, I guess there is some good news, somewhere but it's hard to see.
The author does the reader a disservice by not depicting the data at the county level. The view at the state level suggests a uniformity that one suspects does not jibe with reality.
4
Simply looking at state averages is painting with too broad a brush. Wonder what the data for large cities within each state looks like vs. the average?
5
The 800 pound gorilla no one will discuss is the racial divide. Its no coincidence that states with higher black and Latino populations have a higher percentage of single parent families. No one has spoken honestly about that since Daniel Moynihan did decades ago.
10
Check out 'Coming Apart' by Charles Murray. He discusses this phenomena, but only among whites. His data and analysis shows (I won't go so far to say proves) that many problems white America likes to think of as 'black' problems are darn common in white communities, and should instead be viewed as class/community problems.
http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Apart-State-America-1960-2010/dp/030745343X
http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Apart-State-America-1960-2010/dp/030745343X
CT, Mass and NJ each have significant minority populations. I was born and raised in Bridgeport, CT, which is now probably majority "minority." Meanwhile, in certain parts of the Bible Belt, such as the hollows of W. Virginia, eastern Tennessee and much of Kentucky, there are few minorities. Also, about 1 in 12 marriages are now interracial (and climbing), so obviously this is more than just about race. Getting married too soon (more likely to happen in the socially conservative South) and lower educational attainment (which correlates with getting married too soon) are probably more of a factor than race.
State variation is a good descriptive tool, but it offers almost no explanatory power. As I showed in 20 minutes of analysis this morning, with the same Census data, once you control for race/ethnicity and parents' education, state variation explains less than 1% of the variance in whether children are living with married parents: https://twitter.com/familyunequal/status/608967070341058561. We have regional variation in this country, but it's mostly about race and socioeconomic status, not some independent attitude toward family structure. (Religion matters, too, but it's not in Census data.)
5
Divorce rates are higher in religiously conservative "red" states than "blue" states.
In a new study titled "Red States, Blue States, and Divorce: Understanding the Impact of Conservative Protestantism on Regional Variation in Divorce Rates," published in the American Journal of Sociology, demographer and University of Texas at Austin professor Jennifer Glass cites higher divorce rates in religious states like Arkansas and Alabama -- which boast the second and third highest divorce rates, respectively -- and lower rates in more liberal states like New Jersey and Massachusetts.
Glass and her fellow researchers concluded that the conservative religious culture is in fact a major contributing factor thanks to "the social institutions they create" that "decrease marital stability."
Specifically, putting pressure on young people to marry sooner, frowning upon cohabitation before marriage, teaching abstinence-only sex education and making access to resources like emergency contraception more difficult all result in earlier childbearing ages and less-solid marriages from the get-go.
Glass and her colleagues also concluded that the religious culture of the area permeated into the divorce rates of even the non-religious people who lived there. In other words, simply by living in counties that were dominated by conservative Protestantism, people were at a higher risk for getting divorced.
Conservatism produces intellectual, social and economic bankruptcy.
In a new study titled "Red States, Blue States, and Divorce: Understanding the Impact of Conservative Protestantism on Regional Variation in Divorce Rates," published in the American Journal of Sociology, demographer and University of Texas at Austin professor Jennifer Glass cites higher divorce rates in religious states like Arkansas and Alabama -- which boast the second and third highest divorce rates, respectively -- and lower rates in more liberal states like New Jersey and Massachusetts.
Glass and her fellow researchers concluded that the conservative religious culture is in fact a major contributing factor thanks to "the social institutions they create" that "decrease marital stability."
Specifically, putting pressure on young people to marry sooner, frowning upon cohabitation before marriage, teaching abstinence-only sex education and making access to resources like emergency contraception more difficult all result in earlier childbearing ages and less-solid marriages from the get-go.
Glass and her colleagues also concluded that the religious culture of the area permeated into the divorce rates of even the non-religious people who lived there. In other words, simply by living in counties that were dominated by conservative Protestantism, people were at a higher risk for getting divorced.
Conservatism produces intellectual, social and economic bankruptcy.
186
At best you are misguided.
I find the American liberal as misinformed and close minded as the American conservative. This study while being enlightening also leaves many questions. Utah landed on top of the list and that state is deeply conservative, but their brand of conservative (Mormon) is different from the conservative of the southern states (Protestant), plus it does not have the baggage of slavery. New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Massachusetts landing high could be because of high incomes of the residents as well as higher than average proportion of recent immigrants. One is tempted to draw sweeping conclusions but reality has many nuances.
1
"Divorce rates are higher in religiously conservative "red" states than "blue" states."
"Socrates", (I admire the original too much to just GIVE you his name), have you looked at the figures? If you had bothered to look you would have seen that Utah has the highest proportion of two parent families, and Nebraska is not too far behind.
When seeking the truth, as the actual Socrates did, it is better to rely on facts and reason than on one's prejudices. You write here in the NY Times because its prejudices happen to coincide with yours, but prejudices are prejudices, they are not the truth.
I would be eternally grateful if you called yourself by some other name but I doubt you will cash in on my offer.
"Socrates", (I admire the original too much to just GIVE you his name), have you looked at the figures? If you had bothered to look you would have seen that Utah has the highest proportion of two parent families, and Nebraska is not too far behind.
When seeking the truth, as the actual Socrates did, it is better to rely on facts and reason than on one's prejudices. You write here in the NY Times because its prejudices happen to coincide with yours, but prejudices are prejudices, they are not the truth.
