This morning, MSNBC posted an article originally published in The New York Times. It centered on the rise of out-of-wedlock births, and specifically, the new measurement that over half of births to American women under age thirty are out of marriage. The article coincides with a couple of recent studies and the publication of a new book written by a conservative critic of out-of-wedlock births. Points of note include that marriage is becoming a new class divide: it is only for those who have the most education. Relatedly, 92% of college-educated women are married when they give birth. Compare that with 62% of women with some post-high school education and only 43% of women who have only a high school education. That's a difference of nearly 50%! Astounding.
Besides the "luxury of marriage," the authors name some other possible reasons for the rise in children born out of marriage: loss of single motherhood stigma, sexual revolution has reduced incentive to wed, increased safety net programs that decrease financial needs, thinner ranks of marriageable men (especially due to the job losses from the recession), women supporting themselves financially, and women not wanting to repeat the "marriage because of baby" they saw their parents have.
A particularly interesting point I noticed was the description that, for these women who are having children out of wedlock, "children happen." I cannot imagine thinking in this vein. Children are people who you will raise and who will interact with millions of people in their lifetimes. They will go and do things and effect the world and everyone they touch. Creating and raising a child takes incredible amounts of effort, and I cannot fathom being so apathetic about having a child. While this sounds like the rant of a conservative, let me point out that one of the reasons I ardently support the right to choose is because I believe that people should carefully and intentionally have and raise a child. If you aren't committed in that fashion, then don't have the child. Having a child is a commitment of a lifetime, and I wish that more people took it as seriously as I see it.
On a similar note of judgment of how people "fail to appropriately invest themselves", this article points out that Americans are now looking to marriage for emotional fulfillment more than considering it as a practical way to support a family. Thinking more on this idea, it seems that this expectation would be in line with why Americans have such a high rate of divorce (and general relationship failure). There is this expectation (often unrealistic) that "you" need to make "me" happy, fulfilled, eternally walking on sunshine, etc., and when "you" fail at that, we need to leave each other. There is a failure on our own parts to recognize the role we need to fill for ourselves in making ourselves content and that someone else is not responsible for our own happiness. In addition, there seems to be a general lack of any sort of commitment in the sense that as soon as a couple hits a rough spot, they begin to look elsewhere to feel on that high again. Of course these are not new ideas, but when there are children involved, such continual changes and instability are very detrimental. I'm wondering if the children of this very laissez-faire generation will actually swing back the other way towards very long-term commitments in order to have the stability we need to succeed . . . or are we damaging society to come to exist in a perpetual search for the next best thing and to consider children as something that "happen."
See
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46438194/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/#
