Family Values a Myth in Red States

[polsongrizz]

High divorce rates and teen pregnancy are worse in conservative states than liberal states
The Christian Science Monitor



By Naomi Cahn

Washington; and Kansas City, Mo. – Ask most people about the differences between families who live in “red” (conservative) states and “blue” (liberal) states, and you’ll hear a common refrain: Massachusetts and California are hotbeds of divorce and teen pregnancy, while Nebraska and Texas are havens of virtue and stability.

The reality is quite different. And the evidence should force all of us – conservative and liberal alike – to think carefully about the policies we set to help American families thrive in the 21st century.

According to a new federal study, women with a college education are much more likely to be married than are women who have never graduated from high school. And men and women who married after the age of 25 have lower divorce rates than couples who were married at younger ages.

We could have predicted these results. The US family system, which once differed little by class or region, has become a marker of race, culture, and religion. A new “blue” family paradigm has handsomely rewarded those who invest in women’s as well as men’s education and defer childbearing until the couple is better established. These families, concentrated in urban areas and the coasts, have seen their divorce rates fall back to the level of the 1960s, incomes rise, and nonmarital births remain rare. With later marriage has also come greater stability and less divorce.

Societal support for high school sweethearts who want to tie the knot at graduation or for shotgun weddings – where the bride is accidentally pregnant – no longer exists.

Difficulties in the “red” world, meanwhile, have grown worse. Traditionalists continue to advocate abstinence until marriage and bans on abortion. They’ve said an emphatic “no” to the practices that have made the new “blue” system workable.

Yet, paradoxically, as sociologist Brad Wilcox reports, evangelical Protestant teens have sex at slightly earlier ages on average than their nonevangelical peers (respectively, 16.38 years old versus 16.52 years old), evangelical Protestant couples are also slightly more likely to divorce than nonevangelical couples, and evangelical mothers are actually more likely to work full time outside the home than their nonevangelical peers.

Sociologist Paul Amato concludes that among the marriages least likely to last are those in which women who would prefer homemaking roles end up working outside of the home much more than they expected because of the husband’s inability to support the family.

These factors reflect class and cultural differences, but all of our research suggests that the great recession is likely to make things worse. The hallmark of what we have termed the blue family paradigm is training for autonomy.

Hard times, however, also increase calls for a return to more fixed and traditional values. The fact that traditional families are flailing often persuades them that a return to traditional values is that much more critical. In today’s world, however, almost all of the traditional nostrums have proved counterproductive.

In the United States, states that emphasize abstinence-only education, limit public subsidies of contraception, restrict access to abortion – and, yes, oppose gay marriage – have higher teen birth and divorce rates.

Yet the failure of the family values movement simply produces another round of moral panic and calls for more draconian restrictions. The most destructive have been those that marginalize the next generation. The latest studies show that as the economy has gone south, teen and nonmarital births and abortions have all increased. This indicates that contraception has become less available and pregnant women more desperate about their futures. Employment figures also demonstrate that male employment has fallen even further than female employment, making youthful weddings that much riskier.

[dbackjon]

Excellent article

[kalm]

Despite my mysogenistic leanings, I have to admit I've read similar studies that suggest in cultures where women are more educated, birthrates are declining, which makes birth control all that more important.

[mainejeff]

Image is everything.

[YoUDeeMan]

Who in God's name doesn't know the obvious "findings" in this report?

[GSUAlumniEagle]

Yet, paradoxically, as sociologist Brad Wilcox reports, evangelical Protestant teens have sex at slightly earlier ages on average than their nonevangelical peers (respectively, 16.38 years old versus 16.52 years old), evangelical Protestant couples are also slightly more likely to divorce than nonevangelical couples, and evangelical mothers are actually more likely to work full time outside the home than their nonevangelical peers.

Those numbers are anything but statistically reliable. The difference is so negligible, it'd be hard to argue that there's any significant difference at all. So the evangelical Protestant teens get pregnant in April during their 16th year, and the nonevangelicals get pregnant in June. Big whoop. I find the whole article a little misleading.

