Marriage is #1 Social Justice Issue, Not Race

[evoeth]

It might be better if single-income families were a viable thing again, and one parent could afford to actually stay home and raise the kids. I couldn't tell you quite how to go about doing that, though.

Single-income and dual-income families compete for the same real estate. And simply put, single-income households cannot afford homes in the same neighborhoods/school districts as dual-income homes because they are competing with them. That is a description of the current market realities. There is, in my opinion, no market based solution to alleviating that pressure.

Non-market solutions might involve government day care programs, government food programs, government subsidized college tuition for lower income households.

 

[zephcom]

Single-income and dual-income families compete for the same real estate. And simply put, single-income households cannot afford homes in the same neighborhoods/school districts as dual-income homes because they are competing with them. That is a description of the current market realities. There is, in my opinion, no market based solution to alleviating that pressure.

Non-market solutions might involve government day care programs, government food programs, government subsidized college tuition for lower income households.

And we all know that the American government would never subsidize anyone but the most wealthy among us......

 

[SPF]

It might be better if single-income families were a viable thing again, and one parent could afford to actually stay home and raise the kids. I couldn't tell you quite how to go about doing that, though.

Follow the statistics from the OP and you'll be on the right track! My wife and I did, and she stays at home raising our children while I type this from my office. Bottom line is that with enough motivation, determination, and a strong work ethic, anyone can "make it". For those of you who think otherwise, go watch Rudy.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And if one is part of that favored class, white male, one HAS to understand that not everyone else will reach our level of success just by following our footsteps. They just don't have the same terrain to walk on as we do.

I think most white men understand this.

Fix the inequality issues first, then make sweeping generalizations about how people should live.

Those 'sweeping generalizations' are the key to reducing inequality issues. Let's keep the horse in front of the cart.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Single-income and dual-income families compete for the same real estate. And simply put, single-income households cannot afford homes in the same neighborhoods/school districts as dual-income homes because they are competing with them. That is a description of the current market realities. There is, in my opinion, no market based solution to alleviating that pressure.

Non-market solutions might involve government day care programs, government food programs, government subsidized college tuition for lower income households.

One way government pays for welfare programs is through property taxes. Expensive homes produce more taxes so more expensive homes are permitted, thus pricing many out of the housing market (this also drives up the price of existing housing). So providing for the poor actually harms them when they look for 'affordable housing' to buy.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There's a lot of stuff going around today about race and racial inequality. The main idea seems to be that a person's race is the #1 hinderance that divides the country, but according to the research, that's not the case at all. It's marriage.

Single-parent households account for nearly ALL the incidences of childhood poverty.



According to a former Clinton domestic policy advisor, explained in the early '90s that if you don't want to live in poverty, then you need to do three things:

1) Graduate high school.
2) Marry before having kids.
3) Have that child after the age of 20.

The stats are staggering. Nearly 80% of people who fail to do those three will live in poverty.



Other interesting stats:

-Only 4% of married couples are on food stamps.
-78% of married couples own their own home.
-The poverty rate of cohabiting, non-married families is nearly the same as single mothers.

Source: http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/03...ice-imperative-marriage/#.Wf4Ih4HHlkE.twitter

Of course, this doesn't prove that race issues don't exist in this country, but I've always believed that it's not systematic racism, but classism that keep people down. I'm a white guy who grew up poor, and a lot of that was due to living with my single mom who could barely pay the bills. We lived with roommates who were abusive and the drug culture was big. It didn't matter if you were white, black, Hispanic, Asian, etc. Life was equally tough on all of us.

It also speaks to the precedence of God's rules concerning marriage and sex before marriage. Personal responsibility goes a long way. Buckle down, do your job, work hard, graduate and do things the right way, and you'll do fairly well.

Thoughts?

It does add a dimension to the racial discussion...especially regarding white privilege. Apparently, that white privilege doesn't seem to make that much difference in a single mother's life when compared to a married black couple.

That's a reason why looking at society through the lens of racial privilege doesn't seem to make much sense.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

There's a lot of stuff going around today about race and racial inequality. The main idea seems to be that a person's race is the #1 hinderance that divides the country, but according to the research, that's not the case at all. It's marriage.

Single-parent households account for nearly ALL the incidences of childhood poverty.



