American twilight — 4
by Felipe Zapata
Over half (53%) of babies born in America to women under 30 are illegitimate.
Among blacks, that figure is a whopping 70 percent. America as a whole births 41% of its children to single mothers nowadays.*
Countless studies have shown that these children, far more often than babies born to married couples, end up in poverty and suffer from behavioral, emotional and other pathologies.
Unwed mothers who are poor and uneducated simply do not know any better. They were raised in and perpetuate fractured cultures.
Unwed mothers who aren’t poor and who are educated often do it simply because they want to. They subscribe to the feminist fantasy: A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.
Their babies go directly to daycare, raised by semi-literate hirelings. These occasional moms see their children on weekends and think:
How progressive I am!
A related issue is that of gay couples adopting babies. While this may delight the same-sex parents, it is not good for the babies. Children want normalcy. They want a mother and a father.
Kids don’t want to be part of social breakthroughs. They are not interested in storming the cultural barricades. The last thing a child wants is to be different, to be pointed at.
And while interracial couples should have the right to marry, their children, I am convinced, run a significantly higher chance of inner conflicts throughout their lives for the same reasons.
Rainbows are lovely in theory but, as we all know, the pots of gold don’t exist.
* * * *
* Figures from Child Trends.
(Note: This is the fourth in an occasional series about the ongoing collapse of the United States of America.)
(Comments have been closed on this post.)
The rot from within . . .
Paty: Yep.
The need for daycare is not isolated to single, unwed mothers. The cost of raising a family has far surpassed the ability of a single wage earner to provide. Unless you are of the silver spoon culture, both parents must work. Ergo: daycare.
It was not always thus. Not many decades ago one parent (usually dad) worked while the other (usually mom) stayed home, raised the kids, washed the floors and made pot roasts. Dad made enough money to pay the mortgage, buy a new car every three or four years, provide food and clothing, pay for a two week vacation every year and put their 2.3 kids through university without student loans which had not even been invented. This was “normal” back then.
Things have changed amigo. We now have the “Greedy Bastards” otherwise known as the “1%” who skim so much off the top that there is no longer enough left to pay workers enough to provide decent lives for their families. Now mom and dad both work and do not know what a vacation is.
As for your other statements, I have no more hair to pull out!
Well, Croft, as you might have suspected, I do not blame “greedy bastards” for today’s situation. At least not the “greedy bastards” you are thinking of.
It is still possible to support a family of, say, four on one wage. Not easily, of course. Most families in which both parents work do so because they want as many of the material things available today as they can get. They want the nice cars (two minimum, of course), the nice houses, the elegant clothes, etc.
If you want to live on a single income and always have a parent at home (preferably the mother), you can still do so. It’s certainly not easy, but it can be done. People do it.
They live simply.
But this post is primarily about the appalling illegitimacy rates.
PS. One has to choose. Your children or iPhones?
Ditto.
I meant the ‘ditto’ to Croft’s comment …… not yours.
Then ditto my response to Croft to you too. Children or iPhones! A tough call for most these days. iPhones usually win.
Before we wander totally off the reservation here into one-percenters and the need for daycare, let me repeat the topic of the post: rampant illegitimacy, which comes either from cracked corners of the American culture on one side or trendy beliefs on the other side.
The first fount is, I believe, virtually unsolvable. Half-witted, uneducated teenagers and drug-addled young people in urban ghettos. The second fount, trendy beliefs that single motherhood is a desirable thing, is a bit easier to deal with, though nobody much seems to be trying to do so.
Save the economic and political conflicts for another day, please.
Buenos dias amigo…I have never seen as many illegitimate kids as I see here in MX…some of the mothers look as though they’re 13 or 14 years old at most…selling chiclets on the streets with their newborns in tow…very sad to me, but I long ago gave up on trying to save the world…when you mix unbridled Catholicism with a lack of education this is the result.
As for children needing both a mother and father at home, I disagree with you there of course…some of the most well-adjusted, open-minded, least prejudiced kids I have known were raised by same-sex couples…que tengas un buen dia!
Like Charles says….. American studies have shown that kids do better with two parents. The sex of those parents has little bearing.
Yes, countless studies show kids do better with two parents, and the sex of the parents does make a difference, all the difference in the world.
