Of family decline and the importance of traditions
posted at 5:30 pm on September 4, 2011 by Tina Korbe
According to historian Paul Johnson, many analysts of American society consider the decline of the family and of family life — and the growth in illegitimacy — to be the decisive single development in America during the second half of the 20th century. It’s easy either to decry that decline in dramatic terms or to dismiss it as unimportant, a mere illusion in the minds of cultural conservatives. No need exists to overstate the case, to issue dire warnings of degeneracy and immorality or to primly utter hints at history repeating itself, to darkly allude to the collapse of the Roman empire or to the fall of any great civilization without regard to the aptness of the analogy. But neither does it serve a positive purpose to deny the reality. The family has been in decline and Johnson provides the evidence to prove it. From his A History of the American People:
Up to 1920, the proportion of children born to single women in the United States was less than 3 percent, roughly where it had been throughout the history of the country. The trendline shifted upwards, though not dramatically, in the 1950s. A steep, sustained rise gathered pace in the mid-1960s and continued into the early 1990s, to reach 30 percent in 1991. In 1960, there were just 73,000 never-married mothers between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four. By 1980 there were 1 million. By 1990 there were 2.9 million. Thus, though the illegitimacy ratio rose six times in thirty years, the number of never-married mothers rose forty times. Illegitimacy was far more common among blacks than among whites. The difference in black-white marriage rates was small until the 1960s and then widened, so that by 1991 only 38 percent of black women aged 15-44 were married, compared to 58 percent of white women. A significant difference between the number of black illegitimate children and white ones went back to well before the 1960s, though it increased markedly after the 1960s watershed. In 1960, 24 percent of black children were illegitimate, compared with 2 percent of white children. By 1991, the figures of illegitimate births were 68 percent of all births for blacks, 39 percent for Latinos and 18 percent for non-Latino whites. At some point between 1960 and 1990, marriage, and having children within marriage, ceased to be the norm among blacks, while remaining the norm among whites (though a deteriorating one). The jump in the illegitimacy rate in 1991 was the largest so far recorded, but it was exceeded by subsequent years. By the end of 1994 it was 33 percent for the nation as a whole, 25 percent for whites, and 70 percent for blacks. In parts of Washington, capital of the richest nation in the world, it was as high as 90 percent.
Updated statistics are scarcely more hopeful. For example, one in four children today lives with just one parent. Pretty grim.
But in Russell, Kan., on this Sunday before Labor Day, the view of the family is anything but grim. Fifty-seven years ago, my grandfather and his 11 siblings gathered in this dusty, windy town for a family reunion — and, every year since then, Dennings have gathered over Labor Day weekend, sometimes in a home, sometimes at a park, sometimes at a hotel to eat their fill of food (galuskies! sauerkraut! homegrown, self-canned pickles!), contentiously talk politics (we don’t all agree, but we all have opinions!), throw the football or bump the volleyball, exchange hugs and experience that rare and wonderful sensation of the unconditional acceptance of being surrounded by family. Just three of the founding 12 siblings are still alive and I frequently meet relatives I never knew I had, but the reunion somehow always remains the same. Every year, I learn something new.
This year, for example, I learned that one of the Navy SEALS shot down in a helicopter over Pakistan — pilot Bryan Nichols — was from Hays, Kan., and graduated from the same high school as my father. My mother’s cousin Sari and her daughter Rachel told me the story of his funeral — how hundreds of high schoolers sat stock still and listened to 30 minutes of testimonials from fellow servicemen, testimonials attesting to Nichols’ status as a “heroes’ hero,” the SEAL other SEALs called when they got in over their heads, how Patriot Riders waved flags, flag upon flag upon flag streaming down the street, how the day of Nichols’ funeral was to have been the day he returned on leave. They both had goosebumps as they related the memory.
I also listened to a voicemail message from Tim Pawlenty on the phone of my cousin’s son, Bryan. Pawlenty said “Peace out” — not the sort of farewell you’d expect from Mr. “Vanilla.” And I found out I’m not the first of my relatives to appear on Fox and Friends. My great-uncle Carroll, on a trip to NYC to visit his daughter, once presented Steve Doocey (a Kansan himself) with a bottle of Gates’ BBQ sauce (the best!) on air — and earned a hug from E.D. Hill. Pretty sure my brief exchange with Doocey grading the performances of the debt ceiling players doesn’t compare.
It all reminds me of something I’m fond of repeating but frequently forget the meaning of: Policy matters because people matter and the health of the person is at the heart of healthy policy. Personal responsibility and a disciplined work ethic will always precede a healthy economy, for example. Marriage and family policy is a tricky area — worth legislating because society has a definite stake in the health of the family, yet fraught with unintended consequences. But, culturally speaking, the way to successful family life is one family, one day at a time — just as the way to a 57-year tradition is one year at time.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Racist. And probably a bunch of other things. . .
