Sixteen Volts

With the abundance of worldnutdailies and luciannes and other similar conservative publications around the interwebs, I'm glad to see that not all American conservatives are stupid but good publications also abound. For example, even though Theodore Dalrymple has long been my main reason for reading City Journal, you can always find other good stuff there too. In the most recent issue, the article "Marriage and Caste" by Kay Hymowitz examines how widespread single motherhood and general marriage avoidance are creating a self-perpetuating caste system that is rapidly becoming permanent. Definitely read the whole thing, but here are the money quotes:

Thirty-six percent of female-headed families are below the poverty line. Compare that with the 6 percent of married-couple families in poverty—a good portion of whom are recent, low-skilled immigrants, whose poverty, if history is any guide, is temporary. The same goes if you want to analyze the inequality problem—start with the Marriage Gap. Virtually all—92 percent—of children whose families make over $75,000 are living with both parents. On the other end of the income scale, the situation is reversed: only about 20 percent of kids in families earning under $15,000 live with both parents.

Cornell professor Jennifer Gerner was baffled some years ago when she noticed that only about 10 percent of her students came from divorced families. She and her colleague Dean Lillard examined the records of students at the nation’s top 50 schools and, much to their surprise, found a similar pattern. Children who did not grow up with their two biological parents, they concluded when they published their findings, were only half as likely to go to a selective college. As adults, they also earned less and had lower occupational status.

To repeat the question: Why do educated women marry before they have children? Because, like high-status women since status began, they are preparing their offspring to carry on their way of life. Marriage radically increases their chances of doing that.

This all points to a deeply worrying conclusion: the Marriage Gap—and the inequality to which it is tied—is self-perpetuating. A low-income single mother, unprepared to carry out The Mission, is more likely to raise children who will become low-income single parents, who will pass that legacy on to their children, and so on down the line. Married parents are more likely to be visiting their married children and their grandchildren in their comfortable suburban homes, and those married children will in turn be sending their offspring off to good colleges, superior jobs, and wedding parties. Instead of an opportunity-rich country for all, the Marriage Gap threatens us with a rigid caste society.

Indeed. Or as The Danimal put it more pithily:

One thing women are statistically good at doing without any help from men is raising the next generation of criminals.

One of the more perplexing things for me about feminism has always been why it advocates the single motherhood as somehow "empowering" and being "just as good as a two-parent family". In real world, single motherhood is anything but glamorous and empowering. Then again, feminism and socialism are one and that one is socialism, so perhaps feminists sneakily intend to use the plight of single mothers to justify more wealth transfers and higher welfare spending. According to feminists, if a woman considers marrying a man to be beneath her, she should be entitled to welfare benefits equal to the paycheque that the man would provide, so that she could be "independent". (For people who so loudly complain about "entitlement" when it comes to "patriarchy", the femo-socialists sure do feel entitled to most of the wealth that men create, with very little responsibilies in return.)

One wonders what exactly feminists believe that they will win by eradicating marriage and families. I guess it is just me, but I just find it so... strange when some women believe that they are somehow striking a blow against patriarchy by refusing to marry, and instead provide commitment-free sex for winner males who are at the top of social hierarchies established by various forms of competition between men, as judged by women. I actually know a few such women who didn't realize until it was too late the simple mathematical fact that getting casual sex from alpha males is a very different task from monopolizing one of them to a monogamous relationship. (And no: having his baby didn't exactly help.) The violent and rebellious guys who were so totally exciting at the age of 20 tend to be at best pitiful and at worst downright scary ten years later, and for some mysterious reason, the few guys who actually are the alpha males are not that enthusiastic to settle for a woman who is gradually sliding down from her lifetime peak of attractiveness, reeks of old cigarettes and has a wailing bastard or two in tow.

Posted by Ilkka Kokkarinen on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 at 3:12 PM