You are nor researching your answers my friend. Your argument was put to rest when a right wing group quoted a study to a Congressional hearing on same sex marriage. They stated the study showed the same as you indicated but under cross examination it was shown to actually state the opposite, that the sex of the parents had little if any, effect. It was an embarrassment for the right and a big feather in the cap of Senator Al Franken who exposed the lie. You really must expand your news gathering beyond FOX News.
Croft: Citing Al Franken as a source is akin to someone on the far right citing Rush Limbaugh (or worse) as a source, so I remain unconvinced.
If you wish to think that children do not prefer a real mother and a real father to two gay dads or two lesbian mothers, I release you to continue in that thought pattern.
I, on the other hand, do not buy it.
Anyway, “studies” can be, and often are, manipulated to say whatever one wants them to “prove.”
I agree the “Babies Having Babies” problem is exploding. I found out at my 40th High School reunion that there actually was one (and only one) of my classmates who was quietly removed because she was pregnant. It was so well covered up at the time that few people knew and none talked. This was in a very large school with thousands of kids. Pregnancy was almost unheard of (as was sex). Nowadays, schools have daycare rooms to look after the multitude of fatherless little kids.
What is the answer? Well, we know the “aspirin between the knees” trick does not work and neither does the “Abstinence Pledge”. In fact illegitimacy rates are much higher in the bible thumping States which promote these methods of birth control. And that is the answer, at least one of them. Ready access to birth control. We had an argument in our town up here in Canada when a group of “Churchgoing” parents wanted the condom dispensers removed from out local high school’s washrooms. The move failed and the condoms remain. Is the birth rate lower in our schools? Probably, at least we do not have a daycare room.
The current pronouncements of the GOP Presidential candidates does not help the situation when they tell kids that “Masturbation is gay sex because it is sex with a man” and “birth control is another form of abortion”. This is the message we want our young people to receive?
Croft: I have not heard any GOP candidates saying masturbation is gay sex nor that birth control is another form of abortion. However, that latter would not surprise me in the slightest because, well, it’s true in a way.
If only there were a way to obligate the young and irresponsible to use birth control. I wish. Not sure condom machines in schools make much of an impact. Maybe.
Sorry. it was not a candidate but one of their big supporters.
“Now a “pastor” on the Christian Right is saying that masturbation is a form of homosexuality.
“Pastor” Mark Driscoll says that men need to stop masturbating because it’s a kind of homosexuality. In a booklet titled Porn-Again Christian: A Frank Discussion on Pornography & Masturbation for God’s Men, Driscoll of the Seattle-based Mars Hill Church says, “First, masturbation can be a form of homosexuality because it is a sexual act that does not involve a woman. If a man were to masturbate while engaged in other forms of sexual intimacy with his wife then he would not be doing so in a homosexual way. However, any man who does so without his wife in the room is bordering on homosexual activity, particularly if he’s watching himself in a mirror and being turned on by his own male body.”
The comment about birth control being a form of abortion came from one of Santorum’s spokespeople who was being questioned by a CNN anchor.
Croft: One thing we agree on is that the more extreme elements of the church people can get pretty nutty on occasion.
Well, you obviously knocked over the rice bowl on this topic. I listen to quite a few radio programs during the day and your topic was discussed a few weeks ago, and has the same percentage of responses as you have received. The issue of having to have two working parents is a choice that parents make. The decision is that you can either have a new car, jet ski and loads of electronics in the home, and necessitate a two income family or simply readjust your values to rear your children at home with a mother. The cost of day care now, is very expensive, and many families have found that the 2nd earner paid about 60 -70% of their take home pay for that luxury.
At least in Mexico the grandmother or others at home watch the kids as they run around without much supervision.
In California we had a neighbor down the street from us that had 4 children and a stay-at-home mom. The way they made it was by driving 10 to 15 year old cars, living in a 1000 sq foot house,and not paying for cable tv, ($50-150), cell phones ($40-75), newspaper subscription ($20), club memberships, etc., etc.
The father worked at an average job, and I always saw that he carried a lunch box to work. I also am pretty sure that he didn’t stop by Starbucks daily for a $2 dollar coffee each day.
