Interesting Quotes from Sociologists
"Sharply rising rates of divorce, unwed mothers, and runaway fathers do not represent ‘alternative life styles’. They are rather patterns of adult behavior with profoundly negative consequences for children."
--Elaine Kamarck and William Galston, Putting Children First: A Progressive Family Policy for the 1990’s, a publication of the Democratic Leadership Council
"I know of few other bodies of data in which the weight of the evidence is so decisively on one side of the issue: on the whole, for children, two-parent families are preferable . . .If our prevailing views on family structure hinged solely on scholarly evidence, the current debate would never have arisen in the first place."
-- David Popenoe, former Dean of Social Sciences, Rutgers University
"Children who grow up in a household with only one biological parent are worse off, on average, than children who grow up in a household with both of their biological parents, regardless of the parents’ race or educational background (italics added), regardless of whether the parents are married when the child is born, and regardless of whether the resident parent remarries."
--Princeton sociologist Sara McLanahan and the University of Wisconsin’s Gary Sandefur
"We know what the cause of poverty is in this country and, like it or not, it's divorce and non-wedlock childbearing. We know that for every three divorces, one family ends up below the poverty line. The average woman with dependent children who ends up in poverty stays poor for eight months. The federal government pays for part of that, but states pay the balance. Divorce, by itself, is a major economic issue."
--Sociology professor Steve Nock of the University of Virginia in a New York Times story
Relevant statistics and academic study conclusions (citations available):
• The poverty rate for children living with cohabiting parents is five times that of children with married parents. The poverty rate for children living with single mothers is seven times that of children with married parents.
• The average married father annually contributes about thirty thousand dollars to the welfare of his children. The annual contribution of a non-custodial father averages about three thousand dollars yearly.
• In 1998, 12% of black children with married parents lived in poverty, BUT 55% of black children with single moms lived in poverty.
• Only 6% of births to women above the poverty line are out of wedlock. To contrast, 44% of births to white women under the poverty line are out of wedlock.
• Children who grow up with only one of their biological parents are three times more likely to have a child out of wedlock, 2.5 times more likely to become teenage mothers, and 1.4 times more likely to be out of school and unemployed.
• Daughters of single parents are 164% more likely to have a premarital birth and 92% more likely to have a divorce than daughters of married parents.
• According to a 1994 report in American Economic Review, those who leave welfare because of marriage are the least likely to return.
• "Among married-couple households, the bracket with the largest number of households is $75,000 and over. Among ‘other family groups,’ the bracket with the largest number of households is that under $10,000."
• Children of two-parent lower income black homes perform better in college than children from single-parent affluent black homes.
• Children who grow up with one parent are twice as likely to drop out of high school than kids with both parents at home.
• Children whose parents are divorced are more likely to exhibit conduct problems, psychological maladjustment, and lower academic achievement.
• Children in two-parent families receive the highest grades in school of any family structure.
• Seventy-two percent of America’s adolescent murderers, 70% of long-term prison inmates, and 60% of rapists come from fatherless homes.
• Boys raised outside of an intact nuclear family are more than twice as likely as other boys to end up in prison, even controlling for a range of social and economic factors.
• Married women are much less likely to be victims of violent crime than unmarried or divorced women. Only 14.4 married women per 1000 are victimized versus 60.6 never-married women per 1000 and 53.6 divorced or separated women per 1000.
• A cohabiting boyfriend is thirty-three times more likely to abuse a child than a married father who lives with the mother.
• A biological father who cohabits with the mother, but is not married to her, is twenty times more likely to abuse his own child than fathers who are married to the mothers of the child.
• Cohabiting women are more likely to suffer severe violence from their partners than are married women.
• Children without resident fathers are more vulnerable to predators, both sexual and physical, outside the family.
18 comments:
All your sources are unreliable. What else you got?
You took Tlaloc's line! Oh, you bad boy. Why I OUGHTTA POUND YOU!
Thanks for providing the facts on this issue, Hunter.
I frankly don't know what, if any, social pathologies are associated with abortion. I've heard those who abort are more likely to physically abuse their kids, but that could be B.S.. I know that on occasions when I've testified before legislative committees, I heard testimonies from women who had abortions and it was enough to make you weep. I'm never going to forget the African-American woman who talked about having dreams of her unborn son coming to her and asking her why she killed him.
Setting that aside, I'd argue that my stats are not an argument for abortion because killing innocents is an unacceptable way of solving problems. The better path, morally speaking, would be to encourage a cultur of sex and reproduction within marriage. It's really not so hard. We had something quite similar a few decades ago.
And for those who violated it, we had a thing called a shotgun marriage.
