41% of US children born to unwed mothers.

[BlueCheese]

According to this AP article, 41% of kids born in the US in 2008 were born to unmarried mothers.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/11/06/national/a101740D30.DTL

Is that number surprisingly high--almost astonishingly high-- to anyone else? Do you think that's a reasonable figure, or something unhealthy for the kids and for our society?

Perhaps I'm naive, but I would have thought that the overall rate would have been around 20% at most.

The article is mostly about the struggles of black mothers and black children, of whom 72% are born to unmarried mothers. The numbers are apparently 53% of Hispanics, 29% of whites, and 17% of Asians.

Is this something that needs to be addressed (it seems so to me), and if so, what can be done about it?

[treestar]

1. Don't see how it matters.

It's individual choice. Nothing can be legislated about it without infringing on basic freedoms.

It's a conservative position that it is directly responsible for the ills of society. Yet there may not be much support for that other than conservatives' prejudices.

[stray cat]

6. kids dropping out of school unable to read and write are probably a bigger problem

but both can contribute to joblessness, lack of education and poverty

[seabeyond]

18. no, two parent family is not a conservative position. nt

[Dreamer Tatum]

23. Did you just say that a two-parent household is a conservative position?

Really?

[treestar]

43. Geez that's really unfair

Read it. I did NOT say that. You didn't even read it.

I said directly what the conservative position was.

At any rate, no one can do anything about it. Women can have babies when they want. Married or not. They have that basic, fundamental right and this is a free country and only conservatives would dream of trying to force their preferred family form on anyone else.

[shanti]

97. it is high

but i'm not surprised. one of my 4 sons has a child oow, and 2 out of 4 of my sisters sons have 3 kids oow. not to mention what i see in my own community...

raising children is a two person job, and i'm saying this as a former single parent!

[riderinthestorm]

126. As the child of a single parent, I know it can be done successfully by one.

:hug: I'm sure you did fine. My mom coped and did fine with us (its funny that all 4 of her daughters turned out to be solid Dems while she's gone completely tea bagger!)

[shanti]

98. self delete

dupe

[Skittles]

125. treestar did NOT say that

I'll go further on his explanation though and say that society's ills are more because of repuke policies and less about whether or not the mother is married

[Blue_Tires]

40. at the bare minimum there could be harsher penalties for irresponsible parents

including fathers who have several kids by different women while offering nothing in support...

[the redcoat]

50. It has nothing to do with legislation

It's about educating women so they are aware of the possibility of becoming pregnant.

Yes, some women purposely choose to have children out of wedlock, but I'd bet about half of that 40% are accidental.

[liberalhistorian]

105. Umm.......you DO realize that there was only one

"immaculate conception" and that women don't get pregnant on their own? How about also putting some responsibility on MEN as well as women and educating MEN also as well as women? Or should men be able to do whatever they want while women bear all the responsibility of a JOINT sexual act?

[the redcoat]

136. Don't read so far into it.

Women are the ones having kids, and are the focus of this thread, so I said women. That my comment was putting all guys off the hook is just not true and wasn't my intent in the least.

[sally cat]

79. Conservatives only say that because the fools think government has to pay to support these families.

[11 Bravo]

95. If you honestly don't see how it matters, than I devoutly hope ...

that you either religiously practice birth control, or you have your tubes tied.
Yes, it's an individual choice. Yes, it can't be legislated without infringing on individual liberties. But to say that "it doesn't matter" displays a level of either naivete or ignorance that is stunning to contemplate.

[liberalhistorian]

108. Agreed. I was a single mother to my son myself and I can

say that had I not had tremendous, overwhelming family support, things would have been MUCH MUCH harder and my son likely would not have turned out as well as he did. Of course, it didn't help that his father saw fit to abdicate on his JOINT responsibility, leaving it up to me and my family. Too many men get away with that, frankly.

[slackmaster]

142. The marriage relationship is not important. Having a functional father is.

Kids need the influence of healthy adults of both sexes.

[stray cat]

2. some people are just not marrying but are together

but many single parents have serious cash problems

[LaurenG]

3. Wow. That seems really high but I can't argue with it. nt

[ananda]

4. Wow, that is high.

What does this say about the social fabric of America?

I think there's a close association between single mothers
and poverty.

[cynatnite]

5. Why do we need to do anything about this? n/t

[stray cat]

7. as long as it doesn't call for any money or help from the federal or state govenment

[cynatnite]

16. The only way I see it mattering is if a father isn't holding up his financial responsibility...

That is important and I should have considered it before responding.

[seabeyond]

27. both genders need the influence of both mother and father for health and balance.

there is more to being a father than $

[cynatnite]

30. I do not agree with that at all...

I grew up without a father and so did a lot of women in my family. We're as well adjusted as someone who had a mother and father. We have a gay cousin. Her and her partner are raising three children together. The kids are doing great without a father. My husband's brother died and he left two children behind. Their mother hasn't married. The children are doing fine.

I think the notion that a child needs both a mother and father is bullshit. Financial responsibility is one thing, but health and balance...nope.

[kelly1mm]

42. Could it be that a child needs a loving PARENT, not either mom or dad? nt

[cynatnite]

44. Agree 100%. n/t

[NotThisTime]

91. How about 2 parents regardless of gender? Children can use all the love they can get, 2 parental

hands are easier than one, and that is far easier on a child than feeling the weight of responsibility they bring to their single parent. I say this out of my own experience, I'd say it wasn't optimal.

