Recently Jeb Bush has taken jazz for claiming that “we should shame single mothers”.
Public shaming would be an effective way to regulate the “irresponsible behavior” of unwed mothers, misbehaving teenagers and welfare recipients, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) argued in his 1995 book Profiles in Character.
When I read this my immediate reaction was, “Holy man, are you kidding me? Another dipshit republican stepping in it when it comes to social issues?”
Then I read his quote:
“One of the reasons more young women are giving birth out of wedlock and more young men are walking away from their paternal obligations,” he wrote, “is that there is no longer a stigma attached to this behavior, no reason to feel shame.”
So, yeah, THAT’S different than the characterization that Bush thinks we should trot a woman into town square, tie her up and then publicly shame her like some ISIS punishment. What Bush is saying is that A) Intact families, complete with mothers and fathers, generate better outcomes for children than households managed by a single parent B) Society has recognized this and built in a method whereby single parent behavior is NOT placed in a positive light.
Nobody, right or left, disputes the body of evidence that claims 2-parent households are better units for kids than 1-parent homes. We should discourage single moms, AND dads, from running households. Divorce should present as a social burden on society. Birth out of wedlock should be viewed as unacceptable behavior.
All of which is different from the meme that somehow single moms should be subject to the formal and organized shaming that the haters are heaping at Jeb’s feet.
I disagree. First, I think the family is no longer what it used to be, it has become more, well, libertarian. People are thinking as individuals, making different kinds of arrangements. For instance, divorce no longer impacts kids like it used to because it has no stigma. That is good! Once a divorced child felt shame; now half the class has divorced parents (or more) so it has become a cultural norm. Single parents should definitely not feel shame, as it hurts their ability to parent with a positive attitude and thus hurts the child. Shaming is an act of psychological violence to try to force people to adhere to someone else’s moral code. As one parent families, divorced families, gay families, etc., become more normal and accepted, then all the stuff that says two parent families are better will be obsolete. As family units become less important than communities, the result isn’t necessarily bad. But it is different.
People are thinking as individuals, making different kinds of arrangements.
Smoking crack should be legal, but I think it leads to bad outcomes. THAT is Libertarian. Claiming that divorce or single parent families have the same attainment is fiction.
Single parents should definitely not feel shame, as it hurts their ability to parent with a positive attitude and thus hurts the child.
There absolutely should be a social penalty to pay for choosing a single parent condition.
I think the opposite – I think there should be a social penalty on anyone trying to impose a social penalty on others in that kind of situation. I think that’s what it is becoming to be – I know many Republicans who now won’t vote for Jeb Bush even if he is the nominee. He’ll be punished for his stance!
I know many Republicans who now won’t vote for Jeb Bush even if he is the nominee. He’ll be punished for his stance!
There are a TON of reasons not to vote for Bush – but this ain’t one of them.
However – the real hope is that we reduce the number of children BORN into single mom homes.
Indeed, the rolling back of shaming single mothers has only begotten more single mothers who then go on to raise children who are demonstrably worse off and measurably under-perform their peers from intact families. But single moms are more likely to vote Democrat and demand growth of the so-called-Progressive deep state, so of course Progressives are willing to sacrifice other people’s children for their ideological cause.
single moms are more likely to vote Democrat and demand growth of the so-called-Progressive deep state, so of course Progressives are willing to sacrifice other people’s children for their ideological cause.
Yes – people will vote for those whom they perceive will take care of them.
I used to think that democrat politicians consciously created that dependency – voters and social programs. I think less so now, but what IS true is that such a relationship exists – people vote in people who support programs that provide them with handouts.
“…divorce no longer impacts kids like it used to because it has no stigma.”
Nope. All that means is that the real damage of parental divorce gets suppressed, and if the child “acts out”, the blame is placed on the child, subjecting them to medical diagnosis and treatment.
The reality is that divorce hurts children far more than even parental death.
I disagree – in fact, staying in a bad relationship can be more harmful to them. The best thing my ex-wife and I did for our kids was to divorce. We remain friends, the kids have us both in their lives, and we help each other out. But they are doing so much better now that we’re not trying to force something to work that didn’t. I’ve seen this elsewhere too. Your last sentence is beyond absurd.
Sorry, you can disagree with the data all you like, but the facts are not on your side. Your personal anecdote changes nothing.
Also, parental divorce is the leading risk factor for teenage suicide right behind parental suicide and mental illness.
I disagree – in fact, staying in a bad relationship can be more harmful to them.
Well, I don’t know if it’s the breakdown of man and wife or the actual divorce, but the condition of each/either is doing the damage. On some level I agree with Scott – my folks got divorced and it was way better than the struggle to stay married. But the family discord already had created the damage by that time.
However, Thales is correct – there is no data that I have seen that claims divorce does not impact children attainment.
Thales, I reject your claim that the facts aren’t on my side. You’re simply making assertions you can’t back up. In any event, while every case is different, the fact is that in talking with teachers and kids it’s clear that divorce is fundamentally different now than it was even 20 years ago. I think that’s a good thing, the state certainly shouldn’t be trying to force people to stay together who don’t want to!
LOL! Who cares what you reject? You’re nobody. You can’t even back up your absurd claim that the harm of divorce is due to “stigma”, likely because no data set demonstrates it. 😀
You have made assertions you can’t substantiate. Pot. Kettle. Black. Anyway, as someone who teaches at a university, one with half the students education majors, I can have an impact on the culture 😉 So I think my side is going to win!
Sorry, bub, reality always has the final say. 😀
Exactly. I’m embracing reality, you’re asserting false claims. We live in a very different culture than in the past, and we ain’t going back!
LOL! You’ve already admitted you’re just making stuff up, not embracing reality. 😀
Thanks for admitting you’re making stuff up Thales!