Summary:No matter where you stand on the politics of social welfare policy in America, it’s worth contemplating that it’s been shaped by entirely mainstream and deeply sexist antipathy towards men.
Lynn Gassiz-Sax, tackling the persistent notion that race rather than class is the largest determinant of single parenthood says
Jonathan Rauch, at Reason magazine (which, you may note, has a very different political perspective from any blog naming itself for the New Deal), also speaks of a widening marriage gap tied to class.
Some–many–unwed mothers and their children do fine. But the odds are stacked against them. Nearly three-fourths of children in single-parent families will experience poverty by age 11, as against only about a fifth of children in two-parent families. Cohabitation appears to be less stable than marriage, even after other factors are accounted for. Research by the ton finds that children raised in single-parent homes are at greater risk of poverty, school dropout, delinquency, teen pregnancy, and adult joblessness.
All those problems disproportionately affect blacks, but before you decide that race, rather than marriage, is the active ingredient in the witch’s brew, consider a few other points. First, poverty correlates more strongly with a family’s marital status than with its race. According to Census Bureau data, a two-parent black household is more likely to be poor than is a two-parent white household, but both are far less likely to be poor than is a mother-only household of either race. In other words, if you are a baby about to be born, your best odds are to choose married black parents over unmarried white ones.
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad freeSecond, recent research finds that, dire though the consequences of single parenthood often are for black children, the consequences tend to be even worse for white children.
Rauch sees to a vicious circle, in which the poor are less likely to marry, and single parent families more likely to remain poor. And he sees a rise in fatherless families, not just among black people, but among white people.
But what’s happening that would lead to a rise in fatherless families among the poor. Rauch, being of a libertarian inclination, points a finger, though tentatively, at the structure of welfare.
Source: Noli Irritare Leones
“But what’s happening that would lead to a rise in fatherless families among the poor. Rauch, being of a libertarian inclination, points a finger, though tentatively, at the structure of welfare.”
Startling as it might seem, this is an area where based on the history of welfare policy I actually agree with Rauch! As far back as the whites-only, entirely private-sector “welfare” agencies of the late 19th Century and early 20th, there’s been an extraordinary aversion to providing support for families with a) a even relatively able-bodied man in the house who b) whatever reason isn’t working.
If it wasn’t so fucking appalling some of the stories of Victorian-era bed checks, and the escape hatches and hidey-holes nominally “abandoning” fathers used to avoid them, would be hilarious.
Anyway, while I agree completely that the primary determinant is class, if for no other reason than that better off families are rarely on public or private assistance. But there’s a deeply, well, mainstream sexism-against-men element as well.
The fact remains, however, that while there really are fathers who abandon their families, far more nominally single fathers remain in touch not only with their children but with their partners as well.
The problem of single parenthood are very real. But they’re problems that are exacerbated by deep social bias that I swear boils down to objections to “raising another man’s children.” As if social policy amounted to cuckoldry!
I’d add that in addition to men being obliged to make the appearance of abandoning their families, there’s also the obligation of their partners to decry them up and down in the most inauthentic and consequently hyperbolic tones.
Anyway, the gendered expectation that men are and must be primarily breadwinners, enough so that support for their partners and children should be institutionally withheld should they fail to do so, runs very, very deep.
Yeah that mention in the Moby Dickery post reminded me of a curiosity I had the other day.
Has anyone ever seen a man use a WIC voucher?
@scandalousmuffin I think the relevant section of my reply is as follows: But what’s more perverse is the gap in the utility of the family of four… still half the family members are children, but there’s a dramatic drop in social support between a group where 80% of the adults are female, and a group where 50% of the adults are female. It’s not just single parents over single adults… single parents have effectively better support than two-adult-two-child families. Yes, children add to living expenses… if you’d note that’s why I rely on the multiplier to calculate effective utility… Statistics… Read more »
@Schadrach “You have to watch, because a lot of it isn’t in the legislation as written, but in the procedures, training, jurist biases, etc that support the execution of that legislation.” The author should still have included examples of court cases or other public documents. If you make a generalized assertions about de facto or de jure policy (i.e. they are “draconian”) you need to provide evidence. @Valerie. “In every case the single parent has higher utility than the single adult.” Isn’t that the way social welfare is supposed to work? Because children are people and they cost more. Also,… Read more »
By the way, I’m fundraising for Get Back On Your Feet to run my next marathon… not that I want to solicit on someone else’s blog without their permission, but with Ozy’s blessing if people were interested in helping a charity for the homeless then I’d share the donation info.