Scotsman on September 4, 2011 at 5:34 PM
If teenaged boys, who think they’re the center of the Universe, don’t run into their father to straighten them out, they’ll instead run into a police officer to straighten them out. Fathers protect teenaged boys from themselves. If the father is not there, that boy just clashes with the next level up, and that next level up has jail cells.
RBMN on September 4, 2011 at 5:39 PM
Social policy (i.e. the enlarging “safety net”) has encouraged this, and likely created it.
Paul-Cincy on September 4, 2011 at 5:39 PM
The simple fact is – you cannot have fiscal conservatism without social conservatism, and the foundation of social conservatism is a strong traditional family.
Rebar on September 4, 2011 at 5:40 PM
It’s almost as if liberal social and economic policies would destroy a nation.
artist on September 4, 2011 at 5:41 PM
And that’s not counting the untold millions of kids who were killed before they were born, while very few were aborted when the rate was less than 3%.
itsnotaboutme on September 4, 2011 at 5:42 PM
Homophobic article art!
Shouldn’t the illustrating silhouette show two male partners hand-in-hand and the girl child wearing a burqa and little boy carrying a doll?
profitsbeard on September 4, 2011 at 5:43 PM
Didn’t a lot this happen after LBJ’s Great Society and his war on poverty? He is the “Father” of this in my book.
Mirimichi on September 4, 2011 at 5:44 PM
The family throws around the old baseball too, right? :)
Vatican Watcher on September 4, 2011 at 5:48 PM
You’re married? Crap.
Darth Executor on September 4, 2011 at 5:48 PM
Teh gay marriage is the reason for these family breakdowns.
The progressive homosexual agenda has destroyed the institute of marriages.
If you anger God, expect his wrath.
Pablo Honey on September 4, 2011 at 5:52 PM
ahh… feminism. hard to legislate against that.
hanzblinx on September 4, 2011 at 5:53 PM
The heterosexual family has failed.
It’s time we all gave gay marriage a try.
fossten on September 4, 2011 at 5:54 PM
Could be her mother’s side of the family. ;-)
Tina has Kansas roots. Nice!
KSgop on September 4, 2011 at 5:55 PM
As Rubio said in his speech at the Reagan Library, “Poverty does not create our social problems…our social problems create our poverty.” Or in other words, the breakdown of the family and the social communities that were once so instrumental in producing well adjusted and successful adults, has now given way to a broken society that an ever increasing nanny state has to “take care of”. The impact and importance of family and a stable upbringing cannot be ignore or brushed aside when discussing the current breakdown and decline of American society. Those elements are as important to the overall discussion of why we are where we’re at, as the housing collapse or the economic meltdown.
LiquidH2O on September 4, 2011 at 5:56 PM
Progress….
maynila on September 4, 2011 at 5:57 PM
My collie says:
CyberCipher on September 4, 2011 at 6:01 PM
It’s been replaced with this.
BDavis on September 4, 2011 at 6:02 PM
Stigmas often serve a purpose.
forest on September 4, 2011 at 6:04 PM
Thomas Sowell documents the unraveling of the black family after LBJ. I can’t remember which book the stats are in. If I find it on the web, I’ll post it here.
INC on September 4, 2011 at 6:05 PM
Government is not the cause it is an effect. Tina is correct that it is individuals families building strong families that will make a difference. Having a good family is hard work an inculcating that into the next generation is paramount. Like anything worth having you must put the effort into it.
chemman on September 4, 2011 at 6:06 PM
Thirty years ago, we sent the bride and groom off to their honeymoon, today, it’s go out and drink all night.
Progress
southsideironworks on September 4, 2011 at 6:07 PM
No fault divorce has damaged marriage and sent divorce rates through the roof. In other words, govt intervention in marriage harmed marriage.
No fault divorce changed the definition of marriage from “till death do us part” to “till one of us gets bored.”
So let’s change it further to two brothers can marry their uncle and if anyone disagrees their racists.
Akzed on September 4, 2011 at 6:07 PM
Race, Rhetoric, and Reality. He shows that every statistic regarding family health and educational progress was improving for blacks until Brown vs Board, then got worse after the CRA of 1964.
Akzed on September 4, 2011 at 6:12 PM
Daniel Patrick Moynihan was in the Johnson administration and warned against large federal “poverty” programs as a solution to the situation of blacks in the US.
He was dismissed by lefties who thought any program could be solved if you threw federal money at it, (and of course, by LBJ political advisors who expected that federal money would help buy votes).