[kelly1mm]

102. I would agree that two loving parents are probably better than just one.

My issue really was with what I thought was a gender preference which the posted later clarified was really not the case. I guess I come down like this:

0 loving parents = not good
1 loving parent = good but not optimal
2 loving parents = optimal

[NotThisTime]

104. We totally agree... and if we can get some truly love grandparents in there too, that's even better.

My kids have been blessed with a loving grandmother, although imperfect as we all are, she has added to their lives in more ways than any of us can count.

[eridani]

130. What about "more than 2" = "better yet"? n/t

[kelly1mm]

139. Never really thought of that ... I think more people that care for a child

is a good thing but more than two in the role of parents could be a problem .... I am not really sure.

[antigone382]

135. I don't even think two loving parents is optimal.

I think a much larger network of loving adults who share childcare responsibilities is optimal. I have a friend from Mexico who finds it shocking and horrifying that Americans expect to be *paid* for childcare. She views it is a social responsibility. The nuclear family is a relatively recent phenomenon, and I don't think it's really adequate to meet the needs of children or adults.

How we incorporate that premise into modern society, I haven't the slightest clue...in some respects, you could say it's already happening, with the increase in multi-generational households that has resulted from the declining economy.

[seabeyond]

137. i was thinking about this recently. a young couple, really young, married young

because they were in love and wanted a family. they both work and still cannot live on their own. they live with parents and it works. like the old time, back in the depression when generations lived together. it is working for them.

[Withywindle]

I totally agree with you on that.

I don't think a nuclear-family Noah's-ark-matched-set is necessary at all. I do worry about the economics of it all. Most of my single friends with NO kids are barely scraping by, working two or three part-time jobs. And most of my paired friends with kids are in a constant state of anxiety or having to dramatically scale back because one partner is unemployed and they're terrified the other might be as well.

Single parents, IMO, really desperately need an extended family and social network. Even if it's just a trustworthy friend to be a roommate and help share rent and utilities. Some are lucky enough to have the kid's grandparents, aunts/uncles, etc., close by/still alive/in good health/on good terms and willing to help...others aren't so lucky.

I don't give a damn about the "piece of paper"--hell, an awful lot of the best parents I know CAN'T get legally married. But to actually raise a child alone, with no help? I really admire the people who can do it well, but it just seems like way too much to ask of anyone, especially in these viciously stingy lean times.

[Jamastiene]

88. Well said.

:thumbsup:

[iris27]

61. That sounds suspiciously like most conservatives' arguments against gay marriage.

Surely you don't think societal gender roles are so important "for health and balance" that the absence of a parental example for one is harmful?

[seabeyond]

69. if you think i will dismiss a fathers role with his child and that makes me conservative, anti gay

marriage.... fuck that fuckin shit.

i watched my nephews mother reject them. not care about them. not call and chat with them. not call on bdays. not call on holidays. not spend time with them. and with them, still not spend time with them. do i think it hurt them.... fuckin hell right it hurt them. i watch them go for the sweetest boys to such messed up teenagers. i think it is important both gender children have both gender role models.

before you decide i am anti gay, anti gay marriage, we willed our two boys to my single gay brother in law.

[iris27]

76. abandonment by a parent always hurts. I experienced the same from my father after he left, and my

cousins did after my aunt left.

But that is not the same as kids who get to grow up in a house with two moms or two dads. And yes, in my personal opinion, this: "i think it is important both gender children have both gender role models" IS anti-gay and anti-feminist. I think gender roles are harmful societal bullshit.

[seabeyond]

77. hm. nt

[enlightenment]

86. Not a very good example to support your argument.

You watched your nephews' mother 'reject' them - apparently they were old enough to have had her around for at least a few years, since you use the 'watched to go from . . . to . . .' statement.

Your nephews' problems have nothing to do with a lack of a female gender role model - it has to do with their mother's desertion and rejection of them as her children.

A child born to a single mother (or a same-sex couple) is neither deserted nor rejected by the opposite gender role model. You cannot be rejected by something that was never there.

Choose a different argument. Believing that a male role model is important doesn't make you conservative or anti-gay marriage, but your attitude suggests that you are not only unwilling to explore the possibility that your view may not be the only 'right' one, but that it gives you a right to be hostile and dismissive to people who find your logic specious, at best.


edited to correct spelling error

[seabeyond]

89. i dont care if someone isnt married and have kids.... i have no moral stance on that

i dont care if someone divorces out of moral issues. i dont care if two males raise a child or two females raise a child

what i am disgustedly sick about is that there are so many adults in a mess, and children that are wrapped up into that mess along with the parent or parents and their life is hell. the children dont get what they deserve, and they deserve simply because they are children.

that mother divorced when the kids were young. and i watched bright boys turn into angry young men, that will be all of our problems. a female influence, a strong female influence in their life would have been healthy for them.

take what you want out of that. it is the best i can do....

the statistic readily show children in single parent home has a lot of strikes against them. that is fact. that does not, in any way mean, all kids in single home is inevitably going to have hardships.

nor does it mean that every child with two parents are having needs met and are going to be successful.

it means, that children in a single home have a higher risk of problems

again, .... take what you want from it. a reality

[iris27]

122. Okay, and that's fine, I actually agree with all of that. It is clearly harder to raise

kids as a single parent than it is with the help of another parent. It was harder on my mom, and harder on us kids (including me as the oldest who got tapped to be the parental stand-in while Mom worked enough hours to keep a roof over our head and food on the table). But that has not one thing to do with making sure kids have role models of "male" and "female" in their lives. The lack of that is not what is harmful...it's everything else.