The best thing is that the kids were well mannered, clean, well dressed, educated and had a good attitude with the neighbors, unlike the kids that were down the block with a single parent, running around getting into trouble by breaking into cars and getting suspended from school a lot.
Personal choices stemming from sex, to people that you hang around with, family values and role models have more to do with how the result will be and how it will be passed to future generations. Thank God, many families have figured out that they can no longer afford all the toys that the consumption nation has foisted onto them as necessities.
But the government will continue to push for programs that will enslave and make dependence something which will be regarded as normal, as each generation can attest to. In my mind “greedy corporations” are no different than “controlling government” in the fact that they both try to control from cradle to the grave. I take my hat off to people who have liberated themselves from control from either and make the proper choices for what is right for them.
Tancho: You speak the truth. Most families can live on one income. They just don’t want to. It’s a matter of priorities. The iPhones win.
By the way, I don’t think you can get a Starbucks coffee for two bucks. Isn’t it closer to four bucks?
Are you saying that you think birth control is another form of abortion?
Loulou: Nah, I’m a big fan of birth control. However, birth control does keep a baby from coming out, so I can certainly see how an opponent of abortion could use that line of reasoning.
“However, birth control does keep a baby from coming out”
So does abstinence. I thought that was the whole point! Stop babies from coming out!
No need for a sarcastic response. I know this is not your position.
Croft: I am never sarcastic! I’m biting, sharp and pointed. And, of course, usually right on.
But more than anything, I am fun!
Who caught them in the lie is irrelevant. The fact that the study proved the opposite to what they presented is the important point.
I really don’t think you should be judging women who raise a kid without the father around. What about the fathers who aren’t interested? You didn’t mention the deadbeat dads. I agree with you that it is best for both parents to be present and actively engaged.
My nephew is getting that. He is not sent to daycare at all. My brother parents him all day and then he goes to work at night. My sister-in-law works during the day, and parents all the night shift. My nephew is a bright, fun little boy.
Celeste: Your nephew is a lucky boy. Would that all children had such good parents.
Unfortunately fear, either that of being impolite or worse, often keeps people from making the obvious observations you made.
In our opinion, attempts to refute your assertions are mostly unsustainable.
Also, while some of the greatest successes of American society are owed to diversity; we find it incredible that the phenomena of decreased family unity and the resultant social problems are rarely attributed to integration.
Gerson: Thanks. I agree with you.
Coincidentally, look what popped up in my blog reader today from one of the most brilliant men ever.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/02/22/the_fairness_fraud_113204.html
“Even if additional tax revenue all went to poor single mothers — which it will not — the multiple problems of children raised by poor single mothers would not be cured by throwing money at them. Indeed, the skyrocketing of unwed motherhood began when government welfare programs began throwing money at teenage girls who got pregnant. Children born and raised without fathers are a major problem to society and to themselves. There is nothing “fair” about increasing the number of such children.”
Thanks, Becky. Yep, Professor Sowell is one of the sharpest guys out there.
Becky: As you likely know, the American poverty situation is virtually equal, percentage-wise of the population, today to what it was back in the 1960s when the “War on Poverty” began.
All those gazillions of dollars thrown down the drain.
Whoops!
The rise of illegitimacy has little to do with the urban myth of welfare for single moms. Everyone who bothers to dig knows that welfare pays very little for children in poverty, hence, they remain in poverty. The sexual revolution that came with the rise of contraceptives gave women a sense of ownership of their bodies, which led to the dissolution of marriage as an institution. At the same time that sex was liberated from child bearing, America was the most prosperous nation on earth. Women felt little incentive to remain in an economic union with a husband when women were gaining footholds of economic independence. Those income gaps plateaued. Children, again, become poorer as a result of single parent households, as has been the case historically for centuries. Family disintegration is a major reason for poverty in Africa and Latin America. And welfare plays no or little part in those regions.
Christianity gets a lot of bad press. However, when Christian values were the norm in Europe and the US, marriages were stable. Children were better off. Women had more protection in general in Christian societies than any on earth.
And please, I don’t need anyone to castigate me that I am looking on the surface, and that I have not done my homework.
This is my opinion. If you don’t agree, let’s debate the issues, rather than denigrate me personally.