I would be eternally grateful if you called yourself by some other name but I doubt you will cash in on my offer.
1
I am wondering where statistical significance lies (I think the range was 31-57%). I also think the comments regarding income are quite important.
2
How ironic that the region that most stresses "family values" in public policy practices them least on a private, personal basis.
30
People who tout their "family values" usually have none.
See this article about the "The 11 Nations Comprising the United States" http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-in-arms.html
Helpful beliefs, like topsoil, take generations to build up, but can be swept away in a very short time.
Wise forefathers and foremothers have built up a system of government to defend us from those who would prey on those with differing beliefs. The web of tensions between the 11 Nations of the USA are fascinating and the stakes are important.
Read the Tufts article, ponder the various cultures of the 11 nations, and become wise with actions and comments. Can you welcome the diversity and come up with a unifying narrative to help our people become stronger?
Helpful beliefs, like topsoil, take generations to build up, but can be swept away in a very short time.
Wise forefathers and foremothers have built up a system of government to defend us from those who would prey on those with differing beliefs. The web of tensions between the 11 Nations of the USA are fascinating and the stakes are important.
Read the Tufts article, ponder the various cultures of the 11 nations, and become wise with actions and comments. Can you welcome the diversity and come up with a unifying narrative to help our people become stronger?
2
Thanks for the article link. Very interesting and I think makes a lot of sense when I consider the various places I have lived and my own family origins.
As someone who spends a lot of time looking through research, this article is dishonest in saying throughout that the data supports two-parent families. Their data set is not based on two-parent families, which they finally note at the end of the article. It's based on a biological family where a mother and a father are both present. It's a sign of political pressure and obeisance to political correctness that the author uses the term "two parent families." This is a phenomenal example of the cultural filter we apply to scientific conclusions. It's as if he is afraid to use the appropriate conclusion throughout out of fear that he might invoke the wrath of the proponents of same sex marriage.
3
There is little if any by-state data on same sex couples with children to put into the mix. If there were, my guess would be that most such couples would be living anywhere but in the notoriously antigay southern states.
There aren't enough 2 same sex parent family households at this time to draw any conclusions. I don't know what your point is.
Looking at the data it tells me the difference between the best states and the worst states aren't that big. Most states seems to fall within the 40-50% band. This suggests that demographic differences between the states probably account for much of the variability. Most of the Northern Midwest and New England states are lily white, while most of the Southern Midwest states are 1/3rd to 1/2 Hispanic, while the Deep South states are 1/3rd to 1/2 black.
The data needs to be much more detailed than it is to come up with any real conclusions. Of course this wouldn't stop the partisans on here to gloat about their moral superiority over the Republicans.
The data needs to be much more detailed than it is to come up with any real conclusions. Of course this wouldn't stop the partisans on here to gloat about their moral superiority over the Republicans.
8
Jonathan, Your stereotype of N.E. is simply inaccurate. While it is true that Maine, VT and New Hampshire are overwhelmingly white, southern N. England (CT, Mass and R.I. have significant minority populations. By way of comparison, CT is 81% white and Mass is 83% white. Meanwhile, Tennessee is 79% white, Arkansas is 80% white, W. Virginia is 94% white, and Kentucky is 89% white (and all have higher rates of divorce and fewer two parent families.) So if race is a factor, it certainly isn't the primary one.
“In Minnesota, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Connecticut, at least 51 percent of teenagers are being raised by both biological parents, among the highest rates in the nation.”
Wow/ouch. That 51% is "among the highest rates in the nation” certainly speaks volumes about the post-60’s dismantling/deconstruction of the traditional nuclear family. A true American Tragedy.
Wow/ouch. That 51% is "among the highest rates in the nation” certainly speaks volumes about the post-60’s dismantling/deconstruction of the traditional nuclear family. A true American Tragedy.
10
FYI, the 1950s image of the nuclear family (i.e., mother, father, and kids living alone in a single-family, suburban house) is not really "traditional". That was really just a brief historical anomaly made possible by the post-war economic boom, the GI Bill, VA mortgages, etc. And that set-up had its own problems for many people (isolation, loneliness, etc.)
Throughout most of human history, in most cultures, it's been far more common for extended families to live together in large groups (e.g., with aunts, uncles, grandparents, et al.)
If you look at the data, those states you mentioned still score quite highly on quality of life indicators (e.g., health, life expectancy, educational attainment, etc.) Maybe having a large percentage of "traditional nuclear families" isn't really that important these days, compared with other factors (like job availability, family income and education levels, access to quality education and health care, etc., etc.)
Throughout most of human history, in most cultures, it's been far more common for extended families to live together in large groups (e.g., with aunts, uncles, grandparents, et al.)
If you look at the data, those states you mentioned still score quite highly on quality of life indicators (e.g., health, life expectancy, educational attainment, etc.) Maybe having a large percentage of "traditional nuclear families" isn't really that important these days, compared with other factors (like job availability, family income and education levels, access to quality education and health care, etc., etc.)
I appreciate the outstanding work single parents can do raising their children. I have seen great kids over and over from single parent households. However, I am chilled to the bone to see the huge number of kids that are raised without 2 parents in the household =NO MATTER WHERE THEY LIVE. How do these stats compare with kids growing up in America in the 50's and 60's?
3
If you're comparing the modern era to the '50s and '60s, please don't forget about the large number of unmarried women who were pressured or forced into giving up their children for adoption. There were plenty of "chilling" practices back then. (There have been some excellent books on this subject, such as "The Girls Who Went Away" by Ann Fessler).
