Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Marriage as a whole has been in decline in the US for years, If I recall only about 25% of households are you traditional married mom and dad + kids household. The issue is not the decline of marriage but that there is serious discrimination against non married families
H.B.M.C. wrote:
"Balance, playtesting - a casual gamer craves not these things!" - Yoda, a casual gamer.
Three things matter in marksmanship -
location, location, location
MagickalMemories wrote:How about making another fist?
One can be, "Da Fist uv Mork" and the second can be, "Da Uvver Fist uv Mork."
Make a third, and it can be, "Da Uvver Uvver Fist uv Mork"
Eric
youbedead wrote: Marriage as a whole has been in decline in the US for years, If I recall only about 25% of households are you traditional married mom and dad + kids household. The issue is not the decline of marriage but that there is serious discrimination against non married families
How do you figure?
I'm single now... I have my boyz every other week... and I haven't seen/felt any discrimination towards me...
When I went through with the divorce, I realized how helpless I was and how my ex could really screw me... it was not a fun time for me.
But, now?
I'm on a PROWL!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/21 03:53:32
I think the article rather badly lacked for content, to be honest. There's a vague idea that women use more health resources (but little recognition that much of those resources are being used to produce children, something in the interest of both sexes), and then this vague idea that men are looking at this society that's apparently stacked against them and choosing to reject that society.
But there's no effort to substantiate any of that, and that's a big problem, because the idea that men are suddenly so hard done by that they're opting out of high paying future careers is a wild claim, and one that needs to be substantiated. That it isn't makes the article very dubious indeed.
daedalus wrote: It's interesting, especially considering who it's coming from. Reminds me of the somewhat inflammatory articles that were circling around about a year or so ago talking about how "men are boys nowadays" and rubbish like that. She does have a point in that it seems like, between a man and a woman, all that's required to convict and demonize the man is the word of the woman. I've heard enough horror stories on that to find it plausible.
Actually, the odds of securing a conviction in a 'he said she said' case are fairly close to zero. It's pretty unusual for it to make it to trial, actually. So much so that it's said every man has one free rape, because the odds are so stacked against conviction they won't even take it to trial unless there's prior allegations.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/21 04:07:28
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I once knew a woman who almost made the shoes stereotype real. She had an entire bedroom filled with nothing but shoes. Beautiful girl too, smart, into latex, absolute firecracker in the sack....but the shoes thing was too much for me.
I have a shoe closet. Granted, its mostly full of old running shoes I'm too lazy to throw out and various cleats for various surfaces, but I still have one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote: I have not experienced a war on men. I make 10-20% more than my mammary gland enhanced counterparts.
But 10-20% less than those with enhanced mammary glands.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/21 04:04:48
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Kronk has better game then you --->insert evil laughter<----
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
whembly wrote: uh... then how do you explain men marrying less than ever before?
Declining social expectation to get married.
You know if men are getting married less than before then women are too. You need one of each to make a marriage, so it's kind of a mathematical constant.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: uh... then how do you explain men marrying less than ever before?
Declining social expectation to get married.
You know if men are getting married less than before then women are too. You need one of each to make a marriage, so it's kind of a mathematical constant.
Mr Hyena wrote: Why marry, when the odds are stacked unfairly against men when it goes wrong irregardless of who was at fault?
Uh, the UK has no fault divorce, so none of that makes any sense.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: uh... then how do you explain men marrying less than ever before?
Declining social expectation to get married.
You know if men are getting married less than before then women are too. You need one of each to make a marriage, so it's kind of a mathematical constant.
Mr Hyena wrote: Why marry, when the odds are stacked unfairly against men when it goes wrong irregardless of who was at fault?
Uh, the UK has no fault divorce, so none of that makes any sense.
Not familiar with UK laws...
But "no fault divorces" means that even if the ex-wife had an affair, they're still entitled to half of her ex's earnings, house, car, retirement, alimony, child support and custody... and then some.
I just went thru this... *I* know.