Connie, I was addressing Tlaloc. In an earlier set of comments, I sensed pushback from one of the contestants on my assertions about family breakdown and poverty. Felt the need to establish the connection.
The original debate was over the death penalty and racism. It spilled into why there are differences between the races in various demographic areas. I eventually contended that the higher degree of family breakdown or non-family formation in the African-American community was a (not the only) reason why large segments of that group continue to fail to thrive. I also claimed we would see the same thing among whites in the same boat.
Thomas Sowell (and others) have convincingly made the case that the War on Poverty absolutely destroyed the black nuclear family among the lower classes and froze many people in a nigh inescapable cycle of poverty.
Mom has kids out of wedlock. Dad is non-existent. She collects welfare and leads a not very fun life with help from Grandma. Transitional males may visit the household from time to time. Overall, not a very conducive environment for thriving children who will move on to better things.
Thomas Sowell is perfectly credible. Certainly as credible as Paul Krugman.
My contentions via the sociological stats were not limited to the question of two incomes versus one. You are once again purposefully reading the statements made in the light most favorable to your desired case.
Let me repeat: Hudson Institute. AEI.
You left out Stanford, UCLA, Brandeis and Cornell, not to mention numerous other bona fides.
You're on the wrong blog site to dismiss Sowell out of hand, Tlaloc...this is a 'road game' for you. Make a real argument.
"Meaning?"
Meaning, you got pounded on this one. The statistics offered show beyond doubt that intact families are better for children in a wide variety of ways that go beyond the merely economic. You can pretend not to see the full implications or to be confused by claims clearly made, but it won't change the end result.
All your sources are unreliable. What else you got?
Oh, well. I tried. It would be interesting if it weren't so predictible.
I recognize what the original argument was, but in the course of that argument you questioned other assertions, which I chose to answer with a slew of stats painstakingly compiled a couple of years ago.
On the matter of welfare damaging nuclear families, particularly in the black community, there are many books to make the case. Myron Magnet's "The Dream and the Nightmare," Olasky's "The Tragedy of American Compassion," and "Losing Ground" by Charles Murray. I imagine there are scores more.
I'm sorry Matt but Hunter's argument was "Sowell says so!"
No it wasn't. He referenced a very well-known author, who's thoughts on the subject are readily accessible and then provided an off-the-cuff summary of his work. If you disagree with or unclear about the reference, all you have to do is explain why Sowell is a crank (preferably on grounds other than that he's an economist) or ask for a more specific citation.
Sowell is on good terms over here until proven otherwise. Consider where you are, the burden is on you to provide reasons for dismissing well-respected sources.
Reread that quote. It is absolutely "Sowell says so." There is not one fact attributed except that Sowell has made a case.
And in the next paragraph Hunter provides a summary riff. If you had wanted more specifics (Lord, only knows why - Hunter practically wrote a book in the original post), you could have asked...but wait, you didn't - you just dismissed Sowell out of hand.
I did explain why he was a crank. He is an economist. That's the first strike against him since we are discussin is not economic theory but sociology.
Which makes him exceedingly well qualified to address economic issues, like poverty.
Second strike because he cannot be trusted to be impartial.
Give me a break. Anyone with a thought (an economic or sociological theory) is a partisan.
Lastly he boasts of being associated with a bunch of people who frankly make Bush look a grade A genius in comparison.
A quick scroll through the list of fellows puts him in good company.
Strike three. Game set match. The appeal to Authority is overruled on grounds of being laughable.
Let's see, you've still said nothing about any of Sowell's actual work - ever. But whatever works for you.
Matt, I have a theory that T-man has a tic requiring him to have the last post in any thread in which he participates. He'll keep talking whether or not there is anything to say.
"The AEI is a bunch of losers."
I find this amusing from the fellow who is constantly complaining about inadequately backed up statements.
I still think you've got a tic. I'll keep topping your last post and we'll see if we can get to 150!
The functionalist theory sees the norm of family as "one husband
who is the father, one wife who is mother, and the children." Anything other than this ideal is a deviation from the normalcy of values. "According to this point of view, the family is a basic unit of society that serves the purposes of socializing the young, regulating sexual activity and procreation, providing physical care for family members, and giving psychological support and emotional security to individuals.
bye
cialis online
In a "Summary of Comments Made During the White House Briefing on the Family," Dr. James Dobson made this comment about the family. "A family is not a collection of individuals who happen to live at the same address. They are people who share an intimate and complex connection with one another, being related by marriage, birth or adoption. Together they form something larger and more significant that the contribution of each person taken singly. That association, locked together by love and lifelong commitment, must have a secure place in the American legal structure. To continue to undermine its foundations and erode its authority is to destroy the very fabric of American life."
bye
buy cialis
Post a Comment