With the stigma of unwed motherhood at that time, *many* unmarried, pregnant women were sent to institutions where they gave birth secretly and the infants were quietly adopted. Many of them would have liked to keep their children, but were unable to do so due to family/ social pressure or lack of funds. In some sad cases, those children were actually stolen and forcibly adopted without the mothers' permission.
There were a raft of negative consequences from this practice, and a great deal of heartache for both birth mothers and many adoptees as well. Closed adoption was the norm back then, and it was often impossible for people to find out what became of their biological parents or children. Many adoptees longed for information about their origins and couldn't get it.
Things were hardly rosy back then for many people, and in many ways they ARE better today.
With the stigma of unwed motherhood at that time, *many* unmarried, pregnant women were sent to institutions where they gave birth secretly and the infants were quietly adopted. Many of them would have liked to keep their children, but were unable to do so due to family/ social pressure or lack of funds. In some sad cases, those children were actually stolen and forcibly adopted without the mothers' permission.
There were a raft of negative consequences from this practice, and a great deal of heartache for both birth mothers and many adoptees as well. Closed adoption was the norm back then, and it was often impossible for people to find out what became of their biological parents or children. Many adoptees longed for information about their origins and couldn't get it.
Things were hardly rosy back then for many people, and in many ways they ARE better today.
Is it coincidence that divorce is higher in the old Confederacy, which tried to divorce the Union? For the unwed young pregnant women in the South, the moralists are working hard to mandate childbirth. Judge them by their acts, not their excuses. They have produced this tragedy with full intention, as sacrifice. They want the children to suffer, and the women, tainted by unwed childbirth, to be single forever. It gives them people to shame.
29
That's a pretty weak historical comparison.
would be interesting to see this overlaid on a religion map.
6
Completely flawed research, way too many variables and the same reason testing can't be used to determine how well a teacher performs.
2
OK, present research or facts to refute it.
So good liberals in blue states have intact families and knuckle dragging conservatives in red states are driving the growth in single parent homes?
Puh-lease.
If we drilled down into this data it would be obvious that, contrary to the unsupported claim in the article, race is a significant factor. Last time I checked, something like 75% of black children are being raised in single parent homes.
And if you want to politicize the analysis, as the NYT is wont to do, I'd be willing to bet that a large majority of single parent households vote Democrat.
Puh-lease.
If we drilled down into this data it would be obvious that, contrary to the unsupported claim in the article, race is a significant factor. Last time I checked, something like 75% of black children are being raised in single parent homes.
And if you want to politicize the analysis, as the NYT is wont to do, I'd be willing to bet that a large majority of single parent households vote Democrat.
14
This is a fine example of conservatives bringing up special cases and ignoring the bottom line which is what the article talks about.
7
The article clearly points out that "two-parent families tend to be more common in states with predominantly white populations" so it is disingenuous to assert that the study authors ignore this factor.
Separately, even if rates of single parenthood among African-Americans are disproportionately high, African-Americans still constitute only about 12% of the overall population. Even in the southern states with comparatively high proportions of African-American residents the populations of those states are still 60% to 80% white. It is the majority demographic, i.e.: white people, that is setting the trend.
Separately, even if rates of single parenthood among African-Americans are disproportionately high, African-Americans still constitute only about 12% of the overall population. Even in the southern states with comparatively high proportions of African-American residents the populations of those states are still 60% to 80% white. It is the majority demographic, i.e.: white people, that is setting the trend.
3
Okay, this is not a subject that should be looked at with ease in political terms...but I am struck by the fact that the southern states, once again, come out on top in a negative ledger.
If one were to lay various maps of social and economic realities on top of each other, the southern, rock hard Republican states come out again and again as losers. Educational attainment. Median per capita income. The percentage of people with serious credit problems. The percentage without health insurance. High or higher unemployment rates.
The "bottom of the barrel" aspect of southern states does not apply universally, there are notable exceptions in one category or another, but again and again, the southern states pop up on the low end of many statistics. The older, northern cities, at least some of them, are in trouble due to shrinking job opportunities, but the northeast and far west otherwise present evidence of strong, thriving areas. The south continues to lag. The response of southern politicians is to say everything is fine, but blame outside forces (big govt., etc.) for any negative aspects of southern life.
When Baltimore erupted in riots, the right across America went into double overdrive blaming Democrats and liberals. What's wrong with the south? Does the right wing have answers? Speak up. We're waiting.
30
Maybe that Bible Belt is a little too tight.
5
Jean may want to re-read the story and look again at the map. Kansas has a higher rate of two-parent families than Delaware, even though Delaware had been party industrialized before Kansas was even settled. What's the matter wit Delaware?
3
I hazard that, while single parenthood will have multiple correlative variables and of course occurs among people of all backgrounds, race is a much bigger correlator of single parenthood than regional geography, to the point that it's distorting and so it would be even more illustrative to filter results by race. (I'd be curious about household income also).
As a hypothesis, the race element would be provable or disprovable, but perhaps the risk of actually proving it is too great. Maybe too sharply pointing out that single parenthood might correlate strongly with African-American populations is just not a socially acceptable position to express in this relatively liberal newspaper.
But regional geography is partly a proxy for race. If you understand the racial geography of the United States, the answer to my question is evident enough from the map.
