Fathers disappear from households

[cpwill]

The point about income is especially salient. Many of those who think they are tracking a stagnation in household income are actually tracking a breakup of two-parent families, and the superior economic (and parenting) model that they represent.

...In every state, the portion of families where children have two parents, rather than one, has dropped significantly over the past decade. Even as the country added 160,000 families with children, the number of two-parent households decreased by 1.2 million. Fifteen million U.S. children, or 1 in 3, live without a father, and nearly 5 million live without a mother. In 1960, just 11 percent of American children lived in homes without fathers.

America is awash in poverty, crime, drugs and other problems, but more than perhaps anything else, it all comes down to this, said Vincent DiCaro, vice president of the National Fatherhood Initiative: Deal with absent fathers, and the rest follows.


People “look at a child in need, in poverty or failing in school, and ask, ‘What can we do to help?’ But what we do is ask, ‘Why does that child need help in the first place?’ And the answer is often it’s because [the child lacks] a responsible and involved father,” he said.

The spiral continues each year. Married couples with children have an average income of $80,000, compared with $24,000 for single mothers.
“We have one class that thinks marriage and fatherhood is important, and another which doesn’t, and it’s causing that gap, income inequality, to get wider,” Mr. DiCaro said....​

​

Charles Murray has done an excellent job of depicting this as well, how America is bifurcating into those groups who are successful because they make wise life decisions (have children inside of marriage, don't get divorced, work full time), and those who are not because they don't.

 

[Ray410]

All true. This situation will never be reversed because single mothers vote for Democrats. They are people to whom the earnings of others can be redistributed.

The situation is in such a terrible state that the fact that many of the single mothers have never ever been married is not even seen as important anymore. They are worshiped by the media and Hollywood, that will not change. The world awaits stories of their struggles in a heartless, evil America.

Why even mention the guy that was in the paper two weeks ago that had thirty children and had never been married. In-breeding and incest, completely unknown by the participants, must be rampant within the inner cities.

 

[the makeout hobo]

All true. This situation will never be reversed because single mothers vote for Democrats.

And how would Republicans solve these problems?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And how would Republicans solve these problems?

I think a big part of the problem is the mindset that thinks that government can or should solve our social problems. Government-based “solutions”, it seems, more often than not make problems worse, or create whole new problems that are worse than the original problem.

 

[the makeout hobo]

I think a big part of the problem is the mindset that thinks that government can or should solve our social problems. Government-based “solutions”, it seems, more often than not make problems worse, or create whole new problems that are worse than the original problem.

Government didn't cause the social conditions that led to fatherless households and single mothers. Those were due to much bigger and fundamental social trends than any government program. But if you're complaining about this problem, and you're saying that government programs that help to ameliorate or lessen the pain that's already there, I hope you have some sort of solution, be it government-based or not.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Government didn't cause the social conditions that led to fatherless households and single mothers. Those were due to much bigger and fundamental social trends than any government program. But if you're complaining about this problem, and you're saying that government programs that help to ameliorate or lessen the pain that's already there, I hope you have some sort of solution, be it government-based or not.

I don't know the whole answer. Government didn't create the problem ex-nihilo, but it has certainly not helped.

We live in a society where we are not allowed to teach children in school about God and the Bible, and morality, but we teach them about homosexuality and other forms of immorality, and tell them that they must accept these as normal and good. In fact, California just passed a law requiring a “gay history” agenda to be taught in our public schools. To what degree this is a cause, and to what degree a symptom, is unclear, but clearly it is part of the same problem.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Government didn't cause the social conditions that led to fatherless households and single mothers. Those were due to much bigger and fundamental social trends than any government program. But if you're complaining about this problem, and you're saying that government programs that help to ameliorate or lessen the pain that's already there, I hope you have some sort of solution, be it government-based or not.

I don't know man, there is a monetary incentive to have a single household.
Managing a full household and education is a lot of work, getting free money is pretty easy.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

We live in a society where we are not allowed to teach children in school about God and the Bible, and morality, but we teach them about homosexuality and other forms of immorality, and tell them that they must accept these as normal and good. In fact, California just passed a law requiring a “gay history” agenda to be taught in our public schools. To what degree this is a cause, and to what degree a symptom, is unclear, but clearly it is part of the same problem.

Let me stop you right there for a second. You and I are of the same mind that the change has to come from society, and not the government, but to say that it had anything to do with schools not teaching about god or the bible is ludicrous. Schools never were, and never should have been churches. If you want god and the bible to change your society, you start with the church and the parents, even if that child has one parent, a message like that is far more powerful coming from them than a teacher.

Men leave their responsibilities in this country because they are cowards and lazy. THIS is the problem that we should try to fix. It has nothing to do with school curriculum.

 

[cpwill]

And how would Republicans solve these problems?

Incidents of black illegitimate births used to be more rare than among whites, and both were pretty low. That dynamic began to change when we began to structure our benefits to reward people for remaining unmarried, but still having children. The penalty imposed by the loss of benefits for two low-income parents who marry can run rapidly into the thousands of dollars. One item conservatives would seek would be to restructure government benefits in order to get rid of the marriage penalties for government their receipt and in our tax structure. My own modest proposal is in the Loft.