[kelly1mm]

34. Or if the Mother is not holding up to her financial responsibility either.

Many Fathers end up with custody of their children. Not in as high of proportions as Mothers, but it does happen on a regular basis.

[seabeyond]

37. both my brother raised their kids. neither mother ever considered paying child support

one in particular really needed the help.

and both brothers struggled as single parents trying to do their best and always feeling they fell short. being a single parent is hard. plain and simple. to pretend otherwise is ridiculous.

[seabeyond]

20. why do the kids need both the father and mother. parents are really frivolous? wtf? nt

[handmade34]

38. I don't think the word 'frivolous' was used in the post

you reacted to. Children can be very healthy and happy raised by a single parent. Extended family is important as well as community, but most important is love, respect and sense of place...

[Coexist]

8. who cares?

[stray cat]

11. In some cases it contributes to poverty, high school drop outs etc

but if people are choosing it and I don't have to pay for it then its not my concern....

[RZM]

9. I don't know

But I have little respect for a man who will father a child and then refuse to support or spend time with him/her. It's one thing if circumstances carry you to another part of the country (though even then you still have a responsibility). But plenty of deadbeats live on the other side of town. Now, not every child born to a women who is not married doesn't have a father in their life, but plenty do have that problem.

Not sure what can be done. There are laws regarding financial obligations to the child, but you can't really force somebody to be a decent parent to their child in other ways.

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. It's been high for years

We've decided it's okay for unmarried women to have babies. Don't know why anyone would be stunned by this in 2010. :shrug:

[hayu_lol]

12. Aw relax...

100% of babies born in America are born to women.

[Jamastiene]

90. I cannot believe the amount of people who find it such a big deal.

I live in the Bible Belt. I heard people griping about unmarried women having babies growing up. I was born out of wedlock, so hearing people talk like that always made me feel lower than shit when I was a kid. Now, it just pisses me off.

Thank you for not being closed minded.

[seabeyond]

92. jamastiene, i dont think a single person on this board has a moral issue of a woman getting preg

outside of marriage. i really dont know that you can find one person that doesn't understand that a female is going to have sex before she gets married. whenever a girl/woman has sex regardless of contraceptions or intentions, preg is a possibility. i certainly was not a virgin when i got married. and i, along with every other female, could have gotten preg. i would not have gotten married to any of the guys either.

being bothered is not about that old, illegitimate bullshit. that truly is old school and done and buried, from anyone on du, i have to believe.

the anger for me, is i see how hard it is on the parent, i see how hard it is on the child. for me, it is about the child.

[LibDemAlways]

140. Years ago I was cashing a check at my bank when

I overheard a conversation that basically went like this:

Customer: I'd like to cash this check.
Teller: I need two forms of ID and your mother's maiden name.
Customer: Here's my driver's license and a credit card. My mother's maiden name is Smith.
Teller: Sir, your last name is Smith. I need your mother's last name before she was married.
Customer: She was never married. Her last name has always been Smith, same as mine.
Teller: I don't understand.
Customer: Do I have to spell it out for you. I was born out of wedlock.
Teller: Really? You were?

I thought the poor guy was going to punch her out. I felt terrible that he had to go through the shit of having to explain himself. And banks are still asking for mother's "maiden" name. How quaint.

[BlueCheese]

13. According to the article...

"Children of unmarried mothers of any race are more likely to perform poorly in school, go to prison, use drugs, be poor as adults, and have their own children out of wedlock."

If it were simply a matter of long-term committed couples deciding simply not to get married, that would be one thing. But if we're talking about absentee fathers, that's a bigger problem. It does seem that having only one parent means you start out behind--no parent there when one parent is at work, not as much money for enrichment, greater vulnerability to job loss, having to live in more dangerous neighborhoods, etc.

The number just jumped out at me. It seems crazily high to me.

[tigereye]

24. the lack of emotional and financial support from the father seems to be the

biggest issue in developing those kinds of problems...


I agree, that does seem high.

[Jamastiene]

93. Let's see.

I kept a 4.0 GPA throughout school and college, never even got a parking ticket, have never lived in a dangerous neighborhood, ALWAYS had someone in the family to visit while my mother worked, and don't have any children.

People like me are suuuuuuch a problem to you, aren't we?

You sound like one of those types that needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the new century.

If you want to help fight against poverty and other issues, fine, but if you just want to bash unwed mothers and talk shit about the children like they are dirt under your feet, then you need to stop and think about how that makes people feel.

[BlueCheese]

100. You misunderstand.

You misunderstood what I meant.

I'm glad you did well and have a good life. It sounds like you had a lot of the family support that everyone needs. I wish everybody did.

Unfortunately, not everyone has family to take care of him or her. Statistics say that those who are born to single mothers seem to have more trouble in life--it's not a blanket statement, just statistical averages. Some of them do well--either by themselves or because of other family support. But some of them--whether because of lower incomes, lack of parental support, or what not--are put at a disadvantage.

My question is what can be done to first help those kids who don't have the family support that they need, and second, how we can try and make sure that as many children as possible have good parenting from birth.

In no way did anything I wrote indicate I feel like kids born in tough situations are problems to be wished away or ignored.

Edited to tone down my language.

[SoCalDem]

14. Marriage no longer has the cachet it once had

And when it comes to child-bearing/marriage years, we are often talking about the years of 21-30. Common to those years, is college/credit-card debt.