Wethal on September 4, 2011 at 6:13 PM
Wethal on September 4, 2011 at 6:14 PM
When my daughter graduated from high school in 2003, only three of her classmates (and her) were living with both of their biological parents. Step-parents, “blended” families, single parents – divorced, single parents – never married, youngsters being raised by grandparents (who frankly, did a pretty lousy job in a many cases) and Lord only knows what other arrangements. No wonder these kids are a mess.
oldleprechaun on September 4, 2011 at 6:18 PM
lol. It works either way. ;) Problems or programs…throwing money at either one is the standard operating procedure of the Dems.
LiquidH2O on September 4, 2011 at 6:18 PM
Wow, I hope you forgot your sarc tag.
What a freakin’ joke.
The population of gays can’t come anywhere CLOSE to the population of failed hetero marriages and failed hetero marriages have little to NOTHING to do with homosexuality.
But, I’ll let you keep dreaming up your hate filled scenarios..
On the plus side, I’ve known a few people who were raised by divorced parents. They are now in marriages and it makes them work even harder to make those marriages work because they know the pain it brought to them as children….so there’s that.
bridgetown on September 4, 2011 at 6:18 PM
We have a winnah.
If one wants to see a prime example of the failure of LBJ’s Great Society, just go to the poor neighborhoods of New Orleans, where the poverty rate in 2000 was 30%.
I think if you go back to the late 1960s, you’ll find that New Orleans’ poverty rate since then hasn’t gone down much, if any.
Del Dolemonte on September 4, 2011 at 6:32 PM
Oh, don’t worry. P-Hon is definitely sarcing and on your side.
Let me tell you one thing though, you don’t further your cause by pissing on the traditional family every time you want to push gay rights. You without fail, seem to try to demonstrate every thread along these themes, that it’s actually better to be gay than to be a traditional family.
You’re not looking for equality, you’re trying to prove you’re better.
Stop with the hate.
hawkdriver on September 4, 2011 at 6:33 PM
Thx LBJ… and by extension liberals like Nancy Pelosi…
Khun Joe on September 4, 2011 at 6:34 PM
Stigmas often serve a purpose.
forest on September 4, 2011 at 6:04 PM
Yes, but there is no stigma now to “illegitimate,” which likely is your point. I assume that leftists, led by the CBCaucus, will someday campaign to stamp out the term “illegitimate.” Being “illegitimate” must already be a resume enhancer for college admissions, and it could soon become a protected class.
GaltBlvnAtty on September 4, 2011 at 6:35 PM
No, the little boy should be in a suicide bomb vest. Societies that are nihilistic and glorify only death, descend.
rbj on September 4, 2011 at 6:40 PM
And for what it’s worth, all of you grinning like a opossum because marriages fail and the basic family unit is in decline, remember this. One area of decline did not cause the other or vice versa. It’s all an indication of the moral decline in the US and around the world. If it’s the way you like it, fine. Your world is made. Just don’t try to be disingenuous and somehow blame it on what used to be traditional.
hawkdriver on September 4, 2011 at 6:44 PM
hawkdriver on September 4, 2011 at 6:33 PM
I certainly don’t understand your accusation. I am not gay and I have Never said that it’s better to be “gay” than to have a “traditional” family. I also don’t know what you’re talking about regarding equality/being better.
I also know gay families that are raising children and the children are far more centered and responsible than many children in the schools that they attend because (I think) they come from a solid, secure, loving home. In some cases, these children are helping the kids that come from the broken hetero homes, or the homes where the hetero parents are so screwed up and abusive they have nowhere to turn but to their peers, which happen to be children being raised by gay couples. Imagine that.
I don’t have a “cause”, sir. I simply relate what I know in real time, in real life, without prejudice….and I agree…Stop with the hate.
bridgetown on September 4, 2011 at 6:46 PM
I am revolted when the welfare State Democrats start their Alinsky arguments on decent God-fearing citizens crying big crocodile tears for the poor “children’,the single mothers , the illegal aliens and their babies, the spotted owl, dirty air and water, and lately the need for open borders because we don’t have enough births to sustain the country. Let’ do a little math on one of their bedrock principles: Abortion. Fifty million babies have been aborted in the U.S.Let’s assume each little child was buried in a small casket requiring a plot p 3ft. x 2ft.= 6sq. ft. per child= 300,000,000sq. feet divide by 43,560 ft. per acre = the need for a cemetery of 6,887.05 Acres. Arlington National Cemetery has 624 acres. To properly bury the aborted babies one would then need 11 Cemeteries the size of Arlington!How can they do that and then try to take the moral high ground on every other issue that keeps them in power and robs the taxpayer to pay for it? I can’t know how many of these the taxpayer have paid for sure but under Obama et.al. it’s a mainstay of their agenda.I think on this often when I pony up to the I.R.S and I feel sadness for our nation.
