Monday, September 19, 2011

The Problem...Is Choice's Consequences

I think it's starting to dawn on more and more people that the choice mommy family model is not very well suited to an orderly, complex society:
There has been a good deal of media commentary recently on the riots in London and "flash mob" activity in Philadelphia and elsewhere in the US. Many...commentators have noted that the teens involved in the rioting were largely from single-parent homes. Given the recent dramatic increases in the number of single-parent families in U.S. society, a serious problem may be developing here as well. The cause of this developing problem has been assumed to be the lower economic status of single-parent families and the likelihood that the mothers raising these children are "overwhelmed." But decades of research on single-parent families in the U.S., almost all of them headed by women, have made it pretty clear that the problems of the children raised in these families have very little to do with poverty and very much to do with father absence. [There are] startling differences in the social health and academic achievement between those children raised without biological fathers in their homes as compared with children raised in intact, two-parent families, even when research results are adjusted for factors such as family income.
The data that confirms the objective superiority of the nuclear family model over the single-parent "choice mommy" family model has been available for a long, long time. It just apparently takes, well, decades for the edgy, modern zeitgeist to acknowledge that yes, there was significant wisdom embedded in the traditions of lifelong monogamous marriage and a model of family that consists of a bio father, a bio mother, and their children. Moreover, those that have gone before us weren't necessarily the ignorant rustics, racists, sexists, and reactionaries our conceited self-absorbed culture casts them as. They recognized, accepted, and lived out a knowing that we ignore to our own detriment.

Almost no one will claim that the investment of a mother is not important to the healthy development of a child. But our society seems to say, in word, in social habit, and as a function of government policy, that the investment of a father is not. Thus I find it curious that leaders such as President Obama and Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia, rather than acknowledging that fathers and men have been deemed irrelevant and therefore free to act as the fashionable accessories that they now are, instead choose to lambast men for their "irresponsibility". In other words, we say that mom is essential, dad is a nice-to-have luxury, but out of the same mouth, dammit, you men are irresponsible for abandoning those hapless women and the children you so recklessly sired:
...it is somewhat absurd to hold men accountable for the problem of father absence in the society as a whole. Today, women initiate somewhere between two-thirds and three-quarters of all divorces in the U.S. and get sole custody of the children in 85%-90% of the cases. So it is interesting...that well into our society's current era of equal rights, our instinct is still to protect women--even if it means that we must blame men for a problem over which they have virtually no control. [A]sking dads to be "responsible"--the popular but simplistic pitch now endorsed by President Obama -- doesn't scratch the surface of this problem. [emphasis mine]
While I agree with what the author has to say here, divorce, while symptomatic of the problem as a whole, is only part of the picture. For all over the culture we see evidence that couples are, well, coupling irresponsibly. And by "irresponsibly" I mean that they engage in congress without first marrying. Or bothering to marry after several sessions of congress have been held. Or failing to take their coupling seriously enough to give much thought to mate selection or, if they do marry, to hack their way through tough times.  The other, much larger part of the problem is indicated by the text that I bolded above. We as a society seem afraid to hold women--the poor, fragile dears--accountable for their lifestyle choices, whatever they may be. Instead of letting women be fully accountable and fully responsible for their choices, our society is structured to soft-pedal the consequences of women's choices and blame-shift the cost to someone else. Usually men or "society" in general.  And in doing so, we encourage more of the same irresponsible behavior that gets us the Milwaukee, Denver, Philly, and London riots.

The problem is choice...we have chosen to support, excuse, and even subsidize the choice mommy family model...and now we must deal with the unhappy and sometimes deadly consequences.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
MikeT said...

I cringe whenever I see libertarians celebrate "alternative lifestyles" because they're usually clueless about the extent to which such lifestyles are feasible only due to government intervention. A limited government society is one that invariably becomes more conservative because it has no choice.

Country Lawyer said...

I disagree.

The problem is not choice.

It is choice without consequences.

If people had choice and had to live with the consequences so that the wreckage of their lives was a warning to others, people would act differently.

remove the safety nets the government provides and suddenly more rational behavior will win out.

Despite my antipathy toward the churches because they have been irresponsible with their stewardship, it is the church and the church community alone that should provide the "safety nets" for people.