Many young people are delaying marriage because they cannot figure out a way to have a "nice" wedding, so they wait...but often children "happen".

Once children come along, there are even fewer dollars to spare, so marriage may become less important.

If you are pinching pennies to pay rent, buy food & pay for daycare, a wedding becomes less important than ever.

Add in teenagers giving birth, and you'll understand why so many kids are born out of wedlock.

The societal stigma has pretty much gone away too.

[kenny blankenship]

15. But gay people getting the legal right to be married will destroy the family!

[lightningandsnow]

109. Single parents are not destroying families. Single parents and their children ARE families.

I get that you're being facetious, but as a queer person, it pisses me off when people can't argue for same-sex marriage without shitting on someone else.

[seabeyond]

17. ya, it is a problem, but too many prefer to pretend it is no different today than yesterday and

and a two parent family is the old way... we are just doing a new way.

huge ass experiment with our youth, and failing miserably, but we pretend it is all good

[Retrograde]

19. I can't speak for all states

but once upon a time in California children were counted as "illegitimate" if the mother and father had different surnames. This was changed when a prominent state legislator, who went by a different surname than her husband, found that her newborn was listed as illegitimate.

41% seems high to me, but I have no real data either way.

[proud2BlibKansan]

25. Oh it's an accurate figure

I'm sure of that.

[dkf]

21. I don't know how single parents do it.

To have no one who you can reliably count on without asking a favor is too much.

I can't imagine this extra stress is all that good for a mother and I'm sure that affects the child.

We talk about "superwoman"...no woman should have to do it all. That isn't fair to anyone.

[kenny blankenship]

36. Here's a hint:

they're called grandparents.

[newportdadde]

55. If your lucky enough to have ones that help.

My wife and I were blessed with two sets who although nice enough wouldn't watch a kid for an hour unless either my wife or myself was dying.

[Sanity Claws]

22. Fallacy

When a mother has a different last name from the father, it is assumed that the parents are not married. Wrong!
Sometimes a woman decides to keep her maiden name and not take her husband's name.

[handmade34]

47. not a fallacy

the numbers are accurate

[TwilightGardener]

26. Kind of sad. I can't help but think that it's best for two committed adults/parents

to raise a child--doesn't say whether these women are in otherwise committed relationships, but I'm going to guess that many are not.

[DURHAM D]

28. Its Bristol Palin's fault. nt

[Skidmore]

29. One in two marriages end in divorce too.

So what. A marriage does not mean that a child is assured of access to both parents. Men and women leave all the time.

[seabeyond]

32. 41% first marriage. 67% second marriage. 73% thord marriage, averaging out over 50%.

so what? children have less chances in life. risk are higher for that child.

or

so what

[Skidmore]

64. I refuse to get on a soapbox and preach

family values. Both my mother and I single parented within marriages. Abandoned by the men we were married to but managing to successfully raise children.

BTW, after having done a genealogy research for a hobby for a couple of decades, you would be surprised at the number of men who just walked away from families and never bothered to divorce in the good ole days. Nothing new, just more out in the open than it used to be.

[butterfly77]

128. Some people really believe in the..

Leave it to beaver,ozzie and harriet theme and they really believe that a lot of families were like that, now some have awaken 50 yrs later and now want the country back they never had.

Many chose to ignore what was going on just as long as they were comfortable.They were once blind but now they see..

[Mass]

70. Unwed is not necessarily the same as single. You are assuming there is no father in the picture,

which is just a prejudice from your part,

[seabeyond]

72. well, fuck me.... what are we pretending here.

i have two brothers single parent, a niece with baby from two fathers doing a damn fine job, and hard as hell. i dont pretend it is all pretty in pink

[Mass]

73. Well, sorry, I have quite a few friends who did not bother getting married, but have great families

with two parents.

I am certain that somebody who raises a child alone (whether divorced, widowed, or single) has a terrible time doing that because they are alone, but unwed parents are not necessarily single and alone. This is what I am objecting to.

The other problem is who are the parents. There is no way that a young teenager raising a child is going to have an easy life. But this is not because she is unwed. It is because she is still a child. This is what bothers me with this studies. It avoids the true question (poverty, age of the child, ...), and rather focuses on a morality problem (married/unmarried).

[seabeyond]

74. you are right. it is not seperating all the different circumstances

i see too many single people doing their best, busting their ass and the reality of how hard it is. and i am seeing too many young, without the resources and i am not just taking $, adn the results of that.

[Violet_Crumble]

78. I raised my child alone and I definately didn't have a terrible time...

Just because there aren't two parents in the picture doesn't mean that raising a child is a terrible and lonely thing. I've had the support of a close family and fantastic friends and raising my child was a rewarding and wonderful experience. I wouldn't have had that experience if I'd chosen to stay with her father, btw...

[fishwax]

124. I have nieces and nephews who were born out of wedlock but are being raised by two parents

Parents don't have to be married to raise a child together.

[seabeyond]

133. of course they dont have to marry. you read the article? i didnt read the article and i knew exactly

what they are talking about. why? cause i see it. i see it all around me. i am pretty damn sure you and everyone on this thread sees it too.

no where in my mind did it dawm on me we were going to get into the discussion of the right or wrong of having kids outside of marriage. who the fuck cares about a piece of paper. that is not what the issue and concerns are about. it is about children that arent making it. children that are at a disadvantage before they even begin

[fishwax]

i read the article

I'm not sure I get the gist of your response. I wasn't suggesting you were getting into the morality of having children out of wedlock--just reiterating Mass's point that 42% unmarried does not necessarily mean 42% with only one parent.