Like I said earlier, don't get married unless:
A) you want kidz
or
B) because of your religion
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/09/21 04:17:34
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
youbedead wrote: Marriage as a whole has been in decline in the US for years, If I recall only about 25% of households are you traditional married mom and dad + kids household. The issue is not the decline of marriage but that there is serious discrimination against non married families
How do you figure?
I'm single now... I have my boyz every other week... and I haven't seen/felt any discrimination towards me...
When I went through with the divorce, I realized how helpless I was and how my ex could really screw me... it was not a fun time for me.
But, now?
I'm on a PROWL!
Here's a relatively short article on the matter, of the changing family, it's from 2005 but still quite relevant
Spoiler:
SPECIAL OFFER: - Limited Time Only!
(The ad below will not display on your printed page)
2 FREE YEARS of Parents® Magazine plus a FREE GIFT! That's 24 issues absolutely FREE. Order NOW to take advantage of this great offer! Get 3-full years (36 issues) for just $12! Plus you get our new Ultimate Birthday Party Planner absolutely FREE! HURRY this offer won't last! (U.S. orders only)
Email:First Name:Last Name:Address:City:State:Zip:
« Back | Print
The Changing American Family
Fewer than 25 percent of American households are made up of a married man and woman with their children. So what do families look like now?
By Cris Beam from American Baby
Shifting Demographics
If all you did was watch television commercials for minivans, you might think that the traditional All-American family was still intact -- Mom, Dad, dog, and the 2.5 kids buckle up and drive off every day on TV. But ads (depending on your perspective) are either selling aspirations or guilt: This is the family you're supposed to have, supposed to want.
In real life, in big cities and in smaller towns, families are single moms, they're stepfamilies, they're boyfriends and girlfriends not getting married at the moment, they're foster parents, they're two dads or two moms, they're a village. In real life, in 2005, families are richly diverse.
And are only getting more so.
In fact, the very definition of "family" is changing dramatically. The year 2000 marked the first time that less than a quarter (23.5 percent) of American households were made up of a married man and woman and one or more of their children -- a drop from 45 percent in 1960. This number is expected to fall to 20 percent by 2010.
Why the Changes?
The change in the makeup of the American family is the result of two primary factors, says Martin O'Connell, chief of fertility and family statistics at the U.S. Census Bureau, which collects such figures every 10 years. First, more babies (about a third) are now born out of wedlock, and second, divorce rates continue to climb so that nearly half of all marriage contracts are broken.
What's Normal Now?
The overall attitude toward relationships and commitment has shifted. More than half of female high school seniors say that having a child outside of marriage is acceptable, according to a recent poll from the University of Michigan Survey Research Center. And census data shows that 26 percent of all households are made up of a single person, living alone (as opposed to 13 percent back in 1960).
While a good portion of these singles are likely senior citizens, others are younger career folks who don't feel yesteryear's societal pressure to rush into partnerships.
"In 2002, the median age for a woman's first marriage was 27," says O'Connell. That's five years older than it was even in 1980. Sometimes young singles establish their individual identities so solidly that they never marry, even if they have children. These couples may partner up -- but without the papers.
Adoption, no marriage: Such was the case with Steve Wilson and Erin Mayes, a couple in their mid-30s living in Austin, Texas. They've been together for 10 years, own a home together, and though they've talked about it, have decided it isn't necessary to get married. Still, they wanted a family and, last June, adopted a baby boy.
Wedding after baby: Another example is Jared and Lori Goldman, of San Mateo, California. Their relationship was relatively new when Lori got pregnant in 2000. They agreed to raise the child together but didn't get engaged. But not long after their daughter was born, Jared proposed. "Reverse order worked better for us," he says. Lori agrees: "Our wedding felt more meaningful happening on its own time instead of on the traditional schedule. What girl wants a shotgun wedding?"