As a hypothesis, the race element would be provable or disprovable, but perhaps the risk of actually proving it is too great. Maybe too sharply pointing out that single parenthood might correlate strongly with African-American populations is just not a socially acceptable position to express in this relatively liberal newspaper.
But regional geography is partly a proxy for race. If you understand the racial geography of the United States, the answer to my question is evident enough from the map.
7
The likely reason that FL, TX, AZ and CA go against the North/South pattern is because of the higher rates of 2 parent families among Latino and Asian immigrants. Limit the analysis to the native born population and the patterns on the map would likely be much stronger.
3
This is just unbelievable. Since marriage rates have collapsed in most black communities, this is where children are mainly growing up with no real good contact with fathers. Ignoring this information means the sociologists could talk about how stupid 'conservatives' are who emphasize marriage because 'conservative' states have high children out of wedlock situations.
Instead of examining dire the situation in black communities which nearly uniformly vote for the Democrats not the conservative Republicans we have yet another snide attack on conservatives demanding more marriages!
The states with the highest rates of marriage are in the upper midwest, the German/Scottish white ethnic states which vote increasingly Republican. Ditto Utah and Idaho, both voting conservative and both very religious.
States with high black/Hispanic populations are doing poorly and many of these have alarmed voters who have secure families voting for more marriage, not less marriage. That is, they vote GOP out of desperation seeing the ravages of policies encouraging the collapse of families in minority populations.
There is a crisis across the board. In the northern Plains states with the highest children with both parents rates are still barely at 50%. This is terrible. No cause for celebration.
Instead of examining dire the situation in black communities which nearly uniformly vote for the Democrats not the conservative Republicans we have yet another snide attack on conservatives demanding more marriages!
The states with the highest rates of marriage are in the upper midwest, the German/Scottish white ethnic states which vote increasingly Republican. Ditto Utah and Idaho, both voting conservative and both very religious.
States with high black/Hispanic populations are doing poorly and many of these have alarmed voters who have secure families voting for more marriage, not less marriage. That is, they vote GOP out of desperation seeing the ravages of policies encouraging the collapse of families in minority populations.
There is a crisis across the board. In the northern Plains states with the highest children with both parents rates are still barely at 50%. This is terrible. No cause for celebration.
4
Nice try but white conservatives have a pretty high divorce rate and the last time I checked it's growing.
It's interesting to note that the deep south states that are rabidly anti-gay marriage have the highest number of single parent households. What was that phrase in the bible? Oh, here is it: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" Matthew 7:3. Another interesting note: those who use the bible most to defend their prejudice seem to know it the least.
19
Question: Why is the Deep South so often over-represented in these things? (See the graphic and story on The Best and Worst Places to Grow Up.) And at the same time the GOP's most reliable voter base? Any suggestions?
1
Perhaps folks in the Deep South are horrified by the misery of impoverished single-parent families all around them--including themselves. Then, assuming that the rest of the US is just like them, they lash out desperately against total strangers, hoping thereby to solve problems that lie within their very own hearts...
4
I grew up in St Louis. Then went to college in Tulsa. I was shocked at the differences. So many kids in Tulsa got pregnant or married in our rite out of high school. There are strong cultural and religious prohibitions in Oklahoma against family planning and abortion. Southern religion and it's backward teaching has a lot to do with the struggle there.
88
I would like to see a study of the rates of two-parent families (or upward mobility) correlated to the rate of church attendance or (even better) self-proclaimed born-again status or even fundamentalism. . . .This study sure makes it look like all that Bible thumping morality in the South has an inverse relationship with two-parent family status, to say nothing of upward mobility.
4
Actually you don't want a study at all. You just want some way to use numbers to state a world-view you already have. That would be the exact opposite of a study.
There have been studies showing that those who go to weekly religious services are significantly less likely than average to divorce. Divorce statistics in the US are the worst with nominal Christians that rarely or never bother going to Church.
The conflation of "South" with conservative in this article is misleading. The article clearly states that two-parent households are more common in states with predominantly white populations. Almost without exception, the states listed in this article with the highest rate of children in two-parent houses are among the whitest states and the those with the lowest rate of two-parent houses are among the least white.
So, all those who are buying that politics have anything to do with this: please be less gullible. This is a simple case of correlation having nothing to do with causality and the NYT appealing to partisans who can not think for themselves. And commenters should realize that the nasty comments they are making about conservatives are really demonizing minorities.
So, all those who are buying that politics have anything to do with this: please be less gullible. This is a simple case of correlation having nothing to do with causality and the NYT appealing to partisans who can not think for themselves. And commenters should realize that the nasty comments they are making about conservatives are really demonizing minorities.
9
This analysis should look more closely at religion. I find it striking that the lowest rates of married two parent households are in states with the highest percentage of fundamentalist christians - the deep South. The "normative and religious" beliefs of the Plains and Mountain West surely differ from those in the deep South. I'd also be interested in comparing these state results with polls on attitudes to gay marriage, which also doesn't break as neatly along red/blue state lines as many suppose.
2
I would suggest that you look deeper into correlation of religious affiliation. Much of the south is Protestant. The history of Protestant Reformance included the assertion of the right to divorce, so why would be surprising to see more divorced parents there? Of course there is also rates of single parents that were never married, but high divorce rates can impact the social norms of a region. The greater the rate of single parents, regardless of reason, the lower the stigma against single parents. These social norms can then extend beyond individual religious affiliation but be impacted as an artifact of the demographic.