As to the rest, clearly kids should have people in their lives who love them, care about their well-being and best interests, encourage the development of their skills and interests, and provide good role models. The more of those in their lives, the better.

[handmade34]

31. poverty needs to be addressed

lack of jobs needes to be addressed, maintaining and expanding abortion rights needes to be addressed, education needs to be addressed, a healthy environment needs to be addressed, housing needs to be addressed... the concern is that when poor mothers have children without support (financial, physical or emotional) everyone suffers. Yes it is a concern, but addressing all the previously listed concerns will take care of the problems associated with 'unwed mothers'

[blogslut]

33. Well, golly

And all this time I thought I did a pretty decent job as a single mom. I guess I better tell blogslut jr she needs to quit grad school because she's supposed to be one of society's unhealthy failures.

What was I thinking?

[BlueCheese]

45. I'm sure you do a great job.

Single parenting is hard, but that doesn't mean that a lot of people don't succeed at it. Please don't think the article (or I) was implying otherwise.

Thanks.

[seabeyond]

51. +1. i know a handful of people i love dearly doing it on their own.

they are working their ass off. damn hard. and they want the best for their kids

[handmade34]

52. I think you and I are lucky

lots of single mothers aren't... my kids all have degrees (well the last one is a senior at UVM) and it was a serious struggle. I don't believe the post was directed at us.

[mainer]

35. That figure is true for the 1700's as well

I recall reading "A Midwife's Tale," a memoir by a midwife in the late 1700's. Every birth she attended, she recorded the father's name. And according to her records, about 40% of first births were conceived out of wedlock.

[Coexist]

39. but... weren't those the good ol' days we're supposed to pine for?

[hfojvt]

54. no it is not, maybe for that one village

but not in the areas I looked at.

From 1780 to 1793 in the village of Weigheim in southern Germany, there were 233 births and only 21 of them were illegitimate. Of course, that makes me think of another reason for the numbers to be higher now. Back then women were having 9 or 10 kids on average, now they are having 1-3. The married couples having more kids brings the average down.

Again, in the bigger village of Spaichingen, between 1787 and 1796 there were 801 births and only 7 of them were illegitimate, less than 1%. Evem when things got worse after Napoleon, they never got nearly that bad, between 1808 and 1817 there were 831 births in Spaichingen, and only 36 of them were illegitimate, a mere 4.3% and in Weigheim from 1820 to 1832 there were 254 births and 44 of them illegitimate for 17.3%.

[iris27]

66. Conceived, sure...but born?

My nephew was conceived out of wedlock, but my brother and now-SIL married less than a month after finding out. Her super-fundy parents insisted, and then spread the old story that he "came early". I'd imagine that would've happened much more often in the 1700s.

[JonLP24]

41. Is it just unwed mothers

or single mothers in general? If it is just unwed mothers that is complicated. It could be a couple planning on getting married included in the figure or lifetime partners that stay together but believe marriage is a "piece of paper" is probably included in the figure.

If having one parent is a bad thing than the above is better than being married at the time the child was born but they split up not long after. I'm not sure if that is included in the figure.

[HockeyMom]

57. Divorced women are also considered single mothers

Widows too. Any woman without a married husband in the home is now considered a single mother for all these studies. Can you see how these stats can be slanted?

[BlueCheese]

67. True.

But the article is talking about births--whether the mother is married at the time of birth, not later on.

[HockeyMom]

58. Divorced women are also considered single mothers

Widows too. Any woman without a married husband in the home is now considered a single mother for all these studies. Can you see how these stats can be slanted?

[Sisaruus]

46. Poverty is a result of economic injustice, not motherhood.

For decades, the out-of-wedlock birthrate in the Scandinavian countries has been the norm – as high as 66% of all births. Yet these same countries, social democracies with strong social policy, have the lowest child poverty rates and the highest standards of living, including literacy/education rates. The expectation in the US that the nuclear family unit - whether that’s a 2-parent or 1-parent household - is the primary, if not sole, source of a “social safety net” is our problem, not the individual decisions of women to bear children outside of marriage.

We are a country with a well-established and deliberately sustained infrastructure of social and economic injustice – that is not the fault of mothers.

[handmade34]

49. well put

[iris27]

63. thank you.

+1 for sanity.

[RZM]

82. It's not the fault of mothers . . . agreed

But I'd like to see something else about the Scandinavian stats. It's true Scandinavians don't get married as much and also that they live in some of the most progressive welfare states in the world (probably THE most). But I'd bet that in most of these cases, the father is involved in the lives of the children. Many of these parents are probably living together and otherwise 'married' but without the piece of paper. That's probably the case far less here.

[Cid_B]

48. Incentives and not mandates I suppose...

Is a married man and woman in a stable relationship optimal? Sure.. Its just not always the case...

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. Many of those may be unmarried couples living together

That statistic doesn't seem to be collected officially in the US, but:

41% of first births by unmarried women are born to cohabiting partners. - Bumpass, Larry and Lu, Hsien-Hen. 2000. "Trends in Cohabitation and Implications for Children's Family Contexts in the United States." Population Studies, 54: 29-41.

http://www.unmarried.org/statistics.html

Compare with England and Wales, where roughly 54% of births are within marriage, 30% to couples living together but unmarried, 10% to a named mother and father who give different addresses, and 6% were registered with only the mother's name.

So it may be a question of how much it matters that the couple are married. Or whether it matters whether they're married at the time of birth - many couples get married a bit later. Hurried marriages due to pregnancy are much less common now than they used to be.