Single moms on the rise: Of course, because currently one-third of all babies are born out of wedlock, it's no surprise that many mothers remain single. When she got pregnant, Pam Hansell says her boyfriend initially seemed supportive. Then he began dodging her phone calls and e-mails, and eventually cut contact. Deeply hurt but determined to give her child a good life, Hansell moved in with her parents, outside of Philadelphia, and gave birth to a daughter in March. "When I realized I couldn't count on the father, it was devastating. I'm so thankful that family and friends have stepped in," Hansell says.
Two dads: Finally, Dean Larkin and Paul Park are living out another common-in-today's-world scenario. They live together in Los Angeles, and Larkin has a 21-year-old daughter from a previous marriage. Now he and Park are planning a second child, via a surrogate mother. They'd like to marry, but gay marriage is not legal nationally.
Reactions from the Trenches
Perhaps no one has a better ringside seat to all these untraditional family setups than those involved in the childbirth industry. "I've seen unmarried couples come in, lesbian couples, mothers who have been here with one father and then come in with a new father -- the family dynamics and structures have changed a lot over the past 25 years," says Barbara Hotelling, president of Lamaze International and a long-time childbirth instructor.
Based in Rochester Hills, Michigan, Hotelling probably sees a good cross section of American families and, while she doesn't ask the marital status of her students, estimates that around 20 percent are unmarried, compared with maybe 5 percent when she first began her career.
Hotelling has shifted her language with the times. She says she used to call her students moms and dads, but now, "I say 'moms and partners' and hope nobody screams."
The Marriage Advantage
According to 1999 figures from the Population Resource Center, families in which the mother is the head of the household are, by and large, living on less. Because of the wage gap, female-headed households earn, on average, $26,164 a year; male-headed households earn $41,138 per year; and married households earn $56,827 per year.
Then, there are the more than 1,100 federal benefits that married households can take advantage of during a lifetime. Under the Family and Medical Leave Act, married partners can take leave from work when their spouse gets sick; unmarried partners cannot. Federal Medicaid laws permit only married couples to keep their homes when one partner needs nursing home care; an unmarried partner can lose the house. When a married person dies, the spouse inherits Social Security benefits; an unmarried partner gets nothing.
All told, according to the Los Angeles-based American Association for Single People and cited in an October 2003 Business Week article, with health benefits, retirement, and so on, married families can "earn" 25 percent more than unmarried ones.
Marriage Penalties
How does this stack up with the so-called "marriage penalty" that people complain about at tax time? Two of the major tax penalties were eliminated in 2003, says Fred Grant, a senior tax analyst at Turbo Tax, a corporation that produces electronic tax preparation programs.
Used to be, married couples filing jointly had a lower standard deduction than two singles living together, and married couples (in the lowest two income brackets) got bumped into a higher tax bracket on a combined income, thus paying more taxes overall. Now, only the richest three tiers pay more as marrieds than as cohabiters.
There are a few other penalties married couples face (for example, they need a lower combined income to qualify for a $1,000 per-child tax credit), but, Grant warns, taxes are such a complex soup incorporating home ownership, itemizations, and more, it's almost impossible to state assertively which type of family comes out ahead tax-wise.
Money, Marriage -- and Children
What is safe to say is that the kids of untraditional families can wind up penalized. Of course, there are many possible scenarios. In the best cases, kids living with, for instance, only their mother also receive financial support from a father. But as many single moms will tell you, not all fathers pay their full share of childcare costs.
Statistics also show that there are many kids lacking basic health insurance -- at last count, about 8.4 million, according to the U.S. Census. All told, there are 11 million children (16 percent) living at or below the poverty line, and while that's not broken down into the number of kids with married or unmarried parents, it's a sure bet that many impoverished kids are in untraditional families.
Single and Satisfied
Though a growing number of couples are fine with never getting married, the vast majority of cohabiting relationships change into either marriage or separation after an average of 18 months, says Susan Brown, PhD, associate professor of sociology at Bowling Green State University's Center for Family and Demographic Research and a contributor to the 2002 collection of essays and studies Just Living Together. She says that according to some research, there may be a psychological cost to raising a family without the mental safety net of marriage.
