As you might expect, the smartest piece in the New York Times Magazine's gala inequality issue belongs to Roger Lowenstein, better known (to me, at least) as The Guy Who Killed Social Security Reform. Still, you might notice a few words missing from his discussion of why "so many have been stuck for so long at the bottom and in the middle" - words like marriage, divorce, fatherhood, and illegitimacy. Sure, the rich-poor disparity in family structure - which is increasing even as the overall divorce rate is trending down - isn't the only factor driving inequality, but neither is it something to be passed over in silence.
« The View From Nowhere | Main | Linker, Rorty and the Theocons » Inequality and Family13 Jun 2007 09:34 am Comments (23)
Um, Ross, the link for the full version of your Linker post above this one needs to be fixed. 
> What is the causal connection between the two?
AFAIK, fights about money and spending priorities are relatively common according to several surveys.
One could point to the large number of super successful people who came from broken homes and dysfunctional families. Does that mean broken families breed success? As they say statistics don’t lie, but people use statistics to lie. Or at least misstate.
“Sure, the rich-poor disparity in family structure - which is increasing even as the overall divorce rate is trending down - isn't the only factor driving inequality, but neither is it something to be passed over in silence.” Oh- I’m afraid it is. I’m afraid the cultural left is REQUIRED to “pass over it in silence” and has done so for 40 years.
In order for the forces of feminism gay rights and “gender equality” to prevail, it must be so.
Nothing says divorce can't be both a result of poverty and a cause of (more) poverty. Same with drinking. People with emotional problems drink too much. Drinking too much make their emotional problems much harder to solve. Do we say "Alcoholics Anonymous is a waste of time because emotional problems cause drinking, and we need to get at the root cause"? No, you try to help people with emotional problems, AND you try to cure alcoholism.
Ross, Lowenstein also didn't really explain to what extent inequality has been driven by importing 10 million or so poor people from Mexico over the last decade.
“Sure, the rich-poor disparity in family structure - which is increasing even as the overall divorce rate is trending down - isn't the only factor driving inequality, but neither is it something to be passed over in silence.” Oh- I’m afraid it is. I’m afraid the cultural left is REQUIRED to “pass over it in silence” and has done so for 40 years. What can be properly called the most significant sociological event of our time (family breakdown) must be scrupulously ignored and marginalized as a topic of worthy debate. In order for the forces of feminism and “sexual equality” to prevail, it must be so. Proposition: A society (and its intellectual class) that honestly confronts family breakdown as a real social problem and attempts actual policy proscriptions that address the issue: Is a society that cannot properly forward same-sex “marriage” as a progressive ideal.
Let's assume for a minute that "family breakdown" is the cause for all of society's ills. What precise policy prescriptions do you propose, Fitz? I'm genuinely curious how you expect government to fix broken relationships and the fundamental human nature that causes them.
"Let's assume for a minute that "family breakdown" is the cause for all of society's ills." Well, I don’t want to assume that! I would never make such an assumption, it would be hyperbolic. A great many of societies ills however are connected to family breakdown, poverty, crime, gang activity, income disparity, educational achievement and so forth have all shown strong correlations with fatherlessness. And we can’t forget the pain that exists outside our glaring underclass. There is divorce, infertility, venereal disease, adultery, trophy wives, starter marriages, - another list that goes on and on. "What precise policy prescriptions do you propose, Fitz? I'm genuinely curious how you expect government to fix broken relationships and the fundamental human nature that causes them." Well, we can’t “fix” human nature. We have, however been capable of channeling and mitigating its worst aspects while esteeming and sanctifying the better angels of our nature. It is also, always easier to encourage relationships to form well and not breakdown in the first place than it is to “expect government to fix broken relationships”. In no particular order.. Revisit “no-fault” divorce laws, encourage marriage as the exclusive province for sexual relations and childbearing, discourage promiscuousness, regulate pornography, teach the importance of family formation, … Now I could get more precise on any of these, and the list is not exhaustive. It’s important to note a number of key points #1. The government should first “do no harm”
In no particular order.. Revisit “no-fault” divorce laws, encourage marriage as the exclusive province for sexual relations and childbearing, discourage promiscuousness, regulate pornography, teach the importance of family formation, … I guess I just don't understand a few things here. First of all, how will eliminating "no-fault" divorce have a positive impact on anyone? Do you honestly think that people who (for various reasons) have grown miserable with each other will be better parents than those who are separated and at least have a chance to pursue other avenues of happiness? And how on earth can the government encourage marriage as the "exclusive province for sexual relations and childbearing?" Are you honestly suggesting that people who fornicate out of wedlock (or are otherwise deemed "promiscuous" by some vague standard) should be criminally punished?