[HockeyMom]

56. Think about this

Back in the 60s I knew a middle aged couple with 4 kids. Everyone assumed they were husband and wife. They owned their own business and home and sent their kids to school, just like everyone else. They referred to each other as husband and wife to the outside world. I worked at their business and became friends with them. It was then that I learned that they had never gotten that piece of paper, even though they had lived together for 20 years raising a family, etc. They told me then did not believe that government, or churches, had any right to tell them how to live their lives. In their eyes, they married each other 20 years ago. BTW, the state I lived in even back then did not recognize common law marriage. I suppose that is what most people would call their relationship.

Yet, by these standards, that woman would be considered a single, unwed mother. Don't you think in 2010 there are many, many more women in situations where they are living, and having children, with a partner in her household -- minus any government or religious recognition?

[BlueCheese]

71. If that's the explanation...

... then sure, no problem. I'm sure that explains some of the 41%. Does it explain all of it?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

84. I don't think couples who are just too damn progressive for old institutions...

really figure that highly into this number,

[Odin2005]

99. My mom and stepdad were in what was an essentially "common law" marriage...

for over 10 years until they officially got married in 2005. They pretty much acted as if they were spouses since around 1994.

[Dappleganger]

59. What's the percentage of children born into poverty?

That's what matters more.

[HipChick]

60. Does it matter? With a 50% divorce rate, a kid will end up with one parent anyway

Marriage is no longer a measure...many of my single female friends who are independent opt to have a kid by themselves

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

62. Staggering statistic.

"The article is mostly about the struggles of black mothers and black children, of whom 72% are born to unmarried mothers."

Well, if Obama wanted a moment to appeal to white voters, here's his chance.

Oh, wait, he already did: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/16/us/politics/15cnd-obama.html

Nevermind.

"On Friday, Mr. Obama announced that he would be a co-sponsor of a bill with Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana, that his campaign said would address the “national epidemic of absentee fathers.” If passed, the legislation would increase the enforcement of child support payments and strengthen domestic violence prevention services.

Mr. Obama cited the need for stronger law enforcement services and resources for education, more job opportunities and other resources for communities.

“But we also need families to raise our children,” he said. “We need fathers to realize that responsibility doesn’t just end at conception. That doesn’t just make you a father. What makes you a man is not the ability to have a child. Any fool can have a child. That doesn’t make you a father. It’s the courage to raise a child that makes you a father.”

Mr. Obama spoke of the burden that single parenthood was on his mother, who raised him with the help of his maternal grandparents.

“I know the toll it took on me, not having a father in the house,” he continued. “The hole in your heart when you don’t have a male figure in the home who can guide you and lead you. So I resolved many years ago that it was my obligation to break the cycle — that that if I could be anything in life, I would be a good father to my children.”

But he also acknowledged his own flaws as a father, citing the breakneck schedule of the presidential campaign and the rare days he spends with his children."

***I'm sorry, I forgot, this is not a Democratic issue. Oh, for fuck's sake.

[Mass]

65. What's your problem with this? It is totally in relation with European countries,

where people have stopped marrying before they have children.

My sister has been with the same SO for 26 years now. I wished most married couples lasted as much.

Unwed mothers does not mean there is not a father in the picture.

[Turbineguy]

68. Be that as it may,

at least they weren't having sex!

[jody]

75. Children born out of wedlock don't bother me but children without parents to provide for them do. nt

[Hannah Bell]

80. men's earning capacity has been dropping since the 70s. that's the reason in a nutshell.

[RZM]

83. Here's a take on it

Maybe you already saw this, but here it is anyway

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/6510/lets_rethink_masculinity

[Hannah Bell]

85. problem is, these things don't happen by people decising en masse to "rethink".

[defendandprotect]

113. Presume this reflects the growing independence of females .....

and couples reassessing "marriage" and customizing it --

Also, it is not only male salaries which have stagnated, but female salaries as well --

and we lack parity -- women still make 21% or more LESS on every dollar paid to males for

the same work.

Additionally, the impoverished are more often people of color -- with huge joblessness

among AA males. -- and equally unjust numbers of AA males in prison.

[Hannah Bell]

144. Women's wages below the 50th percentile have risen; men's have fallen.

The combined result is a fall in aggregate wages below the 50th percentile.

It's not about "customizing" marriage, as that implies that the majority of people are actively "choosing" such arrangements. Rather, it's about an increase in the typical family arrangements of poverty: unmarried women taking care of children with men at the periphery, and it's no longer just black men or "people of color".

Fact is, the female-centric household with peripheral men is the typical household arrangement of the poor under capitalism where men's work is irregular & poorly paid. Same in Victorian England, same in the black ghetto.

In 2005, according to the US Bureau of Labor, women's average compensation was 80% of men's. I'll add that such a statistic is near-meaningless.

http://books.google.com/books?id=_nyHS4WyUKEC&pg=PT417&lpg=PT417&dq=men's+wages+decreasing&source=bl&ots=h0ZZblcaCF&sig=lFV_msMLqjgVkAO6eAPz5LzV14w&hl=en&ei=4TTWTI2PFI30tgPXkb2NCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCUQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=men's%20wages%20decreasing&f=false

It's irksome to see people tout this situation as some kind of feminist victory.

[defendandprotect]

148. Women still do the same jobs as men for LESS .....25% less ....

Basically, most women never catch up -- their pensions, Social Security, etal are

impacted by those LESSER salaries.