According to a former Clinton domestic policy advisor, explained in the early '90s that if you don't want to live in poverty, then you need to do three things:

1) Graduate high school.
2) Marry before having kids.
3) Have that child after the age of 20.

The stats are staggering. Nearly 80% of people who fail to do those three will live in poverty.



Other interesting stats:

-Only 4% of married couples are on food stamps.
-78% of married couples own their own home.
-The poverty rate of cohabiting, non-married families is nearly the same as single mothers.

Source: http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/03...ice-imperative-marriage/#.Wf4Ih4HHlkE.twitter

Of course, this doesn't prove that race issues don't exist in this country, but I've always believed that it's not systematic racism, but classism that keep people down. I'm a white guy who grew up poor, and a lot of that was due to living with my single mom who could barely pay the bills. We lived with roommates who were abusive and the drug culture was big. It didn't matter if you were white, black, Hispanic, Asian, etc. Life was equally tough on all of us.

It also speaks to the precedence of God's rules concerning marriage and sex before marriage. Personal responsibility goes a long way. Buckle down, do your job, work hard, graduate and do things the right way, and you'll do fairly well.

Thoughts?

The study does not take into account the systemic ways consumers are kept in poverty - through programs or legislation. It is a very large part of the problem that has been ignored for scores of years in the States, and the world economies respectively.

That is reality. Marriage certainly has incentives for tax reasons, but getting married does not automatically (or even seldom) constitute security. The statistic is inflated.


Unfortunately for the hyphenated Americans, for example, being a hyphenated American and being unmarried (especially with a kid) works more against them than marriage works for them. Again, this is because the study fails to get to the kernel of what causes poverty in groups and in the nation by trying to associate the issue with a lack of business unions/marriage.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Thoughts??? Sure, I have thoughts on the issue.

First, it is too bad that you attempted to minimize the elephant in the room...systemic racism. As a white guy, it is easy to say, "Buckle down, do your job, work hard, graduate and do things the right way, and you'll do fairly well." As a Black person, doing all those things can still get you shot and killed by the very people designated to protect you. And if not killed, you can get arrested for a (relatively) minor offense (think 'war on drugs') and face thirty years in prison unless you are white.

White people get sentenced for drug crimes and shot by cops as well. That's not unique to blacks. I've never heard of a cop finding an 8 ball on someone and saying "You know what? You're white...I'll just let this slide."

Second, I have no reason to question the statistics you presented. But I note you left out one of the more damaging statistics. Systemic racism as well as systemic sexism put single parents at a distinct disadvantage over the white male. I'm not going to look up the actual current disparity but I think you will this well within the ball park. For every dollar a white male earns, a white woman makes 87 cents, a Black man makes 78 cents and Black woman makes 48 cents.

Earnings and salary are not the same thing.

Third, no culture is fragmented into distinct issues which, if changed, will magically fix the problems a culture experiences.

Including racism.

A culture's issues and problems are intertwined. Single parent families are at a disadvantage because the single parent is almost always a woman who makes less money than the guy who help make the children. Those women make less money because we have a culture which allows employers to pay them less.

Earnings are not the same as salary.

Those same women who choose to take their pregnancies to full term and raise the children are not considered good marriage candidates because we have a culture which doesn't respect women who decide against abortion.

What?

These women don't usually have access to reasonably priced child care because we have a culture which values wealth over human compassion.

We are not doing fairly well because we refuse to see the plank in our own eyes. Rather we look at how we, as individuals, reached whatever level of success or non-success and assume that everyone else is just like us. They are not because our culture is designed from the ground up to favor some people over others.

Got any proof of this? Affirmative action definitely favors some people over others...what's the systemic equivalent that favors whites?

And if one is part of that favored class, white male, one HAS to understand that not everyone else will reach our level of success just by following our footsteps. They just don't have the same terrain to walk on as we do.

Fix the inequality issues first, then make sweeping generalizations about how people should live.

There will always be inequality...even on a level playing field. That's life.

 

[Paidiske]

Apparently, that white privilege doesn't seem to make that much difference in a single mother's life when compared to a married black couple.