Marco on September 4, 2011 at 6:56 PM
You’re saying children raised in a gay home, are better off. You sound just like dakine saying his gay sailors were more professional and less trouble than hetro sailors. You have to berate one group to lift the other. If you didn’t know him, he claimed to be a married former O6 in the Navy work really only debated threads to push the repeal of DADT and gay marriage. The problem was he was outed by a fellow commenter and called him on his “story” until he admitted it was all BS. But I digress.
Read what you write yourself and you’ll understand exactly what I’m talking about. You couldn’t make my point any better.
As far as your cause, if you’re not gay, you have a loved one who is. No one fights this hard for the cause without being emotionally invested.
hawkdriver on September 4, 2011 at 6:57 PM
Great post, Tina. You brought back wonderful memories of my family. As far back as I can remember and until I was in my mid-20′s, my grandma had Sunday dinner at her house. My dad, his 8 siblings, spouses and children were there. Attendance was mandatory, and you had better have had a damn good excuse if not present, because grandma would call.
BacaDog on September 4, 2011 at 6:58 PM
O6 in the Navy WHO really only debated threads
Sorry typing fast as I was headed out with my family to eat dinner. I’ll pass on how screwed up you assess hetro family’s to be.
hawkdriver on September 4, 2011 at 7:00 PM
hawkdriver on September 4, 2011 at 6:57 PM
You’re implying that I’m lying?
lol, good luck with that one. What a joke. If I wanted to make up stories I’d go write a blog about fairies and aliens, thanks very much.
Emotionally invested? Not any more than I am with any other issue I comment on at Hotair.
I won’t lose sleep tonight or any other night on the subject.
I’m simply adding comments to a blog. Whatever you are trying to get at is lost on me friend~
bridgetown on September 4, 2011 at 7:02 PM
Isn’t this a GREAT SOCIETY?
100 years of Progressive destruction as the sacrifice to their God…….Charles Darwin.
Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, LBJ, and the entire modern Democrat party.
The apostles of Progressivism. Thank you oh mighty Progressive Priests.
You have given us 40 million plus abortions sanctioned by the state, you’ve given a completely collapsed Black Family. You’re working on the Hispanic community next. You’ve worked through television and the culture to undermine and mock traditional Judeo-Christian models of family and virtue. You have the at-large media and academics that all know how we should progress.
………and the best part, there is more to come.
Surging towards Gomorrah.
PappyD61 on September 4, 2011 at 7:11 PM
Didn’t think of that. There is yet hope!
Darth Executor on September 4, 2011 at 7:15 PM
or we can look at this another way….
let’s pick a country that has a very low divorce rate…..India, for example…
now having looked into it…I can tell you that the divorce rate is not low because of attitudes towards family. It is low because the women are kind of ‘stuck’ there, be they abused or whatever. There is no choice.
Is that better for the family?
I don’t think so.
I agree that divorce is not a good thing, but I welcome the fact that we are not a male dominated society and women have choices and a way out of hell.
This subject is much too deep for one tiny blog post.
bridgetown on September 4, 2011 at 7:19 PM
This from The Bell Curve authors Herrnstein and Murray who recommended the elimination of welfare policies that encourage poor women to have babies:
We can imagine no recommendation for using the government to manipulate fertility that does not have dangers. But this highlights the problem: The United States already has policies that inadvertently social-engineer who has babies, and it is encouraging the wrong women. “If the United States did as much to encourage high-IQ women to have babies as it now does to encourage low-IQ women, it would rightly be described as engaging in aggressive manipulation of fertility.” The technically precise description of America’s fertility policy is that it subsidizes births among poor women, who are also disproportionately at the low end of the intelligence distribution. We urge generally that these policies, represented by the extensive network of cash and services for low-income women who have babies, be ended. The government should stop subsidizing births to anyone rich or poor.
AMEN.
Firmworm on September 4, 2011 at 7:19 PM
Don’t sweat it, he sees the looming shadow of Teh Ghey Menace around every corner attacking The Kids. If you don’t agree with him, you must be subverting The Family.
mythicknight on September 4, 2011 at 7:22 PM
mythicknight on September 4, 2011 at 7:22 PM
I clicked on your name…and I LOLed!!! Great answer
bridgetown on September 4, 2011 at 7:34 PM
hahahahaa OMG are you kidding me with that headline? You’re fifty years late with that one. ha Where were you all when the government forced school busing on US schools.
sonnyspats1 on September 4, 2011 at 7:36 PM
The family is far more than tradition, it is the bedrock upon which civilization is founded. This has been known for centuries and spoken of actively until our woefully inadequate Progressive era decided that we could forget all of that and build a bright, shiny, new world of barbarism by forgetting that we are creatures of Nature.
Why the family is important is plain and easy to see, as seen from the 13th Century in Bracton on the Laws and Customs of England has a home page at the Harvard Law School Library:
That was written in the 1220-1230 timeframe with additions around 1250, to help judges understand the basis for law so that when they had a case they could determine to what area of law it fell under.