Couples certainly are choosing not only to "live together" unmarried -- but also

to live in "common law" marriages and "civil law" marriages.

And, of course, MANY women choosing to have children without marriage -- in many

instances with sperm contributions from strangers -- and raising children alone.

And I'm sure there is no "color line" on males preferring not to be involved in a

surprise pregnancy!


The figures obviously suggest much more than any community "of color" or community of

"impoverished" females is involved in choosing to raise a child on their own --

it is the ability to be financially independent which has permitted this choice.

"AVERAGE" does not mean all -- most women still work for less than 77% of what males

make for the same job.


It's interesting to see the testiness that results from anyone suggesting that this is

a feminist decision taking root!

[grahamhgreen]

81. Absitnence at work.

[Jamastiene]

87. When I was a child of an unwed mother,

the things said by people like you really bothered me. Now, comments like yours just piss me off.

For all the kids who are made to feel like the shit on the bottom of a thief's shoe after hearing what people like you say. :thumbsdown:

[Odin2005]

94. Many couple start having their kids befor they are married. This is a BS scaremongering statistic.

[Bluenorthwest]

96. Someone needs to alert the Sacrament Defense Committee!

Holy, holy, holy!

[BlueCheese]

103. I don't think it's the sacrament that's the issue.

I personally don't care whether a couple is legally or religiously married.

Whether the parents are married is an inexact proxy for whether a child has a strong family situation. Obviously this is imperfect--there are unmarried but committed couples, single parents who do a great job, etc. If every child born to an unwed mother has great family support and is well taken care of, then this is obviously not a problem.

However, as the article talks about, a lot of these kids are born into pretty challenging circumstances. The question is what as a society can we do to help these kids, and to try and make sure that every kid gets the support they need from birth?

[Bluenorthwest]

150. The point is that straight people claim the need to 'defend

marriage' against the horrible gay people like me. Yet among their own, the 'sacrament' is not in such a shiny state. Along with the divorce rates, one might even say the straights should consider cleaning their own house rather than oppressing their neighbors.
Marriage is a legal construct, not a 'Sacrament'.

[RagAss]

101. Call Congress Right Now !

[Iggo]

106. Now if they were born to unwed fathers, then I'd be surprised.

Shocked, even.

[lightningandsnow]

107. There are many ways to create a family.

And what's most important is that the family members care for each other, not how many people are in the family and what gender they are.

I've known single people who were great parents. I've known couples, both opposite-sex and same-sex, who make great parents. I've even known a triad - three people, all romantically involved and raising children together - and their children are thriving as well.

The problem is when children are unloved and unwanted. The problem is not that people are creating families in models other than a two-parent, heterosexual, traditional nuclear family.

We should be giving parents the resources they need to help their children thrive, not telling them who can and can't create a family.

[BlueCheese]

111. Of course

Unwed motherhood is simply an imperfect proxy for kids born into bad situations. It's obviously not perfect.

[Barack_America]

110. Some European statistics:

Share live births of unmarried mothers in Europe, 2006



ETA: http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/bevolking/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2008/2008-2519-wm.htm

[BlueCheese]

112. Some folks seem to be misunderstanding what I meant.

Perhaps I wasn't clear.

Frankly, I couldn't care less about the supposed morality of whether parents are legally married or not. If every kid born to an unwed mother was born to a committed couple, or a dedicated single parent with strong support systems, or into a situation where he or she has all the opportunities to grow and succeed, then the number could be 41% or 50% or 100% for all I cared.

The 41% is only concerning to me because a large fraction of these are not born into such happy situations, as the article makes clear. A lot of these kids have no fathers in their lives, and their mothers are often stretched very thin between working and parenting and making ends meet. These children have a harder time getting going in life on average, statistics show. So when I say, what can we do to address this, what I mean is what can we do to make sure so many kids don't start out in life with such disadvantages?

The piece of paper of a marriage license doesn't concern me at all. I guess I thought that would be clear, especially on a site like DU, but I apologize for any confusion.

[Iggo]

114. See, the thing is...

...that piece of paper thing is the entire point of the 41% stat.

[BlueCheese]

116. Sure...

... but as the article makes clear, it's meant as an imperfect measuring tool. The article isn't about kids whose parents are happily together but not married--it's about kids whose dads were absent from day one.

I guess I should have been clearer--maybe it sounds different whether one reads the headline or the article.

Also, the government can't really measure "children born into healthy family circumstances". They can only go with more objective measurements, like "children born into poverty", etc. I'm guessing this was sort of like that.

[Iggo]

118. Well, I suppose I could have actually read the article before responding.

:hide:

[BlueCheese]

119. I didn't do a good job explaning it.

The way the post reads, you can't tell the article is about the challenges of single-parent families.

[muriel_volestrangler]

146. I disagree - the article is focusing on marriage, not whether the families are single or 2 parent

There's almost nothing in there about couple who aren't married, but are living together.

It starts with 'only one brings a husband' - nothing about partners. "She wants her babies born as healthy as possible, so Carroll spends time talking to the mothers about ... why they need to get married". Not "why they need the father with them", or "why the father should be fully helping in brining up the child". And it goes on like that. There's one paragraph in which Carroll says it's about having a mother and a father, rather than emphasising marriage (and even this manages to ignore same-sex couples), and after that it's back to the 'unmarried' statistics, plugs for 'Marry Your Baby Daddy Day' and 'Black Marriage Day', and a lot about "No Wedding, No Womb".