My argument in response is that, shockingly, teens have sex. It doesn't matter if they're white, black, hispanic, red, green, evangelical, goth, devil woshipping, preacher's kid, teacher's pet, valedictorian, etc. Teens have sex. They always have been and they always will be.

So let's educate the masses and stop living a lie that we can stop it. We can't. It's going to happen. Let's make it safer and educate. I'm reminded of an old West Wing discussion:

John Van Dyke: Show the average American teenage male a condom, and his mind will turn to thoughts of lust.

Toby Ziegler: Show the average American teenage male a lug wrench, and his mind will turn to thoughts of lust.

[houndawg]

Everybody knows that if you want the hottest poontang in the area, you go after the preacher's daughter.

They're always the ones that trip you and beat you to the floor.

[travelinman67]

Everybody knows that if you want the hottest poontang in the area, you go after the preacher's daughter.

They're always the ones that trip you and beat you to the floor.

Amen

[89Hen]

Who cares? What would Naomi Cahn know about marriage or sex?

[CID1990]

Really, who gives a fvck?

I come from a red state, I'm not divorced, and I have a great family. The wife and I are conservative to differing degrees, and we live our lives in a way that would be consistent with what most people would consider to be basic family-values based. I don't give a flying fvck if every other goddamn person in SC or NC is a toothless trailer park numbnuts. It doesn't change my belief structure. Plus, I also don't give a sh!t how other people live their lives either, as long as they don't try to stick their noses in my goddamn business.

That's half the problem in this country. Everybody has a stick up their a$$es about how everybody else lives. Mind your own fvcking business and a whole new bright world will open up to you. People who do papers and studies like this need to discover masturbation or fecalphagia or something so they can spend their time more constructively.

[bobbythekidd]

Excellent article

BS. It's bad science from the start and gets worse from there.

[AZGrizFan]

Really, who gives a fvck?

I come from a red state, I'm not divorced, and I have a great family. The wife and I are conservative to differing degrees, and we live our lives in a way that would be consistent with what most people would consider to be basic family-values based. I don't give a flying fvck if every other goddamn person in SC or NC is a toothless trailer park numbnuts. It doesn't change my belief structure. Plus, I also don't give a sh!t how other people live their lives either, as long as they don't try to stick their noses in my goddamn business.

That's half the problem in this country. Everybody has a stick up their a$$es about how everybody else lives. Mind your own fvcking business and a whole new bright world will open up to you. People who do papers and studies like this need to discover masturbation or fecalphagia or something so they can spend their time more constructively.

CID1990 Hits another one out of the park.

[Pwns]

Once again, when comparing social problems in red versus blue states, they always neglect to compare red states with relatively low poverty rates to those with relatively high ones. Are the things true of states like Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina true of states like Nebraska, Montana, and Wyoming? Usually not.

I'd bet teen pregnancy more strongly correlates with poverty levels than it does religiosity or politics.

[JohnStOnge]

That type of analysis can be extremely deceptive. It is quite possible that if you break things up according to the actual characteristics on a national level rather than according to State, you would find that those who have the "family values" characteristics described tend to vote Republican.

For example: If you look it by State, there is a correlation between higher per capita State income and likelihood of voting Democrat. Higher per capita income States tend to vote majority Democrat. However, if you look at income directly, there is a correlation between higher income and voting Republican. People with higher incomes tend to vote Republican.

Here's another example: If you look at pages 2 and 3 of the exit poll results at http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/re ... al=USP00p2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; , you will see that the majority of married people as well as the majority of married people with children voted for McCain. And that was in an election in which the stars were really alligned against Republicans. Married people and Married with Children people voting for Republicans in national elections is a consistent pattern.

I'm pretty confident that if someone did a poll of people who stay married for life and raise children, the majority of those people would tend to vote Republican. If you were to define what constitutes a "family values" lifestyle along the lines of what this article is talking about and poll people who live that lifestyle on a national level, I"m very confident that the majority of them would vote Republican in national elections almost every time.

[Grizalltheway]

Really, who gives a fvck?