However, this is also a culture issue. As a married black father, President Obama has an incredible moral authority and position to speak on this issue and really convict the black community to reemphasize the importance of fatherhood. It is unfortunate that he has not sought to use the bully pulpit in that effort.

 

[cpwill]

Men leave their responsibilities in this country because they are cowards and lazy. THIS is the problem that we should try to fix. It has nothing to do with school curriculum.

That may be so for some, but it is not so for all, and I would argue is probably not so for most in our inner city communities. They do so because that is the value system they are taught. Multiple baby-momma's are a mark of virility and desirability. For others, laziness is a driver, but it is enabled by the libertine ethics that we do teach. Choice is valued above all - and taking responsibility for raising children limits your choices. Who Is Anyone Else To Judge If I Want To Play Video Games All Day And Drink All Night? Evil "family values" types are nazis, attempting to impede on our lives of freedom, etc. :roll:

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Let me stop you right there for a second. You and I are of the same mind that the change has to come from society, and not the government, but to say that it had anything to do with schools not teaching about god or the bible is ludicrous. Schools never were, and never should have been churches. If you want god and the bible to change your society, you start with the church and the parents, even if that child has one parent, a message like that is far more powerful coming from them than a teacher.

Men leave their responsibilities in this country because they are cowards and lazy. THIS is the problem that we should try to fix. It has nothing to do with school curriculum.

My point is that schools are required, now, to teach evil, and are restrained from teaching good. That has to be either a very bad symptom, or a very bad cause, with regard to our broader social ills.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

That may be so for some, but it is not so for all, and I would argue is probably not so for most in our inner city communities. They do so because that is the value system they are taught. Multiple baby-momma's are a mark of virility and desirability.

Precisely. It's the "thug-life", "knock-a-ho-up-and-run" style culture that is the issue. It's also one of the main reasons our rate of violence in the US is so high. Honestly, this is one of the biggest issues plaguing the US.

My point is that schools are required, now, to teach evil, and are restrained from teaching good. That has to be either a very bad symptom, or a very bad cause, with regard to our broader social ills.

I could understand the school teaching neutral moral values, but religious matters need to come from the church. You simply can't force a religion on somebody. I'm willing to bet that most of the schools in the inner city are so awful that they don't manage to get anything across anyway.

 

[cpwill]

Government didn't cause the social conditions that led to fatherless households and single mothers. Those were due to much bigger and fundamental social trends than any government program

Really. Seems a mighty odd coincidence, then that more people began to have children out of wedlock precisely as soon as we started paying them to do so. But what would you say that those "big fundamental social trends" are?

 

[ChuckBerry]

It's a poorly written article; it tells us that single parent households are largely a black phenomenon (which surely most everyone that frequents this site already knew) and gives no context to understand why Louisiana and other states have experienced rises in non-black single parent households.

All of the recent discussions about gun control have rightly pointed out that violent crime is actually on the decline since the 1960's, though crime overall may be trending up. That disparity needs to be addressed before the article will convince me that fatherlessness is a primary cause of social ills, and not one aspect of a more complex problem.

Mind you, I believe in marriage for life, not having children out of wedlock, and fathers ceasing being children themselves and dedicating their lives to raising their offspring, for moral, spiritual, emotional and economic reasons. I further believe that men cannot truly be men unless they are responsible for something other than themselves, and for most men that is the purpose of fatherhood.

 

[spud_meister]

My point is that schools are required, now, to teach evil, and are restrained from teaching good. That has to be either a very bad symptom, or a very bad cause, with regard to our broader social ills.

And you think teaching intolerance is the answer?

 

[ChuckBerry]

As a married black father, President Obama has an incredible moral authority and position to speak on this issue and really convict the black community to reemphasize the importance of fatherhood. It is unfortunate that he has not sought to use the bully pulpit in that effort.

Then he becomes a black president, not just the president. Anyway, do we really want to devolve the job description of the president even more by making them spokesmen for/against social causes? His job is to execute the laws that Congress passes and be commander in chief of the miltary, not our elected Oprah.

 

[the makeout hobo]

Really. Seems a mighty odd coincidence, then that more people began to have children out of wedlock precisely as soon as we started paying them to do so. But what would you say that those "big fundamental social trends" are?

Do you have a source that this came "precisely as soon as we started paying them to do so"?

As for the trends, I would attribute it to birth control, a rising number of women in the work force, a breakdown in the concept of marriage as a permanent institution, and various economic trends that have resulted in a large and under-educated underclass.

 

[RGacky3]

The point about income is especially salient. Many of those who think they are tracking a stagnation in household income are actually tracking a breakup of two-parent families, and the superior economic (and parenting) model that they represent.





[/COLOR][/LEFT]
Charles Murray has done an excellent job of depicting this as well, how America is bifurcating into those groups who are successful because they make wise life decisions (have children inside of marriage, don't get divorced, work full time), and those who are not because they don't.