[eyeofdelphi]

115. ugh...

i really hate articles like that. "unwed" mothers are not always single. i am an unwed mother with a son and a daughter on the way. the father and i have been together for 7 years and i don't see that ever changing. we're not religious in the least and i don't feel the need to get married. if either one of us needed a piece of paper to make us feel more secure in our relationship, then the relationship would already be in trouble. and should anything happen and we decide to not stay together, the monetary cost of a divorce would be great. it only costs $35 to get a marriage certificate in Virginia. and since we're already poor, i don't see how getting married would somehow make us any richer.
this seems to be a trend with people my age. i know more people that are together and have been for a long time but are not interested in getting married. their kids are fine. my kid is fine. and then there are the people that wait until after the baby to have the wedding. what does it really matter anymore? being married does not protect you against poverty or drugs or crime. me and all my cousins were raised in christian and married households, and basically all of us have done something stupid, like drugs or landing in jail. nothing needs to be done about it. there are so many other things that need attention, like the state of public education, or equal rights for LGBT, or ending the wars, etc.

[BlueCheese]

117. Congratulations...

... and I hope all goes well with your new son and daughter.

The article is clearly not aimed at you. It's about children who aren't fortunate enough to have good parenting, whether it's from one parent or two.

I really wish I had made this clear in the OP, which I can no longer edit. It seems to have stirred up a bee's nest on something other than I what I intended.

[handmade34]

120. happens too often here...

people don't read the article you linked, people don't take time to consider what you may have really meant, people have a negative personal experience with the topic or sometimes people are just contrary... it seemed evident from the article that the issue was poverty and other concerns in relation to the pregnancies/births... you didn't stir the nest; it just happens sometimes

[eyeofdelphi]

143. sorry, i was criticizing the article

not you for posting it. i used the word article instead of OP in the hopes of not offending. somewhere, someone took the time to do a study or survey or whatever on the percentage of kids born to unmarried mothers. and now it's published and is a news article and the subject has been brought up for super religious zeolots like most of my family to harp about. now they can hold up studies like this to try and guilt trip me into getting married. which won't do anything to change our poverty status. and since our family apparently carries an addiction gene and almost everyone has some mental health issue (i.e. depression, OCD, etc.) i don't think getting married would help my kids avoid these problems.

[denem]

121. Child Support. No exceptions!!

Any fool can become a father. One squirt and they're gone. Fuck that for a joke.

[opihimoimoi]

123. There used to be such a thing as SHOTGUN WEDDINGS AND HONOR

Its vice versa these days

There is a percentage who will find ways and guys to have a baby with....only to find out that "NO< I NOT GONNA GET MARRIED"....but too late

for other options....

[butterfly77]

127. You are...

40 or maybe more years too late..

[Douglas Carpenter]

129. 54%/55% in Sweden and Norway - 50% in France - and very high in most of Europe also

The reasons and social forces and the consequences might be different - but the numbers are high in a number of modern industrial societies. I blame Republican policies for a lot of the evils in our world today - but blaming Republican policies for this is a bit of a stretch and less than intellectually honest. There are a lot of other social forces at work, whether under the extreme form of capitalism of the United States of America - or under the kinder and more gentle form of liberal-capitalist, social-democracy of Scandinavia or France.



related article:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db18.htm

[eridani]

132. Interesting chart--doesn't say much about whether these mothers are raising kids without help

I'm suspecting that in Northern Europe, there are many more marriages than actual marriage certificates.

[Douglas Carpenter]

134. that is probably true

Living together and raising kids together without being legally married is more accepted in most of the more libertine societies of Northern Europe.

[Odin2005]

141. Scandinavian countries have state-subsidized daycare.

[Hannah Bell]

145. The charts don't include facts like e.g. marriage follows most such births in sweden.

and that most unwed mothers are cohabiting with a partner and eventually marry following the birth of the first or second child.

Rather different from here.

Fifty-three percent of children born in Sweden in
1995 were born to unwed mothers (all ages).
Since at least 1986, this percentage has been
around 50.

Most unwed mothers are cohabiting
with the child’s father. Table 3 illustrates that
many mothers will marry later, following the first
child.

Family formation in Sweden today often
begins when a cohabiting couple decide to have a
child, while marriage comes later.12

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/summaries/sweden_teen.pdf

[muriel_volestrangler]

147. Strictly, Table 3 does not "illustrate that many mothers will marry later, following the first child

Table 3 is "Live births by mother’s age and family status, percentage within age groups, Sweden, 1995, age at the event". It shows that the older at birth the mother, the more likely that she is married. It does not say anything about what happens to a cohabiting, or single, mother after a birth. It's quite possible that those not married at the birth of their children stay unmarried; and that different women are the ones who are more likely to have their children later, when they are married. And those figures were a snapshot from that year; we can't assume that women who were 20-24 in 1995 will have done the same now they are 35-39 as the 35-39 year olds had done in that 1995 snapshot.

Not your fault - I know you quoted the report exactly. But their inference from that table is incorrect. "Most unwed mothers are cohabiting with a partner" is very true, however.

[Taitertots]

131. Unwed mothers or single mothers

Who really cares if they are married? Are they both there?

I'm more concerned that children are growing up with half a family.

[proteus_lives]

138. Kids need parents that care about them. One is enough and two is better.

I look at numbers like this as being about people being immature about sex and relationships rather then kids.

[Mimosa]

149. Children need two committed parents

Children of single mothers who must work, who haven't much of a social and emotional support system, have much harder times scholastically and emotionally. Research and facts support this.