4 ms·

Children raised in single-parent homes, children born out of marriage, and rates of divorce all started skyrocketing in the 60s. The upper class has been less e

Children raised in single-parent homes, children born out of marriage, and rates of divorce all started skyrocketing in the 60s. The upper class has been less effected, as Charles Murray's book "Coming Apart" shows. Divorce, single-parenthood, and other symptoms of sexual liberation went up slightly for the upper class in the 60s and then leveled off. But in the lower classes the standard family has become the exception to the norm. Today, you have stats like this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103235/Most-children-U-S-born-wedlock.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103235/Most-childre... or this: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/health/13mothers.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/health/13mothers.html?_r=0 Again, I'm not saying porn or a less repressed culture are causative, but they are part of the syndrome we observe that sex is less serious and more pervasive, relationships are more temporary, and children grow up in more chaotic homes at a distinct disadvantage to children that grow up in stable homes. The family is disappearing for a large portion of the population. Marriage is later. Children are fewer - especially for the upper class. You have more wealth in the country and more children being raised in poverty by a single parent.

philwelch 14y ago
I think you're conflating two very different things. One is a growing bifurcation between rich and poor. The other is what you might call "sexual liberation", though it's much wider than that. For instance, a higher divorce rate is not necessarily bad. Decades ago, women had fewer rights in marriage and there was a cultural expectation for marriages to stay together, no matter how unhealthy, unhappy, or sometimes even abusive the marriage happened to be. As recently as the 1970's, the law had no concept of spousal rape--in other words, it was perfectly legal for a husband to rape his wife. Today, not only can women escape from marriages that are bad for them, but married couples can mutually agree that the marriage is no longer serving their or their childrens' needs. I also find little to complain about in a lower birthrate. The bifurcation by class is troubling, but the net trend is towards zero or negative population growth. This doesn't necessarily indicate the disappearance of family, but rather a slight adjustment from more of an r-selection strategy to more of a K-selection strategy. Conflating these issues as a "syndrome" is a little too simplistic and tendentious towards an ill-founded social conservatism.
- jacoblyles 14y ago
  I don't see how anybody could look at the social changes of the last 50 years and see all good or all bad. I don't. Certainly at some point the human population needs to stop growing or we will have to begin colonizing other planets. So a lower birthrate is in some ways good, even if it causes other problems. On the other hand, when couples decide that their marriage "is no longer serving ... their childrens' needs", they are most likely wrong. Children grow up with fewer problems if their parents stay together, on average. Easier divorce in cases of abuse is good. But how common is that out of the 50% of first marriages that break up? Divorce in cases of boredom have a high cost on children with little social benefit. In many ways we are better off than our parents and grandparents. But I don't think cheap sex and disposable relationships represent an advance.
  - illuminate 14y ago
    "I don't think cheap sex and disposable relationships represent an advance." Neither are new. The only difference is that the woman isn't shamed into poverty if she gets out of them without a shotgun marriage.
    - jacoblyles 14y ago
      The magnitude of it is new. The normalization of it is new. A marriage means a lot less than it used to. It's a status symbol, or a source of entertainment that can be disregarded when it no longer entertains.
      - illuminate 14y ago
        "The normalization of it is new. A marriage means a lot less than it used to. It's a status symbol, or a source of entertainment that can be disregarded when it no longer entertains." And thank goodness for that. You have an overinflated opinion of what marriage "used to mean". People having an out from abuse and misery is worth it all. Your efforts to shame the divorced are moralizing, not "for the children". Marriages are not happy because they're forced through law and social stigma. The option to leave is freedom.

philwelch 14y ago

I think you're conflating two very different things. One is a growing bifurcation between rich and poor. The other is what you might call "sexual liberation", though it's much wider than that. For instance, a higher divorce rate is not necessarily bad. Decades ago, women had fewer rights in marriage and there was a cultural expectation for marriages to stay together, no matter how unhealthy, unhappy, or sometimes even abusive the marriage happened to be. As recently as the 1970's, the law had no concept of spousal rape--in other words, it was perfectly legal for a husband to rape his wife. Today, not only can women escape from marriages that are bad for them, but married couples can mutually agree that the marriage is no longer serving their or their childrens' needs. I also find little to complain about in a lower birthrate. The bifurcation by class is troubling, but the net trend is towards zero or negative population growth. This doesn't necessarily indicate the disappearance of family, but rather a slight adjustment from more of an r-selection strategy to more of a K-selection strategy. Conflating these issues as a "syndrome" is a little too simplistic and tendentious towards an ill-founded social conservatism.

jacoblyles 14y ago
I don't see how anybody could look at the social changes of the last 50 years and see all good or all bad. I don't. Certainly at some point the human population needs to stop growing or we will have to begin colonizing other planets. So a lower birthrate is in some ways good, even if it causes other problems. On the other hand, when couples decide that their marriage "is no longer serving ... their childrens' needs", they are most likely wrong. Children grow up with fewer problems if their parents stay together, on average. Easier divorce in cases of abuse is good. But how common is that out of the 50% of first marriages that break up? Divorce in cases of boredom have a high cost on children with little social benefit. In many ways we are better off than our parents and grandparents. But I don't think cheap sex and disposable relationships represent an advance.
- illuminate 14y ago
  "I don't think cheap sex and disposable relationships represent an advance." Neither are new. The only difference is that the woman isn't shamed into poverty if she gets out of them without a shotgun marriage.
  - jacoblyles 14y ago
    The magnitude of it is new. The normalization of it is new. A marriage means a lot less than it used to. It's a status symbol, or a source of entertainment that can be disregarded when it no longer entertains.
    - illuminate 14y ago
      "The normalization of it is new. A marriage means a lot less than it used to. It's a status symbol, or a source of entertainment that can be disregarded when it no longer entertains." And thank goodness for that. You have an overinflated opinion of what marriage "used to mean". People having an out from abuse and misery is worth it all. Your efforts to shame the divorced are moralizing, not "for the children". Marriages are not happy because they're forced through law and social stigma. The option to leave is freedom.