The family is the basis for what we call society and it is from the family that the Nation is born of necessity. We cannot entrust that our fellow man will set aside his negative liberties if we do not create organs of society to ensure that such proscription is enforced. Yet that does not come from society, but the basis of society which is the family.
What do you call a society without families? It cannot be described as society ceases to exist without the need to protect your mate and your children. And yet we see the modern Progressives seek to ‘normalize’ behavior that is destructive to the family. What you get is not a ‘modern’ era of sweetness and light, but the old era of Nature returned so that men act as beasts and we live in fear of each other… and not society, not government and not Nation will exist when that happens until we learn, once more, the necessity of setting aside our negative liberty and rights so as to ensure such protection.
And then the Nation rises again out of sheer necessity.
Can we skip that downfall part and get down to the rebuilding part, now, before its too late?
ajacksonian on September 4, 2011 at 7:38 PM
“No need exists to overstate the case, to issue dire warnings of degeneracy and immorality or to primly utter hints at history repeating itself, to darkly allude to the collapse of the Roman empire or to the fall of any great civilization without regard to the aptness of the analogy.”
…..Editor!!!
Click on September 4, 2011 at 7:39 PM
I haven’t read that one yet. Thanks, will check it out…
visions on September 4, 2011 at 7:44 PM
I work in a building with 300+ females with a notable number of same sex couples.
Almost without exception the ones with children are utter trainwrecks with endless drama.
I strongly disagree with you and have ample examples as to why.
gdonovan on September 4, 2011 at 7:44 PM
Illegitimacy rate in China is under 5%, predominantly in minority groups near the Thai-Burmese border.
Cultural decline cements economic decline. We’ve been in cultural decline as a nation for a while now, to the point where many are proud of our 40% illegitimacy rate.
haner on September 4, 2011 at 7:47 PM
Then when they see all of this, they think that that is the way it is for everyone and then it is “acceptable”.
Mirimichi on September 4, 2011 at 7:49 PM
You’ve got that right.
Mirimichi on September 4, 2011 at 7:56 PM
Every bleeding heart liberal wants to see a poor minority succeed, but the one thing liberals plant into the poor that almost guarantees that the poor won’t succeed is the idea that the nuclear family is not necessary. All the oppression and inequality in the world pales in comparison to that one destructive idea. Without the nuclear family, you have no community, no society and no future.
haner on September 4, 2011 at 8:03 PM
Well put.
Mirimichi on September 4, 2011 at 8:04 PM
This ^ . Personal responsibility is now an outdated morality.
canditaylor68 on September 4, 2011 at 8:10 PM
Living with someone before marriage is a big contributor.
a capella on September 4, 2011 at 8:28 PM
It seems more indicative of hatred to accuse folks of hatred with no proof than it is to calmly explain a reasonable social opinion.
itsnotaboutme on September 4, 2011 at 8:33 PM
And the thing that made “shackin’ up” worse for society was the commencement of palimony. Now women don’t need marriage to have financial rights.
itsnotaboutme on September 4, 2011 at 8:35 PM
Well,..er..no. This is a thread about family and morality. It is bound to have dissenting opinions. When you start mocking his disagreement, it weakens your position.
a capella on September 4, 2011 at 8:35 PM
Stop with the hate.
bridgetown on September 4, 2011 at 6:46 PM
—
yet you get the giggles over thicks website link .whatever.
CW on September 4, 2011 at 8:37 PM
GIve LBJ credit he thought the CR Act would buy them votes and he was right.
90+% of the black vote goes to the LBJ party.
Maybe Obama wants to do the same with the Hispanics…..his legacy.
PappyD61 on September 4, 2011 at 8:39 PM
Could not find the original citation I was looking for – I remember a quote that said (paraphrasing;) “if you want to avoid poverty, do these three things; graduate high school, delay marriage until you are at least 25, and marry the person with whom you have create a child, if you have created a child.” Couldn’t find it, but I did find this:
Both Marriage and Education Reduce Poverty
The poverty rate among married couples is dramatically lower than the poverty rate among single-headed households, even when the married couple is compared to single parents with the same level of education. For example, as Chart 7 shows, the poverty rate for a single mother with only a high school degree is 31.7 percent, but the poverty rate for a married-couple family headed by an individual who is only a high school graduate is 5.6 percent: Marriage drops the odds of being poor by 80 percent.[9]
Linky.
massrighty on September 4, 2011 at 8:55 PM
That’s kind of a broad generalization. I lived with the woman I am married to, and it prepared us for the much more permanent step ahead. 29 years in, we’re not sorry for anything.
massrighty on September 4, 2011 at 8:59 PM
Why is that family not running across the freeway?
