Women, Marriage, and Poverty
| By Dana Goldstein - Jan 16th, 2007 at 11:28 am EST |
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
Ecstatically, the New York Times reports this morning that for what might be the first time in American history, more adult women are living without husbands than with them. What kind of women does the Times talk to about the single life? A 57-year old divorcee taking photography classes and going back to graduate school; a 32-year old musician living in the East Village; a 56-year old never-married magazine editor; a 59-year old "public policy advisor at a law firm."
What do all these women have in common? The economic stability to provide for themselves and their families without a partner. Was it laziness that stopped the Times from interviewing any one of the hundreds of thousands of single, working poor women who flood the New York subways and busses each day, kids in tow--or just myopia? According to the National Poverty Center, "In 2004, 28.4 percent of households headed by single women were poor, while 13.5 percent of households headed by single men and 5.5 percent of married-couple households lived in poverty."
That means that the correct response to news that 51 percent of American women are single is not just a triumphant cry of liberation (although for many women, singleness certainly is a blessing), but also a critical analysis of how public policy can ease the burden on working mothers through health insurance independent of unstable service sector employment, afterschool programs to make sure children are well-educated and taken care of while moms work, safe affordable housing, and myriad other social programs that would offer dignity to women and children. Unfortunately, this article feeds into every stereotype of the Times as the newspaper for the comfortable and self-satisfied.
What do all these women have in common? The economic stability to provide for themselves and their families without a partner. Was it laziness that stopped the Times from interviewing any one of the hundreds of thousands of single, working poor women who flood the New York subways and busses each day, kids in tow--or just myopia? According to the National Poverty Center, "In 2004, 28.4 percent of households headed by single women were poor, while 13.5 percent of households headed by single men and 5.5 percent of married-couple households lived in poverty."
That means that the correct response to news that 51 percent of American women are single is not just a triumphant cry of liberation (although for many women, singleness certainly is a blessing), but also a critical analysis of how public policy can ease the burden on working mothers through health insurance independent of unstable service sector employment, afterschool programs to make sure children are well-educated and taken care of while moms work, safe affordable housing, and myriad other social programs that would offer dignity to women and children. Unfortunately, this article feeds into every stereotype of the Times as the newspaper for the comfortable and self-satisfied.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
Take a look at the numbers; kids who grow up in a two-parent married home do way better than everyone else.
There will always be some exceptions, but since we're just talking about incentivizing (nobody's talking about banning anything or restricting human freedom, only creating incentives for rational behavior), we should be planning around how reality works out for the vast majority of people.
Being 'offended' is one of the most banal emotions out there.
Also, you're misquoting me. I said that on average, single motherhood means 'broken home', means a failure from society's point of view.
"On average" and "on the whole" are two different things.
You can be an exception to the rule if you like, but the average is what it is.
It can come, hypothetically, from anywhere. In reality, the numbers don't lie - kids in two-parent homes do much better in life.
If we allowed gay marriage, which we should, they'd be married. I count them as no different than married couples.
This is a small enough slice of the pie that I don't think it should really be a major portion of our thinking; the reason it pops to mind so readily is that we both hang around a disproportionately educated, affluent audience.
The affluent will do as they will; if things don't work out for them, they have the resources to handle themselves and it's not really a problem.
Though adoption promotion should be a biggie for our policy, especially adoption of kids past the 'cute' age.
Assuming they're not "economically independent", as above, I'd discourage them from having kids.
You've got a single word wrong there. That's not the problem, that's a problem. No policy will perfectly benefit everyone, but the downsides to incentivizing marriage are hugely outweighed by the upsides of a society with a high percentage of married couples -- and tertiary issues, like the incentivizing of unhealthy marriages along with the healthy ones, can be addressed by smart public policy.
The main fact remains: Marriage, as a whole, is overwhelmingly beneficial to our society and by the objective measure that counts - the percentage of kids born into a married two-parent household - we're failing our poorest citizens.
The problem you're raising is a real one, but quite simply minor in comparison to the scope of what we're losing as the number of illegitimate births rises.