Do "Family Values" Weaken Families?

[skyrick]

T

The country's lowest divorce rate belongs to none other than Massachusetts, the original home of same-sex marriage. Palinites might wish that Massachusetts' enviable marital stability were an anomaly, but it is not. The pattern is robust.

States that voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in both 2004 and 2008 boast lower average rates of divorce and teenage childbirth than do states that voted for the Republican in both elections. (That is using family data for 2006 and 2007, the latest available.)

Six of the seven states with the lowest divorce rates in 2007, and all seven with the lowest teen birthrates in 2006, voted blue in both elections. Six of the seven states with the highest divorce rates in 2007, and five of the seven with the highest teen birthrates, voted red. It's as if family strictures undermine family structures.

Interesting article. I'm sure it'll be casually dismissed by most here, but food for thought.

Jonathan Rauch: Do 'family values' weaken families? | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Opinion: Points

[Bunty]

I guess family values vary from state to state. A lot of Oklahoma teen girls who have sex know exactly what they're doing. They want to go for a baby. Once that's done the young high school father can just go back to his video games, playing ball or hanging out.

[PennyQuilts]

I think you need to look to the culture and laws in Massachusettes to really get an idea of what contributes to a lower divorce rate and lower teen childbirth rate. Could be any number of things and it would be interesting to know what they are.

One thing I will tell you is that many of the blue states, particularly in New England, are in states that not only have a high education rate - they have a high work ethic and a very low poverty rate with its attendant welfare mentality. And that tends to lead to exactly the sorts of results you described (low divorce and teen births).

Frankly, it is easy to be a liberal in that enrivonment because you don't see the results of feeding the ducks on a daily, hourly basis, and more importantly, you don't realize that not everyone thinks and lives the same way you do. The folks I've met from blue states tend to have no fricking clue - not really - that in some areas, people don't work, don't go to school, don't get married, and spit out babies like there is no tomorrow. And not seeing that lifestyle, upclose and personal, they are quick to assume that anyone who doesn't want to encourage that is over reacting. Let 'em live a couple of years in a high welfare area and then let them come talk to me.

But that being said, I think preaching family values is just the other side of the coin - it comes from people whose personal values reflect what they are preaching and they think that they can just tell other people how to live and give them a roadmap and it will make a difference. I think the difference is that in the blue states skyrick mentioned, they assume everyone is living "right" anyway. All they have to do is look out their door to see that. In the family value crowd, they know good and well (because they live among them) that there a huge segment of our population that is NOT "living right" with the predictable results.

And no question that Oklahoma has a high teenage birthrate as compared to other places. I think preaching the gospel to our young people has limited impact given the overall social culture. Teen births have always happened - we know that. And when young people realize this isn't the way to go and take concrete steps to care for that child and try to make better decisions thereafter, it is not the end of the world.

However, the ones spitting out babies without taking concrete steps to keep from repeating a mistake and who go down a road that will end in heartache, drama and poverty are a whole different landscape. Oklahoma has its share of both types. We have a history of early marriages but that doesn't mean they have to be bad parents. But we have a bunch of idiots drifting through life seeking personal happiness leaving a trail of broken families, miserable children and bounced checks. Those dirtheads aren't likely to respond to the gospel unless there is something in it for them, and they'd freeze to death in Massachusetts when the lights got turned off so they tend to stay in the sunbelt where we get to enjoy them. I think if the liberals in those blue states really understood what welfare contributes to, they might not be so quick to encourage it.

Just my thoughts.

[PennyQuilts]

I think that was a really good article, btw - I agree with just about all of it.

[RealJimbo]

In these blue states:

Any numbers on how many couples living together, not married? That would have an effect on the numbers. How about abortions? That would have an effect on the numbers. And living together, not married is more common with liberals as is abortion. So do you know the answer to those questions?

[skyrick]

In these blue states:

Any numbers on how many couples living together, not married? That would have an effect on the numbers. How about abortions? That would have an effect on the numbers. And living together, not married is more common with liberals as is abortion. So do you know the answer to those questions?

Really? Living together outside of marriage is a Liberal thing? State your source.

Did you read the entire article? He lists his sources, perhaps you could do a search on those questions.