2
Actually this chart shows the opposite of what the headline suggests. Dramatic colors make it seem like there's a wide variation between states when every state is in the 40s in terms of percentage with a slight variation between the lower 40s and upper 40s. Not that big a difference between states.
Also like many such charts about social problems, it really is a map of where Black people live and where Black people don't live. Due to racism, Blacks score lower on most socio-economic indexes so this chart showing a higher percentage of two-family parents in all-white Vermont and a lower percentage in heavily Black Alabama is more about where the Black underclass is located and where it isn't.
People is heavily white states score highly and people in those states see themselves as more clever when in fact they are just more segregated.
Also like many such charts about social problems, it really is a map of where Black people live and where Black people don't live. Due to racism, Blacks score lower on most socio-economic indexes so this chart showing a higher percentage of two-family parents in all-white Vermont and a lower percentage in heavily Black Alabama is more about where the Black underclass is located and where it isn't.
People is heavily white states score highly and people in those states see themselves as more clever when in fact they are just more segregated.
9
Given the percentages, it is time for studies like these to include some information about the state of relations between the parents. Was it an acrimonious divorce? Are the two parents cohabitating but unmarried? Is custody shared or one-sided? Surely the relational climate for children plays a strong role in their adult outcomes, and the variance is large. I am in a very civil relationship with my ex and 50/50 parenting. Our daughter is wonderful. I have friends in years-long acrimony. Their children are wrecks. Do these studies pick that up?
6
I was wondering the same. My ex (who has never lived more than a mile or so away from me) and I have two wonderful kids (ages 17 and 20). Although there was certainly acrimony when we separated (nearly 15 years ago), even then there was virtually never a day when the kids didn't see both parents. We have celebrated all holidays together, and have always had keys to each others houses.
This article points to economic well being as a factor in the economic mobility of children. So the red states need to work on improving job opportunities and living wages. And old rust belt states like Indiana need to do the same. All the political blather about morality and religious superiority is just blather, not relevant.
7
Well, in one way it shows that for all the GOP ranting about liberals, they do form stable long term relationships and raise children in two parent families. I just wish that we would stop looking at these things in such a rigid fashion: two is always better than one, all single mothers are bad parents, children don't do well with gay or lesbian parents, etc. The truth is that every child needs at least one person in his life who thinks that he is special, important, lovable, and worth caring about. Every child needs a decent education, a good home life, a safe place to live, time to grow up, and the hope that he or she will amount to something. More we cannot guarantee. However, America seems to be falling quite short of the mark when it comes to its families, its neediest, its single citizens, and everyone but the very rich.
Question: why are we not focusing on human values? Why is it that every time something goes wrong in a person's life where they need assistance we force them into poverty before we grudgingly help them? Why do we look at other countries successes and refuse to try to do the same: health care springs to mind as does education. If we want children to grow up happy, healthy and productive we need to invest in all our citizens, not just the ones that donate to political campaigns.
Question: why are we not focusing on human values? Why is it that every time something goes wrong in a person's life where they need assistance we force them into poverty before we grudgingly help them? Why do we look at other countries successes and refuse to try to do the same: health care springs to mind as does education. If we want children to grow up happy, healthy and productive we need to invest in all our citizens, not just the ones that donate to political campaigns.
146
“ I just wish that we would stop looking at these things in such a rigid fashion:
seems a bit inconsistent with
“ Why is it that every time something goes wrong in a person's life where they need assistance we force them into poverty before we grudgingly help them? ”
seems a bit inconsistent with
“ Why is it that every time something goes wrong in a person's life where they need assistance we force them into poverty before we grudgingly help them? ”
"Well, in one way it shows that for all the GOP ranting about liberals, they do form stable long term relationships and raise children in two parent families."
Are you looking at the same map I am? Because if anything, I interpret it to be the opposite, which is that the states with the lowest rate of two parent households are consistently, and perhaps most stridently, "red".
Although I certainly do agree with your view that there are nuances that such data do not illuminate; namely, that two parents is not a predictor of happiness or stability.
Are you looking at the same map I am? Because if anything, I interpret it to be the opposite, which is that the states with the lowest rate of two parent households are consistently, and perhaps most stridently, "red".
Although I certainly do agree with your view that there are nuances that such data do not illuminate; namely, that two parents is not a predictor of happiness or stability.
As much as this data is relevant and interesting, there is one salient piece of census data missing from the article. According the the very same census bureau data set, the proportion of US households with a married couple and at least one child is less than 19% and dropping. It was over 40% as late as the 1970's. This study, as well as the "family values" supporters are focusing on a very small part of the population.
10
I tend to think that the same middle class values that foster educational attainment and economic advancement encourage marriage (or its committed equivalent) and discourage divorce (I have many friends who "stayed together because of the kids," sometimes at great personal sacrifice). And those values are passed down to children, who are more likely to repeat the successful strategies of their parents.
That being said, as amusing as it is to see that the "family values" Republican states are the very opposite of what they preach, this article would have been stronger if it had corrected for race and ethnicity, since rates of single parenthood are higher in certain groups than others, whether they are in the red states or blue.
That being said, as amusing as it is to see that the "family values" Republican states are the very opposite of what they preach, this article would have been stronger if it had corrected for race and ethnicity, since rates of single parenthood are higher in certain groups than others, whether they are in the red states or blue.
26
I would have to strongly disagree that "staying together for the kids" is a "successful" parenting strategy.