@scandalousmuffin: “This post needs concrete examples of sexist legislation.” You have to watch, because a lot of it isn’t in the legislation as written, but in the procedures, training, jurist biases, etc that support the execution of that legislation. The stuff that Thomas James Ball called “The Second Set of Books” in his Last Statement (an essay he sent to a local paper before self-immolating on the steps of his local courthouse), are where most of the problematic stuff lies. The devil is in the details, as they say. I’d link the essay, but aside from the website of said… Read more »
@figleaf, Jack London wrote that book at the turn of the century, basically right at the very tail end of the Victorian era and a few decades before the depression. I don’t know of a similar book from earlier in the era and I wouldn’t be surprised if London’s tale of social activism was the first of it’s kind (I could be wrong). This particular book is nonfiction and follows his experiences in voluntarily joining homeless men in London and living alongside them for a while. It’s very harrowing and written in the same epic style as London’s other works.… Read more »
@scandalousmuffin <iThis post needs concrete examples of sexist legislation. Otherwise the discussion will devolve into “I know this guy and the system boned him so hard.” Well, we could point out that single parent payment differentiation has a higher level of utility than that of 2 parent or childless-single households, since women are disproportionately single parents… (not even mentioning the inequities in family court) Let’s use the following assumptions from Statistics Canada: For every dollar required by a self-maintaining single adult, an additional child added to the family unit will require 30 cents, and an additional adult will require 40… Read more »
@dungone: “read up some more on the history of our Victorian/Protestant society to really understand where our current policies come from.” First of all yes, definitely, what we need more than anything are policies geared towards helping families instead of harping on “women and children.” Even in the U.S. the world has changed enough that conservatives ought to be able to get that. Second, as for the history of current policies, I say in my original post that Victorian-era negative attitudes towards men drove first private sector charity policies and later public social welfare policies. I’m pretty sure we have… Read more »
This post needs concrete examples of sexist legislation. Otherwise the discussion will devolve into “I know this guy and the system boned him so hard.”
On an off-note, I hate libertarians claiming to have a monopoly on “reason.” *coughDrewCareycough*
@figleaf, I knew you were going to harp on cuckoldry, but it’s very misleading. To the extent that the “raising another man’s children” has something to do with it has to be taken together with the context of other social policies or the lack thereof that make this a problem. First of all, we’re talking about antagonism towards existing policies that benefit women and children only, either explicitly or implicitly. We’re not talking about opposition to social policies such as those in Germany, that favor families and include the father. Those policies that support intact families aren’t about raising another… Read more »
@The Colour of Heartache: “Could you please explain what this means”
That should have been “as if social policy amounted to institutional aversion to cuckoldry.” Sorry about that.
I guess it in short refers to statements like this:
“Why should the taxes I pay be used to pay for someone else’s child”.
This view is not limited to conservative traditionalists, but have also been voiced by some feminists in discussions around “paper abortions” for men.
Could you please explain what this means:
“The problem of single parenthood are very real. But they’re problems that are exacerbated by deep social bias that I swear boils down to objections to “raising another man’s children.” As if social policy amounted to cuckoldry!”
thank you for posting this. I’ve seen the Republican canard about marriage and always thought, well, whatever. But it’s really the assumption that the man is the breadwinner that’s the key, and the cuckold aspect — we’d be raising another man’s children for him for free — that drives it.
Very, very, true…
The best attack on the wage gap is to remove the unnecessary scarcity and the fear that surrounds working-class people. And yet, you’re not going to hear Peggy Drexler, for example, talk about the Guaranteed Annual Income… too many people who are (kinder gentler 2nd wave) feminists-for-a-living make it all about the professional class…
Ultimately, I’m not surprised.
There’s no denying that that old bullshit Protestant work ethic (“Shit happens because YOU DON’T WORK HARD ENOUGH”) is pretty deeply encoded in a lot of things we take for granted. I sometimes wonder if the current economic crisis might not constitute a teachable moment for our culture on that point. After all, it’s often said and even more often implied that people who don’t have jobs are lazy and irresponsible. This theory can only be maintained today if it comes with an explanation of how, since 2008, around 14,000,000 people have gotten a lot more lazy and irresponsible.