"I've found that cohabiters are more depressed than married people, and it seems to be because of relationship instability," Brown says. That means most unmarried parents who live together get married eventually -- or break up and seek other potential spouses.
The Growth of Gay Families
According to the Urban Institute, 2 in 5 gay or lesbian couples live in a house with children under age 18. But because the U.S. Census Bureau doesn't figure same-sex relationships into their data, it's hard to pinpoint exactly how many children are living with gay or lesbian parents.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) places its bet between one and nine million children, which means somewhere between 1.4 percent and 12.5 percent of all kids. While the AAP issued a statement saying that children of same-sex couples deserve two legally recognized parents, no state can grant federal marriage benefits to these couples, and only these states -- California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Vermont -- allows state rights, such as the guarantee that unmarried parents can visit a child in the hospital.
Two moms, one donor: One couple, Sue Hamilton and Christy Sumner, used a sperm bank when they decided to have a baby. While the couple isn't able to marry in their home state of California, Hamilton recently adopted their daughter, which is legal there. Negotiating state laws puts extra stress on gay and lesbian families, but Hamilton and Sumner have encountered a few sympathizers. "One of the hospital workers fell in love with our family," Hamilton says.
"She thought it was nutty that birth certificates have to read 'mother' and 'father,' and typed up a mock certificate that just has our names on it."
Can Your Employer Help You?
Some large employers are scrambling to catch up to how families are changing. Traditionally, companies required workers to be married if they wanted benefits for household members. But now, "in order to attract and retain quality employees, the benefits need to be more flexible," says Kevin Marrs of the American Society of Employers, an organization that tracks information for firms in the Detroit area. He concedes, however, that because domestic partner benefits can cost a company more money, many small independent businesses don't yet offer them.
Families, Privileges, and the Law
Few laws protect untraditional families. In fact, at this point federal laws don't prohibit discrimination based on marital status, so unmarried families can and do face discrimination in these key areas:
housing
employment
adoption
insurance
child custody
hospital visitation
the ability to make a decision for a partner or child in an emergency
Wilson and Mayes are lucky -- their decision to not get married is made easier by the fact that their state, Texas, permits common-law marriage status. Declaring that lets them enjoy joint health coverage through Mayes's employer, and it smoothed the adoption process. If all states had such laws, a great many people would benefit. But only 16 states recognize common-law marriage -- and three of those require couples to prove they've been living together since the '90s, according to Nolo Press, which publishes plain-English legal information.
Why Aren't Laws Catching Up to How We're Living?
To many politicians, pushing for marriage is easier than changing laws. President Bush proposed spending $1.5 billion over five years on a Healthy Marriage Initiative to encourage couples (especially in poor communities) to marry. The money hasn't been approved, but the Department of Health and Human Services is running the program.
"Bush [advocates] marriage among low-income populations as a way to ameliorate poverty. But I'm not sure that's the answer," Brown says.
Daniel Lichter, a sociology professor at Ohio State University, goes even further. In his 2003 study, "Is Marriage a Panacea?" he shows that poverty rates for disadvantaged women who marry and then divorce are actually higher than for women who never marry in the first place. (One thought is that the loss of financial stability as a direct result of divorce -- which costs money in itself -- may set women back.) So getting married doesn't always ease the financial burden of raising kids, and it certainly doesn't help open the rigid boundaries of what "counts" as a family.
The answer probably lies in making sure all families -- whether Mom and Dad drive the minivan to soccer practice or Mom piles her stepkids onto the city bus -- receive the same kinds of rights, benefits, and treatment. Access to affordable childcare and living wages are also more direct solutions.
Discrimination against unmarried families is still real. But those families also have the love and courage it takes to press for change. Says Hamilton, "It really doesn't matter what kind of relationship the parents are in -- what matters is the love they have for their child. That is what makes a family."
Cris Beam is a writer in New York City.
Originally published in American Baby magazine, May 2005.
H.B.M.C. wrote:
"Balance, playtesting - a casual gamer craves not these things!" - Yoda, a casual gamer.