As far as gay parenting, I agree with Felipe. Most children in my career long for a father and mother figure. That’s been a key to stable societies for centuries. I see no reason why the current fad of same-sex couples raising children will bring any good. If anything, it teachs gender and role confusion, which is harmful for young children.
Laurie: That’s an excellent take on the situation! A tip of the sombrero in the direction of Honduras.
Now why, pray tell, do you think you would be denigrated here, personally or otherwise? Doesn’t happen to anybody in this corner of cyberspace because I don’t let it happen.
We stay polite here, or we go out the door. Zoom!
I am not a zealot for “freedom of speech.”
One more thing. Though I am not a Christian and never have been, I am a huge fan of Christianity, speaking broadly, and agree that Christian values, practiced correctly, are very good things.
What is called Judeo-Christian values is to be promoted everywhere.
There is a huge difference between Christianity and Christian Values. The basic so called Christian values can be practiced by anyone and called anything you like, they are just common decency and respect for our fellow man. The teachings of the bible are quite the opposite, calling for the killing of just about everybody.
Like you Felipe, I have never been a christian nor have I ever followed any religion. I would however put my morality up against even the most “religious” person. You do not need a wizard peeking out from behind a cloud to keep you on the straight and narrow. In fact a person who can do it without this “fear of god” may just have the upper hand on this morality thing. We do things because they are the right thing to do, not because we think we might go to hell if we don’t. None of us however, is perfect but “sin” must be defined before we can say we are all sinners. Or Not.
And yet one more thing: I never mentioned welfare in the original post. The issue, which I agree is not the cause of soaring illegitimacy rates, first appeared in the comments, and not by me.
I’m not sure how you connect gay parenting to illegitimate children. The two issues are about as related as the cost of automobile repair and the need to preserve bluefin tuna. Non sequitur.
But I will say this. Gays NEVER have children accidentally. No, they have to go to considerable efforts to have children. This ensures that all of their children are very much wanted, and will thus be carefully nurtured and looked after.
And a gay couple raising children are far ahead of straight alcoholics on the verge of divorce.
Saludos,
Kim G
Boston, MA
Kim: Perhaps the segue from the primary thrust of the post (illegitimate children) to the two other child-related issues I tacked on at the end was not as smooth as it might have been.
Their connecting thread is simply what’s best for children and what’s happening in American society these days.
Of course, gays never have children accidentally. You’re a funny guy.
Yes, gays have to go to extreme lengths, I imagine, to adopt, probably due to attitudes such as mine. And yes, a gay couple would be ahead in the parental desirability department of straight boozers on the verge of divorce. And a gay couple would be better than Charles Manson and one of his girlfriends. Better than Marilyn Manson too. One could come up with scads of “worse” options.
But children (at least till they become adolescents and often actually want to be pointed at) are monumentally self-conscious about being “different.” They crave normality.
And a stable mother and father of opposing genders is far more normal (and you know what “the norm” means) than two fathers or two mothers who would be real attention grabbers dropping off Junior at the door of grade school.
Children are brutally unkind, as you know.
I can see how gay couples would want to adopt a child, but from most any child’s point of view a less attention-grabbing scenario would almost always be preferable.
When choosing adoptive parents, I think that following the straight and narrow is in the best interest of the children.
There are lots of kids who would like to be adopted and are not, lots, many reasons for this and one might just be how hard we make it for same sex people to adopt. Living in foster care where in many cases the child is little more than a meal ticket or with a couple people who want to raise a family who happen to be gay. We live in a hard world, we can do things better.
Norm: I have read conflicting reports over the years that say there are more kids available than people looking to adopt and also that there are more people looking to adopt than children available. I’m not sure which is correct.
When I say I don’t think it’s a good idea to give children to gay couples, I’m envisioning this: The choice is between a stable, heterosexual couple with decent incomes on one side and a stable gay couple with decent incomes on the other side, perhaps like that nice gay couple on the TV series Modern Family with the comotose adopted Vietnamese baby.
When all things are pretty much equal apart from the sexual orientation, I think giving the kid to the straight couple is the best option 100 percent of the time for the reasons I’ve already stated.
But, as you say, we do live in a hard world, and the choices often are not so cut and dried.