unclesmrgol on September 4, 2011 at 9:10 PM
accesss
hawkdriver on September 4, 2011 at 9:14 PM
Even the other 3 out of 4 children that do reside within a 2 parent household are sometimes no better off when both parents work outside the home. Even when parents are around they are too pre-occupied, too tired, or running the kids to violin lessons and soccer games. Who is actually making the investment of their time to actually raise these kids to become responsible adults? The daycare providers? I don’t think so. Raising a child IS a full time job and that position within the home is all too often left unfilled.
lynncgb on September 4, 2011 at 9:23 PM
Not sure that’s necessary. Wasn’t for us. Just celebrated our 48th. IMO, the social acceptance of premarital cohabitation, in general, coincides with the beginning of family unit breakdown.
a capella on September 4, 2011 at 9:30 PM
dang access … okay …
Actually, until very recently I was a pretty big proponent of rights for civil unions. I supported gays serving under DADT with honor. All that didn’t meet your standards so … I’m a narrow-minded bigot as bad as the worst of them looking for “teh ghey” boogie man. Whatever. All of which really, meets the gay meme about you being better than straights. You have to disagree and destroy anyone who doesn’t exactly toe the line.
Except, you’re an Anti-Christian bigot with no real evidence necessary besides what you post insofar as your commets and the link to with your name denouncing the faith I hold dear. People exactly like you and bridgetown turned me away from any sympathy for your “plight”.
And brigetown, I never implied anything about your posts. They speak for themselves.
hawkdriver on September 4, 2011 at 9:33 PM
48 is amazing. Just amazing.
hawkdriver on September 4, 2011 at 9:48 PM
Not sure that’s necessary. Wasn’t for us. Just celebrated our 48th. IMO, the social acceptance of premarital cohabitation, in general, coincides with the beginning of family unit breakdown.
a capella on September 4, 2011 at 9:30 PM
massrighty on September 4, 2011 at 9:57 PM
You sir, are always first with a kind and thoughtful word.
massrighty on September 4, 2011 at 10:06 PM
I love the SAY NO TO HATE bumper stickers.
What they really mean is:
Don’t even think about telling me I’m wrong.
I can live anyway I want and if you disagree with me and my lifestyle you’re a bigot and a HAYYYYYTER!!!
Die you traditional values Judeo-Christian scum.
THAT is what most people with those stickers really mean.
Holier than thou
PappyD61 on September 4, 2011 at 10:09 PM
I can personally attest as a teacher that almost always the male students who cause the most disruption in the classroom are ones without a strong father in their lives. I firmly believe that sons need fathers! On a personal note, my parents divorced and my father was awarded custody of me and my sister in 1967. At that time it was literally impossible for the father to gain custody (which shows what my mother was like). I give thanks every day that my father at 26 wanted to raise us instead of living the life of a single man. I can’t imagine where I would be at today without his wisdom and guidance in my life. Many times I relate this story to my students and every time I will have a student say that they wish their father was like that.
dawgyear on September 4, 2011 at 10:27 PM
And somehow the world keeps turning. There are probably a hundred factors that have combined to change what it means to be a family. Many of them have nothing to do with moral decay; a few of them have to do with moral improvement. For example, 1950′s society was sometimes brutally unfair, particularly to women and ethnic minorities. It’s only natural that as women have become more truly emancipated there has been some social upheaval. It’s a free country (a free-er country, even), though, and people will adapt.
RightOFLeft on September 4, 2011 at 10:30 PM
29 is nothing to sneeze at either. That also is “impressive”.
For me, I fail in the eyes of these people who need to prove straight marriages fail and are actually “worse”. I’m sure no example.
I was married for 24 years to a woman I couldn’t imagine being without after falling in love and being with for so long. But after almost eight straight years of being deployed after 9-11, we drifted very much and very far apart, broke up and divorced. It was hard to worry about someone who you thought might die at any time for so long and it was nearly impossible to invest the emotions of family and war for that length of time and keep your ye on the ball when so many people were counting on you. Almost a decade.
But after I knew I had deployed for the last time, we talked and reconciled. Almost as easily as we divorced. My friends kid me that we had, “a break in service”. If you’re familiar with military terms, it is a bit of a joke. I wish I could say it never happened but I never want to be a hypocrite. I have friends on Hot Air I meet with in person that know my families story. But the thing is I never said “we” were perfect. The traditional family I mean. But to use it as a punching bag for all the other social issues trying to jockey for a position of stature, is just sad and unfair.
There is no bad that would come from it being the strongest institution we have again.
And to answer that question that invariably comes up, we only celebrate the first anniversary and buy one gift a year. :-)
I’ve only had the first and second “same” wife. But I envy the perfection of you and a capella.