Epsilon "Do you honestly think that people who (for various reasons) have grown miserable with each other will be better parents than those who are separated and at least have a chance to pursue other avenues of happiness?" "Are you honestly suggesting that people who fornicate out of wedlock (or are otherwise deemed "promiscuous" by some vague standard) should be criminally punished?" Both you questions are loaded (to the hilt) If you re-read my post above I think you will realize that I... #1. Never said anything close to what you insinuate. #2. I am willing to submit my ethos to both intellectual debate & democratic validation, so scare scenarios are unwarranted. #3. No specific policy proposal can work outside a more widespread consensus on valid aims. Please try and address my comments in their entirety. I choose my words carefully and am well aware of the tendency to demonize social conservatives as modern day Cotton Mathers. I will suffice to say that pre-sexual revolution America was not some Taliban style theocracy.
Fitz throws out a grab-bag of ideas, some sound, others less so. "Revisit “no-fault” divorce laws..." --Probably a good idea. Too many people want a divorce, not to escape bitter hatred or physical abuse, but to 'find themselves' or something similar. Perhaps some 'firewalls' could be introduced, i.e., "cooling off" periods, mandated couples counseling, something like binding arbitration, etc. "...encourage marriage as the exclusive province for sexual relations and childbearing, discourage promiscuousness..." --How? By reviving public stocks for fornicators? What about gays and lesbians? No matter how upright and orderly the lives of gay couples might be, they would be presumptive outlaws under such a dispensation. "...regulate pornography..." --Amen. (no irony intended) The problem is, it is no longer a matter of using zoning or 'public nuisance'-type regulations to close or damp down adult bookstores, theaters, and strip joints. Thanks to the Internet, that cat is now completely out of the bag. "...teach the importance of family formation..." --A good idea, but the public schools seem to have enough trouble just imparting the 'three R's'. Looks like we're left with churches and families themselves on that score.
G. Willikers - Thanks for the thoughtful response. "Revisit “no-fault” divorce laws..." Agreed "...encourage marriage as the exclusive province for sexual relations and childbearing, discourage promiscuousness..." --How? By reviving public stocks for fornicators? - No “What about gays and lesbians? No matter how upright and orderly the lives of gay couples might be, they would be presumptive outlaws under such a dispensation. The existence of outliers does not dismiss the validity and utility of the general rule. Also, it is anti-social for such outliers to expect the larger population to retool acceptable humane norms so they fit their unique circumstances. "...regulate pornography..." So put it back. How about an specific designated /.com –like- /.org or /.gov (www.porn or xxx.com ) for all commercial pornography? The private sector could develop computers and software that would be incapable or disabled to not receive such sites. How about “girls gone wild” soft core porn banned from cable television? A crackdown on strip clubs? Any idea if publicly debated and taken seriously would at least help establish a better tone. "...teach the importance of family formation..." And the universities, social services, entertainment and arts, private companies & employers and so forth. All such institutions have one level of responsibility or another for the public good. I agree with your Three R’s statement – yet they already have their mitts on the culture inasmuch as the schools do teach about such issues they should try and reinforce the truth about intact natural families as a vital norm.
Fitz - Perhaps you read an edge in my questions that I didn't intend to convey; my apologies. But I fail to see what the government can do about people having sex outside of marriage, short of criminally punishing them for it. I think we can all agree that pumping money into advertising or abstinence programs will be ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst, if your aim is truly to limit the practice.
buy cheapest online viagra
buy now online viagra http://magic-pills-swicki.eurekster.com/Buy+Viagra+Online buy viagra online buy generic online viagra
plouk nonrecourse semihibernation homocerebrin bycoket heathenishness unseasonably disentitle
plouk nonrecourse semihibernation homocerebrin bycoket heathenishness unseasonably disentitle
plouk nonrecourse semihibernation homocerebrin bycoket heathenishness unseasonably disentitle
backshift warworn subclavicular ailuropus thurm crocket enquicken acephalia
want delete your site from spam bases? mail your domain name - andydelay[at]gmail.com.
want delete your site from spam bases? mail your domain name - andydelay[at]gmail.com.
|
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Yes, but is divorce a cause of inequality or a consequence? In other words, does divorce result from poverty or does poverty result from divorce? To a certain extent I think it is a chicken and egg scenario where one breeds the other. This leads me to two questions: What is the causal connection between the two? And how would you deterimine that?
Posted by Joseph | June 13, 2007 10:20 AM