Three things matter in marksmanship -
location, location, location
MagickalMemories wrote:How about making another fist?
One can be, "Da Fist uv Mork" and the second can be, "Da Uvver Fist uv Mork."
Make a third, and it can be, "Da Uvver Uvver Fist uv Mork"
Eric
I like that CHeesecat. Women marrying each other...even Sebster to....but...what if we can't watch?
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
youbedead wrote: Marriage as a whole has been in decline in the US for years, If I recall only about 25% of households are you traditional married mom and dad + kids household. The issue is not the decline of marriage but that there is serious discrimination against non married families
How do you figure?
I'm single now... I have my boyz every other week... and I haven't seen/felt any discrimination towards me...
When I went through with the divorce, I realized how helpless I was and how my ex could really screw me... it was not a fun time for me.
But, now?
I'm on a PROWL!
Here's a relatively short article on the matter, of the changing family, it's from 2005 but still quite relevant
Spoiler:
SPECIAL OFFER: - Limited Time Only!
(The ad below will not display on your printed page)
2 FREE YEARS of Parents® Magazine plus a FREE GIFT! That's 24 issues absolutely FREE. Order NOW to take advantage of this great offer! Get 3-full years (36 issues) for just $12! Plus you get our new Ultimate Birthday Party Planner absolutely FREE! HURRY this offer won't last! (U.S. orders only)
Email:First Name:Last Name:Address:City:State:Zip:
« Back | Print
The Changing American Family
Fewer than 25 percent of American households are made up of a married man and woman with their children. So what do families look like now?
By Cris Beam from American Baby
Shifting Demographics
If all you did was watch television commercials for minivans, you might think that the traditional All-American family was still intact -- Mom, Dad, dog, and the 2.5 kids buckle up and drive off every day on TV. But ads (depending on your perspective) are either selling aspirations or guilt: This is the family you're supposed to have, supposed to want.
In real life, in big cities and in smaller towns, families are single moms, they're stepfamilies, they're boyfriends and girlfriends not getting married at the moment, they're foster parents, they're two dads or two moms, they're a village. In real life, in 2005, families are richly diverse.
And are only getting more so.
In fact, the very definition of "family" is changing dramatically. The year 2000 marked the first time that less than a quarter (23.5 percent) of American households were made up of a married man and woman and one or more of their children -- a drop from 45 percent in 1960. This number is expected to fall to 20 percent by 2010.
Why the Changes?
The change in the makeup of the American family is the result of two primary factors, says Martin O'Connell, chief of fertility and family statistics at the U.S. Census Bureau, which collects such figures every 10 years. First, more babies (about a third) are now born out of wedlock, and second, divorce rates continue to climb so that nearly half of all marriage contracts are broken.
What's Normal Now?
The overall attitude toward relationships and commitment has shifted. More than half of female high school seniors say that having a child outside of marriage is acceptable, according to a recent poll from the University of Michigan Survey Research Center. And census data shows that 26 percent of all households are made up of a single person, living alone (as opposed to 13 percent back in 1960).
While a good portion of these singles are likely senior citizens, others are younger career folks who don't feel yesteryear's societal pressure to rush into partnerships.
"In 2002, the median age for a woman's first marriage was 27," says O'Connell. That's five years older than it was even in 1980. Sometimes young singles establish their individual identities so solidly that they never marry, even if they have children. These couples may partner up -- but without the papers.
Adoption, no marriage: Such was the case with Steve Wilson and Erin Mayes, a couple in their mid-30s living in Austin, Texas. They've been together for 10 years, own a home together, and though they've talked about it, have decided it isn't necessary to get married. Still, they wanted a family and, last June, adopted a baby boy.
Wedding after baby: Another example is Jared and Lori Goldman, of San Mateo, California. Their relationship was relatively new when Lori got pregnant in 2000. They agreed to raise the child together but didn't get engaged. But not long after their daughter was born, Jared proposed. "Reverse order worked better for us," he says. Lori agrees: "Our wedding felt more meaningful happening on its own time instead of on the traditional schedule. What girl wants a shotgun wedding?"