In my experience, that provides an extremely unhealthy model for relationships-- one that can deeply affect children emotionally and color their own relationships in the future. (Kids aren't stupid, and they generally know exactly what's going on).
I know a number of people whose parents did that, and many of them are in therapy now for their own relationship issues.
In my experience, that provides an extremely unhealthy model for relationships-- one that can deeply affect children emotionally and color their own relationships in the future. (Kids aren't stupid, and they generally know exactly what's going on).
I know a number of people whose parents did that, and many of them are in therapy now for their own relationship issues.
1
Very interesting but I'm left wondering about the host of other factors that may be at work. For example, the quality of schools, the quality of jobs and their geographic spread, more information of the weighting of African Americans in the data, immigrant influence, internal migration, declining participation in religion, etc. I guess, although I accept what is reported, I'm still left wondering about what factors lead to this outcome. I can speculate but it would be better to study this.
24
I agree completely. It would be far more enlightening if this data was overlaid with other datasets, some of which have been suggested in these comments. My guess is that the reasons behind these regional differences are much more nuanced than just one or two simple factors.
5
This is just one variable I think others come into play as well. However the poverty rate among married Blacks is about 6%. So it's safe to assume marriage bestows some financial advantage.
while you can slice and dice the data, the basic message -- that odds are better for kids growing up in two-parent families -- is pretty clear. whether you can offset them by providing better schooling, jobs, community services, etc, for one-parent families remains an open question, although such efforts haven't been broadly successful to date.
I wonder if there is a correlation between high divorce rates and Right to work states
69
I don't think you will find one.
While most of the south support Right To Work, so do Utah, Idaho, the Dakotas, Nebraska, and Kansas, Iowa, and Wisconsin, all of which have the highest percentage of married biological parents.
While most of the south support Right To Work, so do Utah, Idaho, the Dakotas, Nebraska, and Kansas, Iowa, and Wisconsin, all of which have the highest percentage of married biological parents.
Perhaps it would be better to measure the effect and correlation of the pill, the sexual revolution, abortion rights and the decline of religion on marriage and divorce. Any connection with right-to-work might just be incidental.
CR - I can't give you a direct reference, but the divorce rate is higher in red states. https://contemporaryfamilies.org/impact-of-conservative-protestantism-on... Fig 1 is especially striking. Since right to work states tend to be red. it is highly likely that the correlation between r to w states and divorce is high.
5
Aren't politicians from the states that have higher rates of single parent homes the ones lecturing us on "family values?" I have no idea how these people keep getting elected because they do not represent their constituents at any level.
312
They keep getting elected by making it difficult to vote.
4
There are two ways to look at that 1) they are hypocrites, 2) they are really worried about these "family value" issues because it actually ARE a bigger problem where they come from. Both are probably true.
I don't particularly blame red state politicians for being worried about a problem that is pervasive where they come from. The problem I have those politicians is that their prescription for what to do about it usually isn't supported by the data. This article supports education as a key factor for more stable families. In a lot of these states where single parenthood is high, Repubs are defunding education and more worried about whether creation is taught in science class than whether kids can do math. Repubs are supporting abstinence only education, which has poor outcomes, and shuttering Planned Parenthood offices that are a key source of affordable birth control.
I don't particularly blame red state politicians for being worried about a problem that is pervasive where they come from. The problem I have those politicians is that their prescription for what to do about it usually isn't supported by the data. This article supports education as a key factor for more stable families. In a lot of these states where single parenthood is high, Repubs are defunding education and more worried about whether creation is taught in science class than whether kids can do math. Repubs are supporting abstinence only education, which has poor outcomes, and shuttering Planned Parenthood offices that are a key source of affordable birth control.
3
"Family values" are still aspirational for many.
1
Shotgun weddings produce aborted marriages. Hit and run fatherhood dominates the cultures of these anti-abortion states.
178
Lol you wish Utah is in the bottom (meaning they have the least) of most social dysfunction categories.
To the authors, layer in the existence of Right To Work laws and any effect these laws have on hourly wages. Layer in teen pregnancy rates by state. Then add in obesity rates by state. Then heart disease by state. I believe I have seen this same predominance in the south in each of these data. But I don't know about a relationship between right to work laws and hourly wages earned.
52
http://www.epi.org/publication/right-to-work-states-have-lower-wages/
Average workers in right to work state earn almost $1600 a year less than those in other states.
Average workers in right to work state earn almost $1600 a year less than those in other states.
6
Actually you would show a much better fit if you simply showed the percentage of white non-Hispanic + the percentage of Asian in each state. The higher percentages would line up very well with the dark colors on this map.
The super rich also get divorced a lot (can afford it) and remarry a lot. So the divorce stats dont capture it. I think its lack of contraception and abortion.
4
The super rich are an tiny, tiny portion of the population. So their statistics don't skew the data much at all.
7
You know this how?
Define super rich.
Well. it's time to pat ourselves on the back if we live outside the South, isn't it? We can also enjoy the irony of the Bible-thumping moralists of the region being hoisted on their own petard.
There is a racial subtext here. For Leonhardt, as well as most progressives, the "South" often means only the white South. I do not believe he is referencing the black South in this instance else there would not be the irony to enjoy.
Many of the ills of the South stem from poverty. In the case of one-parent households, I would guess that it is more prevalent in black households in the South, not because of moral defects but because even among the poor, blacks have historically been at the bottom. However, there are a lot of poor whites though many readers may not believe it, or if they do, attribute it to moral defects particular to the region.