[mugofbeer]

Really? Living together outside of marriage is a Liberal thing? State your source.

Did you read the entire article? He lists his sources, perhaps you could do a search on those questions.

Anecdotally, I would be willing to accept that in more educated, more liberal states there are more unmarried couples than in less educated, more conservative states. Religious influence will push couples to marry and it will push people who find themselves in a pregnancy to marry more than in a less conservative, less liberal state.

With that, it makes sense that in states where couples are not pushed into marriage and are more educated and maybe marry later in life, divorce rates are lower.

[RealJimbo]

Anecdotally, I would be willing to accept that in more educated, more liberal states there are more unmarried couples than in less educated, more conservative states. Religious influence will push couples to marry and it will push people who find themselves in a pregnancy to marry more than in a less conservative, less liberal state.

With that, it makes sense that in states where couples are not pushed into marriage and are more educated and maybe marry later in life, divorce rates are lower.

Thank you, mugs...I guess this discussion isn't important enough to me to do the research and I was stating an opinion as to why the data might be skewed and not very accurate for the purpose of proving the point that better-educated people divorce less and have fewer teen pregnancies.

[Bunty]

In these blue states:

Any numbers on how many couples living together, not married? That would have an effect on the numbers. How about abortions? That would have an effect on the numbers. And living together, not married is more common with liberals as is abortion. So do you know the answer to those questions?

I know the abortion rate is higher in the blue states but interesting how that corresponds with a higher teen age pregnancy rate in the red states.

[Bunty]

Really? Living together outside of marriage is a Liberal thing? State your source.

I guess he simply assumes conservatives take the Bible more seriously than liberals, for instance, where it says fornication is wrong. And where it says a man and a woman are supposed to get married.

[PennyQuilts]

I know the abortion rate is higher in the blue states but interesting how that corresponds with a higher teen age pregnancy rate in the red states.

Part of it is that girls in blue states tend to have a culture that strongly encourages them to get an education before settling down. In contrast, being a wife and mom first and foremost is more strongly urged in red states (these are gross stereotypes, I know). The hispanics have a similar culture and I wonder how that is going to play out in, say, 20 years.

The problem with being a wife and mom before you get a college education is that you usually don't go back. And while many women handle it just fine, when you marry young, you tend to be more hotheaded and have less resources and maturity. That makes it harder to keep it together and be a good parent. And if the relationship doesn't pan out, you have less training or education to get a decent job. I know I sound like a broken record but the surest way to poverty, statistically, is to be a single mom. And you know what is financially worse than being a divorced young mom? A young mom who never was married in the first place.

But there are problem in waiting a long time to settle down, too. A lot of times, that results in not finding someone to have kids when you are still young enough that the risk of increased health issues or difficulty getting pregnant hasn't increased dramatically. Bad luck can play a part but at least the ones who end up alone don't bring kids into this world they can't afford. It is HARD for a woman to find someone to have kids with once they get into their mid thirties. They might find a good mate - probably will, and have a happy life - but it gets a lot harder to find a potential daddy for potential kids who is worth a damn - it is one of those "life comes at you fast" situations.

Frankly, there is just no way I'd personally have kids after age 35 - the medical risks go way up and being pro life, abortion is not an option for me. Plus, I can't imagine trying to plan for retirement and pay for college educations at the same time. I know plenty of young people who have this as Plan A and they seem fine with it. Yikes, it freaks me out to even think about going that route. Fortunately, I don't have to.

[RealJimbo]

I know the abortion rate is higher in the blue states but interesting how that corresponds with a higher teen age pregnancy rate in the red states.

Hmmm. Hello?

[RealJimbo]

I guess he simply assumes conservatives take the Bible more seriously than liberals, for instance, where it says fornication is wrong. And where it says a man and a woman are supposed to get married.

More literally, maybe and yes, maybe even more seriously. Frankly, I think the notion that family values might weaken families is foolish and so this discussion is mere sophistry.

[Edmond_Outsider]

"Family Values" has nothing to do with anything. It is an empty political catch phrase and is used only to divide and conquer and has never applied to any family I've ever seen in the "heartland" where these values are supposed to live or anywhere else.