Nor would you expect it to (intersectionality, and all that). You'd expect to see it, though, in different outcomes for white single mothers and single mothers of colour.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Nor would you expect it to (intersectionality, and all that). You'd expect to see it, though, in different outcomes for white single mothers and single mothers of colour.

And? If being a single parent has that big of an impact on success...then clearly it's a bigger issue than white privilege.

Now, I understand that isn't exactly comforting...after all, you can't blame society for your own choice to have a child. It's important though because it shows personal choices are a far bigger factor than any societal biases.

 

[Paidiske]

And? If being a single parent has that big of an impact on success...then clearly it's a bigger issue than white privilege.

Nor did I suggest otherwise. I was simply pointing out that when looking at privilege, you need to compare apples with apples.

Now, I understand that isn't exactly comforting...after all, you can't blame society for your own choice to have a child. It's important though because it shows personal choices are a far bigger factor than any societal biases.

Ah, yes, because there was never a man involved in the conception of that child! (And every conception occurs in a context in which it was a clear and freely chosen choice).

 

[Ana the Ist]

Nor did I suggest otherwise. I was simply pointing out that when looking at privilege, you need to compare apples with apples.

There's no such thing as an apples to apples comparison regarding privilege. There's simply too many biases that allow for all different types of privilege and their effects change from situation to situation. Anyone telling you differently is either lying or ignorant.

Ah, yes, because there was never a man involved in the conception of that child! (And every conception occurs in a context in which it was a clear and freely chosen choice).

In conception? Sure...a man has some choice regarding conception. We aren't talking about that though...we're talking about the decision to give birth. In my nation...and I'm pretty sure yours as well...that choice is ultimately the woman's.

 

[Paidiske]

Granted the question of whether to abort or not is generally the woman's. (Although I've seen plenty of instances of women being pressured by partners of family members into making a particular decision).

But, from a Christian point of view, abortion is not a moral option when there are viable alternatives. Women who carry unwanted pregnancies to term should be applauded and supported, not penalised.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Granted the question of whether to abort or not is generally the woman's. (Although I've seen plenty of instances of women being pressured by partners of family members into making a particular decision).

Sure...there's lots of pressure on men regarding what choices they're supposed to make regarding childbirth as well. That doesn't change the fact that it's the woman's decision.

But, from a Christian point of view, abortion is not a moral option when there are viable alternatives. Women who carry unwanted pregnancies to term should be applauded and supported, not penalised.

You're entitled to your opinion. Personally, I don't think there's anything commendable about giving birth to a child you aren't prepared to raise. I definitely don't think such behavior should be applauded.

 

[SolomonVII]

Adoption is a good option for those who love their children and made some bad choices along the way.

I think that there is everything commendable about the life of a child, and choosing life every time.
Christians generally see the face of God in every child, even a child in the womb. New life even smells like God's spirit.

Materialists see the child only in terms of an economic cost-benefit analysis.

That is stark.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Adoption is a good option for those who love their children and made some bad choices along the way.

I think that there is everything commendable about the life of a child, and choosing life every time.
Christians generally see the face of God in every child, even a child in the womb. New life even smells like God's spirit.

Materialists see the child only in terms of an economic cost-benefit analysis.

That is stark.

Seeing gods face or smelling his spirit doesn't put food in a child's mouth...money does.

That is reality.

 

[SolomonVII]

Seeing gods face or smelling his spirit doesn't put food in a child's mouth...money does.

That is reality.

Of course it is.
I am not denying the fiscal reality of life. Christians merely affirm the spiritual reality of life too.
Parents that love a child enough to see him live sacrifice their money in order to feed him.
It follows the same libertarian logic of guns don't kill people. Money doesn't feed kids either.

 

[evoeth]

Parents that love a child enough to see him live sacrifice their money in order to feed him.
It follows the same libertarian logic of guns don't kill people. Money doesn't feed kids either.

I'm fairly certain you just implied that everyone has the means to provide for a child.

I'm fairly certain that we all know plenty of examples in our lives where that's just not true.

 

[SolomonVII]

I'm fairly certain you just implied that everyone has the means to provide for a child.

I'm fairly certain that we all know plenty of examples in our lives where that's just not true.

I am pretty sure I didn't imply that.
Of course, to see that you would have actually had to have read that I had offered adoption as third way.