I’m Going to Get On My High Horse

Before you go further with reading this, I’m going to add to it and make myself clear: there is a *difference* between a single parent who did not set out to be a single parent and a single parent who had every intention of being a single parent. The glorification of single parenthood by design and intention and the desire to be a single parent will be the death of this country. No, I’m not intending to cast aspersions on people who become single parents because the other spouse leaves them or dies. I *am* casting aspersions on women who run off to the sperm bank to get a baby with the expressed intention of being a single parent.

There has never been a study to show it beneficial to a child to live in a single parent household. You see it frequently in minority communities and how it effects the children and the families. And now there has been a rash of articles from the New York Times to the AJC about women who want kids, but don’t want the penis to tag along.

Well, I’m sure glad they get all fulfilled and feel selfishly accomplished, and I’m sure they feel like their children are well adapted and fine. But they aren’t. And they won’t be. And I do think there should be laws prohibiting single people from adopting and I’m almost inclined to think single people should not have access to sperm banks.

Yes that is awfully primitive of me, but so be it.

NOTE: Just to clarify, I’m not beating up single parents, per se. It happens. It’s a sad fact of society. And I think the government has a special obligation to help struggling single parents who are single parents through abandonment or death of a spouse. Single women who don’t have an abortion are to be applauded. But, I do think there is something seriously wrong with people who *intend* to be single parents.

The AJC article linked to above reminded me of this stupid article in the New York Times day before yesterday.

In 2005, 51 percent of women said they were living without a spouse, up from 35 percent in 1950 and 49 percent in 2000.

Coupled with the fact that in 2005 married couples became a minority of all American households for the first time, the trend could ultimately shape social and workplace policies, including the ways government and employers distribute benefits.

Yeah for single women! Only, for some reason, to be able to celebrate the rise of single women into the majority, the Times had to really stretch its statistical credibility. See if you can catch what Mr. Lileks and I caught:

Among the more than 117 million women over the age of 15, according to the marital status category in the Census Bureau’s latest American Community Survey, 63 million are married. Of those, 3.1 million are legally separated and 2.4 million said their husbands were not living at home for one reason or another.

That brings the number of American women actually living with a spouse to 57.5 million, compared with the 59.9 million who are single or whose husbands were not living at home when the survey was taken in 2005.

Catch it?

Let me make the block quote a little more precise:

Among the more than 117 million women over the age of 15

Just think about that and laugh.

I sure hope like hell there is not a rash of 15 and 16 year olds getting married outside Alabama anymore!

The AJC article linked to above reminded me of this stupid article in the New York Times day before yesterday.

In 2005, 51 percent of women said they were living without a spouse, up from 35 percent in 1950 and 49 percent in 2000.

Coupled with the fact that in 2005 married couples became a minority of all American households for the first time, the trend could ultimately shape social and workplace policies, including the ways government and employers distribute benefits.

Yeah for single women! Only, for some reason, to be able to celebrate the rise of single women into the majority, the Times had to really stretch its statistical credibility. See if you can catch what Mr. Lileks and I caught:

Among the more than 117 million women over the age of 15, according to the marital status category in the Census Bureau’s latest American Community Survey, 63 million are married. Of those, 3.1 million are legally separated and 2.4 million said their husbands were not living at home for one reason or another.

That brings the number of American women actually living with a spouse to 57.5 million, compared with the 59.9 million who are single or whose husbands were not living at home when the survey was taken in 2005.

Catch it?

Let me make the block quote a little more precise:

Among the more than 117 million women over the age of 15

Just think about that and laugh.

I sure hope like hell there is not a rash of 15 and 16 year olds getting married outside Alabama anymore!

About the author

Erick Erickson

View all posts

4 Comments

  • Be careful it isn’t a sawhorse.

    “You see it frequently in minority communities and how it effects the children and the families.”

    I don’t suppose that has more to do with economic status than being a single parents. Do children of low income two parent families do better or worse than wealthy children of in a single parent household?

    And how is this any worse than the quiverful nutballs who have 10+ kids. How in a two parent household can you care for 10+ kids all at the same time and give them the same attention a middle income single parent can give their one or two kids?

  • I am happy that the quiverful families are having ten plus kids. They are mostly European Americans and it is about time that our people take advantage of the child tax credits available, and populate the United States with intelligent people that can help stop the third world invasion. Call me a racist because I don’t care! I tell the truth! All of my German ancestors that came here in the early 1700s had at least 15 children, and if I knew what I know today then I would have had ten myself. Erick and Christy get busy while you are young.

  • In 2004 the average life expectancy for men was:

    Black male: 69.8 years
    White male: 75.7 years

    Therefore, the idiots use 15 years as a starting point, which is absurd, but in addition, they fail to use an upper range, where husbands may die and women have no, or little choice about their marital status.

    Whole study is just a feminist propaganda tool.

  • You are exactly right, Maggie. It is just propaganda designed to destroy the family values people that are trying to promote stability with mothers and fathers raising children. What the liberal news media hides is that only 30% of black women are married vs about 55% white women. We have had the liberal philosophy promoted in most especially the black community that go out and have as many kids that you can to get more government assistance without ever getting married per child you have. And now, we got a society that is basically destroyed. I am not saying that whites have not been guilty of this, but by far it is the black race that has used the system for the past four generations to have government take care of them with housing, food and higher education. The government is just an entity of milk and honey, and these parasites know not where the money comes from. Now the statisticians that are a joke in the liberal media try to put on an appearnace that this is because of some new revelation of women being independent. As Stossell (sp?) would say “give me a break.”