It's complicated, of course, and no single answer works when trying to make sense. Here is the best available data and some interpretations of it can be seen here: U.S. divorce rates: for various faith groups, age groups and geographical areas

The data showed that the highest divorce rates were found in the Bible Belt. "Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama and Oklahoma round out the Top Five in frequency of divorce...the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average" of 4.2/1000 people.
11 southern states (AL, AR, AZ, FL, GA, MS, NC, NM, OK, SC and TX averaged 5.1/1000 people. (LA data is not available; TX data is for 1997).

Nine states in the Northeast (CT, MA, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT) averaged only 3.5/1000 people.

Some of the factors that contribute to a high divorce rate in the Bible Belt, relative to Northeastern states are:

More couples enter their first marriage at a younger age.

Average household incomes are lower (OK and AR rate 46th and 47th in the U.S.)

They have a lower percentage of Roman Catholics, a denomination that does not recognize divorce.

Anthony Jordan, executive director of the Southern Baptist Convention in Oklahoma commented: "we have not placed the stigma on divorce that we should have." [Jesus' love personified...]

Some factor in conservative Protestantism -- which is prevalent in the Bible Belt -- may cause a higher level of divorce.

See, it's that the Baptists are guilty of being "too loving" and not harsh enough...If I think of my baptist upbringing, I'm not sure how it might be possible to be harsher...

[Bunty]

Then, RealJimbo, I gather it doesn't make you all that comfortable that the states with low abortion rates also don't come with HIGH unwed teenage pregnancy rates.

[PennyQuilts]

Then, RealJimbo, I gather it doesn't make you all that comfortable that the states with low abortion rates also don't come with HIGH unwed teenage pregnancy rates.

Those are competing values, Bunty. Life isn't always neat and tidy.

For those who are pro life, dealing with teenage mamas is the much happier/ethical alternative. And there are tons of organizations to help them - the old days when unwed moms were thrown out of the family to the street with no assistance are gone although plenty of people insist on using the old arguments notwithstanding that those arguments quit holding water decades ago.

[Midtowner]

Part of it is that girls in blue states tend to have a culture that strongly encourages them to get an education before settling down. In contrast, being a wife and mom first and foremost is more strongly urged in red states (these are gross stereotypes, I know). The hispanics have a similar culture and I wonder how that is going to play out in, say, 20 years.

The problem with being a wife and mom before you get a college education is that you usually don't go back. And while many women handle it just fine, when you marry young, you tend to be more hotheaded and have less resources and maturity. That makes it harder to keep it together and be a good parent. And if the relationship doesn't pan out, you have less training or education to get a decent job. I know I sound like a broken record but the surest way to poverty, statistically, is to be a single mom. And you know what is financially worse than being a divorced young mom? A young mom who never was married in the first place.

But there are problem in waiting a long time to settle down, too. A lot of times, that results in not finding someone to have kids when you are still young enough that the risk of increased health issues or difficulty getting pregnant hasn't increased dramatically. Bad luck can play a part but at least the ones who end up alone don't bring kids into this world they can't afford. It is HARD for a woman to find someone to have kids with once they get into their mid thirties. They might find a good mate - probably will, and have a happy life - but it gets a lot harder to find a potential daddy for potential kids who is worth a damn - it is one of those "life comes at you fast" situations.

Frankly, there is just no way I'd personally have kids after age 35 - the medical risks go way up and being pro life, abortion is not an option for me. Plus, I can't imagine trying to plan for retirement and pay for college educations at the same time. I know plenty of young people who have this as Plan A and they seem fine with it. Yikes, it freaks me out to even think about going that route. Fortunately, I don't have to.

Replace "mom" with "parent" to eliminate the blatant sexism and you've got it about right.

[Prunepicker]

No.

[PennyQuilts]

Replace "mom" with "parent" to eliminate the blatant sexism and you've got it about right.

I am guess I'm a blatant sexist since teen parenthood overwhelmingly falls far more heavily in terms of conseqences on teen moms than teen dads. I prefer dealing with the straight goods to political correctness. Too many young girls think the world is (or should be) "fair." It is what it is and pretending otherwise only leads them down the primrose path.