There is a racial subtext here. For Leonhardt, as well as most progressives, the "South" often means only the white South. I do not believe he is referencing the black South in this instance else there would not be the irony to enjoy.
Many of the ills of the South stem from poverty. In the case of one-parent households, I would guess that it is more prevalent in black households in the South, not because of moral defects but because even among the poor, blacks have historically been at the bottom. However, there are a lot of poor whites though many readers may not believe it, or if they do, attribute it to moral defects particular to the region.
95
It is a vicious cycle and not confined to Afrocan Americans. I grew up in the rural South. We had few African Americans and most of those were self sufficient, even if their jobs were menial, hourly paid jobs. There were quite a few poor white people who were laid off from the coal mines or unemployed for other reasons. My mother was what they used to call a welfare case worker. Most of her welfare clients were white. She had very few who were African American. The vicious cycle is that poverty and lack of education just repeats in the next generation. The few who break out of poverty are very lucky. For instance, the valedictorian and salutatorian of my graduating class didn't go to college. It's a way of thinking that is hard for outsiders (or even insiders) to understand. On the other hand, the few of us who went to college and moved on, came from families who were middle class and had attended college. It's hard to break away from the local culture.
6
"the irony of the Bible-thumping moralists of the region being hoisted on their own petard."
They will never acknowledge it. Any time divorce or, heaven forbid, out of wedlock children happen in their own families it's always a "special case" due "special consideration" and therefore it shouldn't be lumped in with all the sinners and slackers who engage in such behavior routinely.
They will never acknowledge it. Any time divorce or, heaven forbid, out of wedlock children happen in their own families it's always a "special case" due "special consideration" and therefore it shouldn't be lumped in with all the sinners and slackers who engage in such behavior routinely.
19
Your suggestions are uninteresting here. Upshot puts up the numbers, you need to do the same.
There have also been studies showing high divorce rates among self-identified Christian Evangelicals.
172
The key word there is "self identified". Professor Bradley Wright compared rates among different groups, and found that Christians of all types (Evangelical, Protestant, Catholic) that attended weekly services were significantly less likely to divorce than those that didn't. Non frequent attending evangelicals had about the worst rate of all groups (after non-frequent Black Protestants), including non-Christians and athiests. Non-attending Evangelicals were 1.6x as likely to divorce as frequently attending Evangelicals, and 2.3x as likely to divorce as the best group, frequently attending Catholics.
Men have their uses. Where snow needs to be shoveled, as the song goes "it's so nice to have a man around the house..."
20
The South does not get much snow.
2
I can hire someone to shovel the snow. I can't hire someone who will make me laugh and feel happy the way my husband and best friend does.
That explains it! Look at the map! Clearly, there is an inverse correlation between annual snowfall and the % of children living with both of their biological parents.
4
If the reason that children in dual parent households have better outcomes is that they tend to have more money, then the reason they are doing better is the money. Why focus on this proxy value when you can just correlate the outcomes to the income?
101
Maybe more money comes from two working parents? Just a wild guess.
The real tragedy is that even in the "good" states, the percentage of two parent families is only in the 50 percent range. How sad is that...
206
It's not terribly "sad", if you consider how well those states are doing in general. They score quite highly on quality-of-life indices (e.g., health, education, etc.)
Personally, I don't think you can draw many conclusions from a simple percentage like this, or use it to determine how happy children are or what kind of life they have. The statistics don't capture (e.g.) how many supposedly "single parent" households actually have a second parent involved in their child's life (perhaps divorced and living in a separate home), how many non-married parents are sharing custody, or how many of the children have a step-parent involved in their lives.
As a personal example, my own parents divorced when I was young, and my mother and I would have been included in these "single parent" figures. However, in reality, my father has always been *very* much involved in my life, and I had quite a stable and happy childhood. (With emotional, educational, and financial support from both parents).
By the same token, just looking at financial factors (e.g., household income) doesn't capture how many people remain *unhappily* married and make their kids' lives a misery by not divorcing. (I've known more than a few of those). That can take a serious emotional toll on kids, even if their family is financially secure and has adequate housing, food, utilities, etc.
Real life is far more complicated and nuanced than these percentages suggest.
Personally, I don't think you can draw many conclusions from a simple percentage like this, or use it to determine how happy children are or what kind of life they have. The statistics don't capture (e.g.) how many supposedly "single parent" households actually have a second parent involved in their child's life (perhaps divorced and living in a separate home), how many non-married parents are sharing custody, or how many of the children have a step-parent involved in their lives.
As a personal example, my own parents divorced when I was young, and my mother and I would have been included in these "single parent" figures. However, in reality, my father has always been *very* much involved in my life, and I had quite a stable and happy childhood. (With emotional, educational, and financial support from both parents).
By the same token, just looking at financial factors (e.g., household income) doesn't capture how many people remain *unhappily* married and make their kids' lives a misery by not divorcing. (I've known more than a few of those). That can take a serious emotional toll on kids, even if their family is financially secure and has adequate housing, food, utilities, etc.
Real life is far more complicated and nuanced than these percentages suggest.
2
The real problem is that we have approximately 22,000 homeless children in New York and 1,2 million homeless children across the country.
North-South division (confrontation) is just history...
North-South division (confrontation) is just history...
5
I always thought the "bible belt" had higher moral standards until I lived there.
398
I think relatively cheap housing and a decent economy are factors that yield a high 2 parent ratio, at least in Red states.