The church meddling in the domain of Caesar to get Caesar to meddle in the realm of the spiritual (for "Social Justice" reasons) has brought this upon us.

Until men realize that their protective instincts are a vice in our current society, none of this is going to be fixed.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Country Lawyer and would like to see the government allow "choices" to have consequences.

As a stay at home Wife, It bothers me very much that my Husband and Father of our child - works so hard not to just support our family but to be forced to support other families. "Families" generally headed by single women who have made "choices".

Stuki said...

Operationally, the way to ensure choices have consequences, is to allow people exits.

Instead of talking about exactly what "we" ought, and ought not, to do, the focus should be on letting people opt out of whatever as cheaply as possible. Politically, strong "states rights" is a beginning. Then "counties' rights" cities' rights, neighborhoods' rights, and finally, households' rights.

But at the very minimum, getting the Federal Government out of the way, and completely at that.

Walenty Lisek said...

Actually Mr. Wapiti the truth about single mommies is far more dangerous than that:

" A recent twin study has found that early menarche is predicted as strongly by a step-uncle’s presence as by a stepfather’s. “It does not seem necessary for a child to experience the direct environmental influence of a stepfather to exhibit an accelerated age of menarche—as long as she is genetically related to someone who does have a stepfather” (Mendle et al., 2006).

In other words, a woman may be more prone than others to early menarche, a high degree of female reproductive autonomy, and low expectations of paternal investment. It’s not as if she acquires this reproductive strategy from her childhood environment. Instead, she inherits it genetically from her mother and absent father. "

http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2011/08/evolution-and-human-behavior-towards.html

A lot of single mommies are that way because of BIOLOGICAL predisposition. That means the plague they create upon our society is inherent to their natures. The human pollution is born, not made.

Laura Grace Robins said...

"...our society is structured to soft-pedal the consequences of women's choices and blame-shift the cost to someone else."

This is why feminists love harping about choice. Choices are great, fun, and easy when you don't have to suffer the consequences. Often what is someone's choice is another's consequence.

I never got what is supposed to be so great or freeing about choices. They are a burden really. A good part of what makes childhood so carefree is that the parents make the hard choices and the parents bear the responsibility for those choices. Now we have modern women who have grown up in a sense to make their own choices, but the adults (men or society in general) still bear the responsibility.

Elusive Wapiti said...

@ Mike,

"I cringe whenever I see libertarians celebrate "alternative lifestyles" because they're usually clueless about the extent to which such lifestyles are feasible only due to government intervention."

Too true...and that is only because gov't intervention shields the libertine from the natural consequences of their actions.

@ Country Lawyer,

I think we're in agreement, actually. The title of my post is a little misleading...as I was riffing off of my "The Problem Is Choice" post not long ago.

@ Walenti,

I've seen that before, but only with a slightly different spin. The thesis of a research paper I read some time ago hypothesized that girls who spend a lot of time around unrelated males...such as in a PS or one who have a non-related adult male residing in the house with them...reach menarche at a much earlier age. That same article claimed that girls in the 1800s in frontier families started puberty much later and even had an average age of menarche of 15...3-4 years later than what is is now. The presence (or lack thereof) of male androstenones were thought to be the mechanism by which this phenomenon manifested itself.

So it is interesting to me to consider how choice mommy families are a triple-whammy of sorts: they hobble girls' and boys' ability to sustain long-term commitments, encourage precocious sexuality, esp in girls, and also set the conditions for early fertility in girls as well (thus helping perpetuate unwed teen pregnancy).

@ LGR,

"I never got what is supposed to be so great or freeing about choices. They are a burden really."

You would probably agree with me that the sort of "choices" so celebrated by the libertine Left aren't really choices at all...because the chooser is insulated from the consequences of their actions.

Only when consequences--good or ill--are directly connected with that choice can said act really be considered a "choice".

If someone else is stuck with the bill, that isn't a choice...it is a privilege.

Alan B said...

The reason they always blame the dad is because the politicians have made LAWS replacing the dads.
for them to admit that single mommyhood by choice is problematic is the same as admiting they (govt) has been making mistakes all these 50 years or so.
the federal govt (and all govt by ext) will never admit to making a mistake... it just creates another money sucking entity to try and offset the mistakes of the first monster they created... and so on and so on..