And dawgyear, thanks for sharing what you did too. You are blest for the cards that you were dealt.
hawkdriver on September 4, 2011 at 10:40 PM
Actually, the term is “heteronormative.” Think I’m kidding? Check this out
JannyMae on September 4, 2011 at 11:10 PM
Went back and read my post again, and it does seem a bit overly judgmental and broad. It was not intended as such, more as a commentary on the lessened effectiveness of public diapproval. I understand different circumstances exist for different people and intended no individual criticism. Congrats on your marriage, btw.
a capella on September 4, 2011 at 11:16 PM
dawgyear, thanks for sharing. I’m going through an (unwanted) divorce and praying that I can keep my kids and the house. Guys like your dad are my inspiration.
I know that if I do not fight for my kids now, I will have to answer to them later; after their lives have turned to crap. I fear their question to me will be, ‘Dad, why didn’t you try to keep us?’
This fight is costing me everything I’ve worked for but, in the long run it would have been seen as a small price to pay.
c3ichief on September 4, 2011 at 11:29 PM
Yes and no. I certainly sense the same thing you do: dump on “traditional” families in order to claim that same-sex marriage would be better, or at least as good.
I’m not sure that they’re trying to prove same-sex marriage is better so much as trying to prove that they are better — better than those who defend normal marriage and morals. There’s a certain amount of self-congratulation at being morally superior, because they’re more “open-minded” and less “driven by hate.”
Morality is now defined for many as being non-racist, non-judgemental, environmentally aware, and believing that there is nothing wrong with being homosexual.
But you nailed it on this point: they can’t lift up same-sex marriage without somehow diminishing normal marriage. They can’t defend gay people without being derogatory to non-gay people. Theoretically, they should be able to. Practically, it never happens.
We’ve had generations of people now who criticize family and morality, but without any real alternative.
They criticize marriage as loveless, boring, sexless, and holding people back from achievement.
They criticize families as stiff, judgemental, and unloving if they teach moral values, or as disturbed and broken if they’re not completely stable.
They criticize churches as just being in it for the money, and hypocritical.
They criticize fathers as being lazy, stupid, angry, and uncaring.
In many cases, there is some truth to the criticism. But there is plenty of falsehood as well.
But what they never do is to criticize the supposed better ways. They never have a word of criticism for single mothers who are single not because of tragedy or uncontrollable circumstance, but because they want to have children without caring enough for those children to ensure they have good fathers.
They never have a word of criticism for the man who walks out on his wife because he’s suddenly discovered that he was born gay.
They never have a word of criticism for gays who demand same-sex marriage to suit themselves regardless of what impact it may have on marriage as an institution.
The “progressive” morals are not morals at all. Just accommodations to what people really want to be able to do, without restrictions.
Marriages are not perfect, but it’s better to work together to salvage a marriage and make it better rather than chuck it out the window, get a divorce, and try again next year with someone else.
Yes, there are always exceptions, even to valuable social institutions like marriage. No one really believes that a wife being abused by her husband should just take it, and not protect herself. But too many marriages end over too many things that boil down to selfishness.
In the end, the old morals that “modern” people sniff at are still right
There Goes The Neighborhood on September 4, 2011 at 11:48 PM
c3ichief, keep up the good fight. I know that my dad’s example made me a much better father with my own children.
dawgyear on September 4, 2011 at 11:59 PM
I’m a big proponent of staying married “’til death do us part.” Even so, long deployments like you went through are very, very tough on marriages. The hard fact is that soldiers are more prone to divorce, and I’m sure the deployments are a big part of that. I’m glad you two were able to get past the long years apart and come together again.
None of us measure up absolutely to standards. That doesn’t make the standards wrong. It just makes us human.
There Goes The Neighborhood on September 5, 2011 at 12:03 AM
When my daughter graduated from high school in 2003, only three of her classmates (and her) were living with both of their biological parents. Step-parents, “blended” families, single parents – divorced, single parents – never married, youngsters being raised by grandparents (who frankly, did a pretty lousy job in a many cases) and Lord only knows what other arrangements. No wonder these kids are a mess.
oldleprechaun on September 4, 2011 at 6:18 PM
Then when they see all of this, they think that that is the way it is for everyone and then it is “acceptable”.
Mirimichi on September 4, 2011 at 7:49 PM
My ex-husband and I both grew up in families where the parents stayed together until one died. My father and his mother died within 3 months of each other. HIS parents were a shot-gun wedding because she was expecting his eldest brother(they really didn’t like each other) and MY father was a college-educated abuser.
Had me and my-ex stayed together for the sake of our son we would have ended up hating each other and emotionally hurting our son.
Instead, 13 years after our divorce we’re good friends(both of us have remarried)and our son is a happy(for a teenager), more or less well-adjusted guy. In our case we DID do the right thing for our son. Sometimes divorce is the best choice.
annoyinglittletwerp on September 5, 2011 at 12:08 AM
That’s a moot point for you, since you’re already divorced and remarried. Those facing the situation should be aware that the conventional wisdom has been found to be wrong.