If you're trying to live a traditional lifestyle, where the man works and wife stays home, it could be done in Texas if the man makes median salary. However it's nearly impossible to do in expensive Northern cities or areas with a poor economy.
If you're trying to live a traditional lifestyle, where the man works and wife stays home, it could be done in Texas if the man makes median salary. However it's nearly impossible to do in expensive Northern cities or areas with a poor economy.
7
Your explanation sounds a lot like the discussions about why, way back in the founding of the nation, the north ended up with economies that were capital and manufacturing intensive, whereas the south ended up being labor intensive, and eventually dependent on slavery.
But your point about Texas and the "traditional lifestyle where the man works and the wife stays home" is not what the data shows right? The leaning in the data is this happens LESS in Texas and the South in general, even if more affordable.
A possible explanation - women want to fulfill their lives as they see fit, not just as defined by men as a housewife or mother. In the north, perfectly normal and encouraged, strengthening families. In the south, seen as undesirable, weakening marriages.
Oh, the US south...always such a love for free labor. Even long after times have changed.
But your point about Texas and the "traditional lifestyle where the man works and the wife stays home" is not what the data shows right? The leaning in the data is this happens LESS in Texas and the South in general, even if more affordable.
A possible explanation - women want to fulfill their lives as they see fit, not just as defined by men as a housewife or mother. In the north, perfectly normal and encouraged, strengthening families. In the south, seen as undesirable, weakening marriages.
Oh, the US south...always such a love for free labor. Even long after times have changed.
14
I get your point. When I was referring to Texas I had this passage in mind, "Texas has higher rates of two-parent families and higher rates of upward mobility than most of the rest of the South."
I kind of agree with you in that women want to fulfill their lives as they see fit and for many women that could be having a traditional family. It;s easier to do that in the South than it is in the North. However for more career driven women the North and West coast is more ideal.
I kind of agree with you in that women want to fulfill their lives as they see fit and for many women that could be having a traditional family. It;s easier to do that in the South than it is in the North. However for more career driven women the North and West coast is more ideal.
I bet a survey of "accepts the use of data to inform policy" would make a similar map.
161
This is a problem that Jeb has practically solved. In a chapter called "The Restoration of Shame" in Jeb Bush's 'Profiles in Courage' he suggests that public shaming of unwed mothers might be an effective way to change their "irresponsible behavior."
129
Generally speaking if a behavior is deleterious to a society, cultures have traditionally instituted social diktats that shamed such behavior. I agree with Jeb.
12
Me agreeing with a Bush? Ouch. And yet he's absolutely right. Shame evolved for a reason and in the days before birth control it was one of the means we used to discourage out of wedlock births (which in those days were eve more catastrophic for mother and child than they are today).
16
Or, perhaps it's a problem Hillary solved when she opined that it takes a village to raise a child?
5
Those same states with the highest percentages of two parent families have children with the high standardized test scores. Hmmm, makes one wonder, what is the real problem with American education?
48
It is really poverty more than anything. In impoverished school districts the education of children suffers and, quite naturally, two-parent families usually have a higher income and can provide more for,their children. Two-parent families also have a division of labor that helps the family dynamic. I was divorced and largely responsible for my children but their father was also present in their lives, but I also see that often in two-parent families even when the mother works long hours, she is usually responsible for child care issues, meaning she really has two jobs.
3
Again, as the book title reveals, "What is the Matter with Kanasa?" I'll be darned if I understand, in light of these stats, why the Red States remain so reliably Republican. With the mantra of getting rid of the Dept of Education, some GOP candidates further demean the role of education in the lives of these struggling families. "Family Values" is simply a ploy to raise fears about gays and lesbians. The Republicans have been successful in channeling the desparation of these stressed out single parents against those below instead of above them economically. Well done, but the results are depressing for us all.
333
Perhaps one of the reasons that they continue to vote Republican is because those whose ox is getting gored by the laws that are passed making voting harder and harder just give up and don't vote for their best interests. They don't believe it will matter even if they do vote.
And whether we want to discuss or face discussing it, we have to consider the issue of race and ethnicity in this report. Many single women are women of color whose partner has either left them or economics made marriage almost an impossibility because of the male finding it difficult to support a family.
And whether we want to discuss or face discussing it, we have to consider the issue of race and ethnicity in this report. Many single women are women of color whose partner has either left them or economics made marriage almost an impossibility because of the male finding it difficult to support a family.
5
Or, maybe all the angst over fiscal policy and wealth redistribution is misplaced. Isn't that what the data suggest? Secure families and upwardly mobility are linked to better education (more of a conservative Democratic perspective) and traditional family structures (often associated with a Republican perspective). Sam Brownback, as reviled as he might be in many quarters, isn't all that important in the overall equation.
This isn't really a Democrat or Republican issue. Politicians from any party and the federal government cannot do very much to keep people from getting divorced or having children out of wedlock. They can't keep fathers from abandoning their children or having children with several different women or make them pay child support and alimony.
Many single mothers are doing heroic work but the continued breakdown of the two-parent family is not good for our children and not good for the country. It's an extremely complicated issue and I really don't know what the solution is.
Many single mothers are doing heroic work but the continued breakdown of the two-parent family is not good for our children and not good for the country. It's an extremely complicated issue and I really don't know what the solution is.
3
OH the irony...
282
I vote for community and family support as the best indicator of success in marriage as in so many things. I'll just note too that wealth allows for a lot more support of the tangible kind. Tangible support matters a whole lot more than perpetually blowing hot air about "family values".