You don't think that perhaps poverty INCREASES cases of absentee fathers???? rather than the other way around? Conservatives will go to any lengths to blame the poor people for poverty.

The fact is when you increase institutions that give poor people economic security and jobs, you lower these social problems, income inequality CAUSES these problems, and there is plenty of evidence for that.



you decrese income inequality by changing economic policy and these social problems change.

 

[TheGirlNextDoor]

All true. This situation will never be reversed because single mothers vote for Democrats. They are people to whom the earnings of others can be redistributed.

The situation is in such a terrible state that the fact that many of the single mothers have never ever been married is not even seen as important anymore. They are worshiped by the media and Hollywood, that will not change. The world awaits stories of their struggles in a heartless, evil America.

Why even mention the guy that was in the paper two weeks ago that had thirty children and had never been married. In-breeding and incest, completely unknown by the participants, must be rampant within the inner cities.

*buzzer* Wrong on the bolded, especially. The rest of it reads like someone has a stereotype. My only comment is that not everyone falls into this little pathetic pile you have made.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Incidents of black illegitimate births used to be more rare than among whites, and both were pretty low. That dynamic began to change when we began to structure our benefits to reward people for remaining unmarried, but still having children. The penalty imposed by the loss of benefits for two low-income parents who marry can run rapidly into the thousands of dollars. One item conservatives would seek would be to restructure government benefits in order to get rid of the marriage penalties for government their receipt and in our tax structure. My own modest proposal is in the Loft.

However, this is also a culture issue. As a married black father, President Obama has an incredible moral authority and position to speak on this issue and really convict the black community to reemphasize the importance of fatherhood. It is unfortunate that he has not sought to use the bully pulpit in that effort.

he did give his infamous father day speech while still campaigning in 07-08. But that was naturally dismissed as "kooning it up" for the white vote. Not sure how people are ever going to address the issues within black america when any such criticism is attacked as either racism or groveling for white masters

 

[Moot]

I don't know the whole answer. Government didn't create the problem ex-nihilo, but it has certainly not helped.

We live in a society where we are not allowed to teach children in school about God and the Bible, and morality, but we teach them about homosexuality and other forms of immorality, and tell them that they must accept these as normal and good. In fact, California just passed a law requiring a “gay history” agenda to be taught in our public schools. To what degree this is a cause, and to what degree a symptom, is unclear, but clearly it is part of the same problem.

Teaching about God and the Bible should be done in church to voluntary believers and not to a captive audience of children in public schools. After all, isn't that what churches are for? As for California teaching "gay history"...is that to help educate for better understanding to help stop the bullying?



***

My take on missing fathers in the home is the high expections to achieve that society imposes on men and if they fail or don't live up to those expections then it's probably more than some men can handle. They say that most divorces occur over finances and I think the next is parenting.

 

[tessaesque]

Probably won't be well received, but I'm going to say it anyway:

Part of the problem is that we make single moms out to be victims. While deadbeat dads are shameful, irresponsible asshats, the moms shouldn't get a pass just 'cause they're sticking it out with the kid. In this day and age it's pretty easy to avoid pregnancy. We all have an obligation to our future children to make sure we're selecting a parenting partner who wants to be a parent and who is willing to put in the required efforts as a parent. And you can't really know how capable somebody is until you've had those discussions, made those observations, and solidified their ability to commit.

Most of my single mother friends got pregnant less than 6 months into their relationship with the baby's father. Only one of them was still IN that relationship when the baby was born...the others had broken up shortly after the pregnancy was revealed. The girl whose partner stayed around ended up breaking up with him about 3 months after the baby was born because he was abusive. Apparently, he'd been abusive before the pregnancy, during the pregnancy, and after...but she never had a concern until he screamed at the baby for crying.

Yes, there are women who divorce much later, when the children are reaching varying stages of independence. Yes, there are women who end up as single mothers because their partner dies from illness or injury. Yes, there are women who became pregnant as single woman with the intent to raise the child alone from the beginning.

But there are also a lot of women like those I described earlier...and when we put them on a pedestal and call them heroes because they're doing it alone, we completely negate the decisions THEY made that led to them being alone with a child in the first place.

 

[Jredbaron96]

And you think teaching intolerance is the answer?

It's not intolerance to him, though. And that's all that matters to Mr. Blaylock.

 

[MaggieD]

And how would Republicans solve these problems?

How partisan of you. This isn't up to Republicans to solve. This is up to society to solve. Good grief.

Society has gone out of its way to accept single motherhood and divorce in the name of political correctness. Our culture has changed. And not in a good way. This is about parenting, plain and simple. And our society doesn't do that very well anymore.

 

[joko104]

But the government pays for people to divorce and at every level supports children be raised by only one of the bio-parents.

With a divorce, the government will recalculate income, then often providing free childcare, food stamps and housing assistance. A court will order the non-custodial parent to pay child support too. A divorce can be worth minimally $18,000 a year and often far more. Unless solidly middle class or higher, it is vitually economically unviable for the both bio-parents to remain together. The government punishes them if they do and greatly rewards them if they don't.