That is, children of parents who stayed together “for the kids” generally turn out happier and better-adjusted than those whose parents were divorced.
People who get divorced for the sake of their children are generally fooling themselves, unless there is some other reason that makes divorce necessary — for example, the other one in the marriage is abusive, dangerous, addicted, demented, or simply determined not to be married, as in, philandering.
No-fault divorce was a bill of goods sold to people to rationalize why they should take the easy way out, and why it was actually better for the children. It’s had a tremendously corrosive effect on our entire culture.
There Goes The Neighborhood on September 5, 2011 at 12:32 AM
Social problems aren’t going to be fixed either by the government nor a booming economy. The statistics above show that even through the best economic upswings the American family has continued to degenerate.
One would think that as Capitalism matured, the family got the short end of the stick. Money issues are a big factor in divorces. Women have demanded their own incomes and careers. Families spend beyond their means and go into debt. Even in many marriages that hold together, infidelity is fairly rampant.
Alcohol was always a problem, but drugs became more pervasive in the last century.
Many of these things would not have been a factor on American farms and small communities 100+ years ago where most Americans lived.
No successful society ever started off broken.
Dr. ZhivBlago on September 5, 2011 at 1:10 AM
There are, of course, no policy solutions to the issue. This whole topic serves only to appeal to the emotional needs of voters – it’s not as if the family has been outlawed by commie liberals or anything.
ernesto on September 5, 2011 at 10:31 AM
And yet, remarkably, the policies pushed by progressives always have the end result of degrading families and morals. I’m sure that’s just a coincidence.
There Goes The Neighborhood on September 5, 2011 at 11:22 AM
Nah, gay marriage isn’t the cause – but it’s another symptom of the problem.
Midas on September 5, 2011 at 11:36 AM
Perhaps, but progressive policies *have* brought us to this situation – so perhaps ‘policy solutions’ aren’t what’s needed, but ‘stupid and destructive progressive/liberal policy avoidance and rollback’ certainly is.
Midas on September 5, 2011 at 11:39 AM
Of course there are policy solutions to the issue. Haven’t you been paying attention? (I know, rhetorical question)
End the policies which encourage self-destructive behavior. Voila.
Study after study after study show that welfare policies which encourage non-traditional family compositions (and almost every welfare policy does exactly that) contribute to enlarging and sustaining poverty, crime, and low life expectancy.
It cannot be made any simpler than that. Pretend that you are compassionate by fighting for policies which destroy those you pretend to care about. The liberal way. Your way, ernesto.
Freelancer on September 5, 2011 at 11:42 AM
In some states there are laws against employment discrimination based on marital status. They are not designed to protect married people.
If I want to hire stable, conscientious people, the odds are that married people are more likely to fit the bill than unmarried people.
But these governments have stepped in to ensure that I can’t make decisions based on what’s best for the business, but must make decisions based on politicians’ whims. In the process they have removed an incentive for getting or staying married.
Akzed on September 5, 2011 at 12:03 PM
The cause of this problem is multifaceted. The attack on the family takes on many different forms, dependent on the attended target.
In the black community the government promised free money to pregnant women, with the caveat – if there is a man in the house or in your life no money will be forth coming. Solution, kick the man out – now Uncle Sam is your kids daddy. Providing a roof over your head, food on the table and cloths on your back.
Growing up, I actually heard conversations between black women regarding getting a raise by having another kid. Once you reach the AFDC ceiling, you aren’t concerned about getting pregnant – there are plenty of places to get free abortions.
But in reality the women and kids are damaged psychologically. The kids act out based on this damage. Which has manifested itself in the current trend of senseless violence throughout the US.
Basically one of the main problems in the Black community can be summarized as thus:
Zaire67 on September 5, 2011 at 1:19 PM
<a href=" “>
Zaire67 on September 5, 2011 at 1:20 PM
Lets try that again;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B5W4lq_LmU
Zaire67 on September 5, 2011 at 1:21 PM
When hiring people I always found that single people with no kids were more dedicated to their careers. Once a guy had a wife who wanted him home, kids with little league games, and a house that needed maintenance he was more likely to be out of the office by 5PM than put in the extra hours that projects and promotions often require.
dedalus on September 5, 2011 at 2:01 PM
There are certain issues of definitions, here. I’m a big fan of that kind of secular social conservatism, but others would reject it for the simple fact that you made no explicit reference to religion.
Count to 10 on September 5, 2011 at 5:05 PM
Petty much. It’s more symbolic, the left marking it’s territory, than it is a direct cause of anything itself.
Count to 10 on September 5, 2011 at 5:09 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »