A Thomist learns to party on.
You know, that graph would be a lot more useful if the colors in the legend actually matched any of the colors in the bar chart. I assume that the bars are in the same order as in the list in the legend, but I'd never know it from the colors. The think I wonder about is the direction of causality. Are people better to their children because they are married? Or is it that people who are likely to abuse children are also likely to abuse other adults, and so their partners are more likely to dump them? And so they are also the ones who are least likely to be able to get (and stay) married?
I agree, the colors are horrible.As for the causality argument, I saw that one made in the comments of the article where the rage against the graph was palpable. A few minutes of thought dismisses that objection as you realize that it's the culture of marriage first, babies second, self-denial and sacrifice for others that leads to success. A few moments googling things like prison population stats as a function of history proves the point.In the past, we did not approve of sex outside of marriage. Now we do. The results are obvious.Pre-empting the next objection, yes, I know premarital sex has always happened, but clearly it wasn't nearly as common.
There is a saying if a man loves his wife, he will love his children. This does not imply the idea of forced marriage. Rather stating the idea of promoting conditions healthy relationships to encourage marriage rates. Unfortunately as I saw on Twitter with the #yesallwomen hashtag, someone will try to make the claim you support spousal rape and banning divorce.There is the clear domestic abuse issue which any abuse will not be tolerated, but a lot of divorces are about being passive-aggressive and spiteful. We get into our arguments, but on an average day you should be nice and courteous to one another. Like the Pope said, Please, Thank You & I'm Sorry goes a long way! Now the government can't not be a relationship councilor. We have a culture that has weakened relastionship overall. Government can help with aspects of home-economics, but relationships no.
"True Believers: A polyamorous family on living with multiple partners, without sacrificing the comforts of home." NBC News
Actually, looking at the whole thing, the causality argument is mentioned in the article itself, not just in the comments (3rd paragraph after Figure 7):"For women, part of the story is about what social scientists call a “selection effect,” namely, women in healthy, safe relationships are more likely to select into marriage, and women in unhealthy, unsafe relationships often lack the power to demand marriage or the desire to marry. Of course, women in high conflict marriages are more likely to select into divorce."The authors seem to agree that this is an important factor.
"Are people better to their children because they are married?"That's a silly question, similar to the Clinton Conundrum: "are neighborhoods safer because people who live there own their homes?"We know how that worked out.Individuals "in unhealthy, unsafe relationships often lack the power to demand marriage or the desire to marry". And why?Because institutions and individuals whom they trust and upon whom they rely tell them it makes no difference and that to advocate otherwise is religious, sexual, or racial "oppression".
I'm with you, SA. I would bet the chart has always looked this way. The big difference is the number of people in each group has changed as we've fallen for the secular moral relativist line of garbage that tells us we can all do our own thing and do just fine.This chart, by the way, was never, ever shown in any of my daughter's high school classes. Also, look at the rage in the comment section when it was shown in the WaPo. It's blasphemy for our modern culture.
Weddings aren't getting more expensive, the poor just aren't marrying which affects the "average".
"it's the culture of marriage first, babies second, self-denial and sacrifice for others that leads to success."Well yes, but that's not my point, now is it? My point is that (for example) an abusive layabout married to a feckless dingbat are most likely going to abuse their kids (and each other) and everybody's going to end up screwed up pretty thoroughly. And if they are forced to stay married (either by law or by peer pressure), then you'll just end up with a horrible family where everybody hates each other. While if they divorce they'll still be screwed up, but in slightly different ways, and will skew the statistics to make it look like parents being unmarried is what screws up kids.And I base this on what I saw when I was a kid in a rural community, where the social pressure against divorce was high, and so hardly anybody did it. And to hear other people talk, about half of the families had parents that hated each other, fought constantly when they weren't avoiding each other, and let their kids run wild to become dropouts, dopers and thugs (of whom there were many). But the parents were still married, so it was fine, right?
Post a Comment