There are over a thousand kids waiting on the foster list here in NE Ohio, all of color, or ones with problems of a social or physical nature. The list has been as much as 4000 but there has been a real push here to find “real” homes for the kids who can not live with whoever brought them into this world.
American twilight indeed on so many levels. When a Nation rejects the very principals that made it a great country decay follows.
When a government gives money to people and tells them we will take care of you what incentive is there to work and better your situation. More kids more money.
My step-daughter who starting having kids at 16, is finally getting it. She has lived on welfare most of her adult life. Now she is very close to getting her nursing decree. Unfortunately she married someone who thinks welfare is fine and watches TV all day. The kids are out of control.
Kids need stable parents who share the same values and work together as a unit in the home. A father needs to be a man and take care of his family.
Jackie: As usual, I agree with you on all counts. And it sounds like you’re about the sharpest member of your family.
There are far too many rules in place to prevent good adoptive families from getting kids.
When we were young with a one year old, we had a social worker for a neighbor. We told him that we would take emergency placements any time he needed one. Many times we got a knock on the door at 1:00 to 3:00 in the morning with our friend handing us a baby or very small child who had been rescued from a car parked outside the local bar. We would get up, bathe and feed the child and put him/her to bed in fresh diapers we kept for the occasion. These babies would be picked up in the morning only to be handed back to the parents. It was heartbreaking but that is the way it was. It was only a matter of time before these “parents” forgot that it was 20 below and killed the child by locking him in the car.
Another time he asked if we could care for a three month old who had been abandoned in the maternity ward of the local hospital. This time we would have him until a foster family could be found. He was a great, well behaved, loving kid whose mother was First Nations and whose father was obviously not. The mother checked in under a phony name the same night she gave birth and when she saw the baby was half Japanese fisherman decided it best not to take him home. She disappeared into the night thinking up a story to tell her husband..
We had the baby for a month or so while a more permanent home was sought. Eventually we decided we wanted to keep him and started to go through the adoption process. We were refused because, although we were the “normal” family unit of male and female, the baby was too close to the age of our own child (8 months difference and the limit was 12 months) so we were refused. The boy went into the Foster Care system.
Because we had a child, we were not the “perfect” selection for adoptive parents, the same as today when a same sex couple would not be. I would like to hear anyone tell us that the child would be better off in the Foster system than with either with us and a brother almost the same age as him or a loving same sex couple. Either situation would have been much preferable to the future he faced.
These are the kids that end up being unadopted. The white, blue eyed, blonde babies get snatched up right away and good for them. It is the others who suffer. Lets give then a chance them a chance to become part of a loving family even if they have two dads or two moms. There are thousands of couples out there wanting kids who do not fit the State imposed cookie cutter image of a perfect “family”.
I hope all these brainless idiots with the dead fetus bumper stickers are first in line at the adoption agencies to take one of these kids whose right to be born they defend so vocally. If they are not, they are the worst kind of hypocrites because these lives they say they are defending are the same kids who ended up getting thrown out with the thrash in one way or another. They can’t have it both ways, demand they be born and then leave them in the gutter while they go on to their next crusade.
Croft: We are of one mind! I believe that one cause of my recalling there were more parents seeking children than children available comes from this. It’s not that children are not available so much as it is the often insurmountable red tape that keeps potential parents from adopting.
Also, many adoption agencies, especially those run by governments, are heavily staffed by minorities, blacks more often than not, and these people mightily resist placing minority children with white parents. One hears all manner of goofy justifications. It keeps the kids from knowing their “roots,” etc. Poo-bah, I say.
And since, I believe I have read, far more whites want to adopt than do minorities, the minority kids stay unadopted.
I agree the Religious Right and their bumper stickers and opposition to abortion rights cause many serious societal problems.
I knew if we searched long enough, we would find agreement.
Croft: The middle ground is usually best, which is why I am a middle-of-the-road fellow.
The reluctance to place a different race kid with adoptive parents is a problem but there is also the general reluctance of parents to accept different race kids. Many parents want a child that looks like themselves, or put another way, as if it could be their natural child. They want details of the natural parents such as IQ, family medical records, etc. If this information is not available as in our case with the abandoned baby, there is a problem from both sides of the adoption process as the government also wants this same information and this can hold up or even prevent adoption and the child can spend years in the Foster system.