I come from a red state, I'm not divorced, and I have a great family. The wife and I are conservative to differing degrees, and we live our lives in a way that would be consistent with what most people would consider to be basic family-values based. I don't give a flying fvck if every other goddamn person in SC or NC is a toothless trailer park numbnuts. It doesn't change my belief structure. Plus, I also don't give a sh!t how other people live their lives either, as long as they don't try to stick their noses in my goddamn business.

That's half the problem in this country. Everybody has a stick up their a$$es about how everybody else lives. Mind your own fvcking business and a whole new bright world will open up to you. People who do papers and studies like this need to discover masturbation or fecalphagia or something so they can spend their time more constructively.

CID1990 Hits another one out of the park.

Says the guy who vehemently opposes legalizing drugs, and gives me shit for choosing to smoke weed.

[JohnStOnge]

What this guy is doing is akin to saying that the idea of Blacks tending to vote for Democrats is a myth because States like Louisiana and Mississippi, which have the highest percent Black populations, voted for McCain. It's a fallacy. I've seen it used before and it just doesn't work.

Here's another example from exit polling: People who were married with children voted by an estimated 51-48% for McCain. Single parents voted by an estimated 72 - 25% for Obama. It's pretty clear that when you look at how people actually voted by group on a national level those who are more in line with what most people think of as the "family values" lifestyle were a lot more likely to vote Republican than those who are not.

[D1B]

What this guy is doing is akin to saying that the idea of Blacks tending to vote for Democrats is a myth because States like Louisiana and Mississippi, which have the highest percent Black populations, voted for McCain. It's a fallacy. I've seen it used before and it just doesn't work.

Here's another example from exit polling: People who were married with children voted by an estimated 51-48% for McCain. Single parents voted by an estimated 72 - 25% for Obama. It's pretty clear that when you look at how people actually voted by group on a national level those who are more in line with what most people think of as the "family values" lifestyle were a lot more likely to vote Republican than those who are not.

Hey, St. Wronge, why don't you get your shit published? You fucking know everything, right. All these scientists and experts are making a killing off being wronge, right? Weeeeeeell, step up. You're missing out.

[JohnStOnge]

There is so much unsubstantiated "cause and effect" assertion in that article that I'm not even going to list it point by point. It's much more efficent just to say this: Anytime you see a "cause and effect" assertion in that article, it is unsubstantiated.

[JohnStOnge]

Hey, St. Wronge, why don't you get your **** published? You **** know everything, right. All these scientists and experts are making a killing off being wronge, right? Weeeeeeell, step up. You're missing out.

So are you going to actually address anything I wrote?

[JohnStOnge]

[
Hey, St. Wronge, why don't you get your **** published? You **** know everything, right. All these scientists and experts are making a killing off being wronge, right? Weeeeeeell, step up. You're missing out.

I don't know everything. But one thing I do know is that you can't infer cause and effect without a controlled experiment. What that means is that a "science" like Sociology is a "soft" science.

I also know that looking at things on a "by state" basis in the way suggested can be very deceptive. The exit polling data is there for anyone to see. Go through it and digest it. I think if you're honest with yourself you'll conclude that it looks like the group of people that is "in step" with the "family values" lifestyle (i.e., married, married with children, economic stability, etc) is more "red" than "blue." There's a little bit of an anomaly in that in that during the last election the highest income group voted majority for Obama. That was extremely unusual in national elections. In fact, it's the only time that's happened since at least 1976.

But even I think that it's pretty obvious that the overall correlation between income and likelhihood of voting Republican was positive.

Married people, married people with children, people doing well financially, all have tended to trend "red" in recent history. Education is a little more complicated. One thing you can rely on, though, is that the least educated will always vote majority Democrat. Usually those with post grad education will vote majority Democrat. But if you break it down to just college educated or not, the majority of college grads usually votes Republican. Not always, but usually. And, looking at the results, I'm pretty sure that the overall correlation between education level and likelihood of voting Republcian is positive.

Anyway, the bottom line is that it's pretty clear that the group of people overall who are married, married with children, more successful, etc., tend to be "Red" and not "Blue." I don't think you need to take my word for that either. Just look at exit polling and be honest with yourself.