Single moms on the rise: Of course, because currently one-third of all babies are born out of wedlock, it's no surprise that many mothers remain single. When she got pregnant, Pam Hansell says her boyfriend initially seemed supportive. Then he began dodging her phone calls and e-mails, and eventually cut contact. Deeply hurt but determined to give her child a good life, Hansell moved in with her parents, outside of Philadelphia, and gave birth to a daughter in March. "When I realized I couldn't count on the father, it was devastating. I'm so thankful that family and friends have stepped in," Hansell says.
Two dads: Finally, Dean Larkin and Paul Park are living out another common-in-today's-world scenario. They live together in Los Angeles, and Larkin has a 21-year-old daughter from a previous marriage. Now he and Park are planning a second child, via a surrogate mother. They'd like to marry, but gay marriage is not legal nationally.
Reactions from the Trenches
Perhaps no one has a better ringside seat to all these untraditional family setups than those involved in the childbirth industry. "I've seen unmarried couples come in, lesbian couples, mothers who have been here with one father and then come in with a new father -- the family dynamics and structures have changed a lot over the past 25 years," says Barbara Hotelling, president of Lamaze International and a long-time childbirth instructor.
Based in Rochester Hills, Michigan, Hotelling probably sees a good cross section of American families and, while she doesn't ask the marital status of her students, estimates that around 20 percent are unmarried, compared with maybe 5 percent when she first began her career.
Hotelling has shifted her language with the times. She says she used to call her students moms and dads, but now, "I say 'moms and partners' and hope nobody screams."
The Marriage Advantage
According to 1999 figures from the Population Resource Center, families in which the mother is the head of the household are, by and large, living on less. Because of the wage gap, female-headed households earn, on average, $26,164 a year; male-headed households earn $41,138 per year; and married households earn $56,827 per year.
Then, there are the more than 1,100 federal benefits that married households can take advantage of during a lifetime. Under the Family and Medical Leave Act, married partners can take leave from work when their spouse gets sick; unmarried partners cannot. Federal Medicaid laws permit only married couples to keep their homes when one partner needs nursing home care; an unmarried partner can lose the house. When a married person dies, the spouse inherits Social Security benefits; an unmarried partner gets nothing.
All told, according to the Los Angeles-based American Association for Single People and cited in an October 2003 Business Week article, with health benefits, retirement, and so on, married families can "earn" 25 percent more than unmarried ones.
Marriage Penalties
How does this stack up with the so-called "marriage penalty" that people complain about at tax time? Two of the major tax penalties were eliminated in 2003, says Fred Grant, a senior tax analyst at Turbo Tax, a corporation that produces electronic tax preparation programs.
Used to be, married couples filing jointly had a lower standard deduction than two singles living together, and married couples (in the lowest two income brackets) got bumped into a higher tax bracket on a combined income, thus paying more taxes overall. Now, only the richest three tiers pay more as marrieds than as cohabiters.
There are a few other penalties married couples face (for example, they need a lower combined income to qualify for a $1,000 per-child tax credit), but, Grant warns, taxes are such a complex soup incorporating home ownership, itemizations, and more, it's almost impossible to state assertively which type of family comes out ahead tax-wise.
Money, Marriage -- and Children
What is safe to say is that the kids of untraditional families can wind up penalized. Of course, there are many possible scenarios. In the best cases, kids living with, for instance, only their mother also receive financial support from a father. But as many single moms will tell you, not all fathers pay their full share of childcare costs.
Statistics also show that there are many kids lacking basic health insurance -- at last count, about 8.4 million, according to the U.S. Census. All told, there are 11 million children (16 percent) living at or below the poverty line, and while that's not broken down into the number of kids with married or unmarried parents, it's a sure bet that many impoverished kids are in untraditional families.
Single and Satisfied
Though a growing number of couples are fine with never getting married, the vast majority of cohabiting relationships change into either marriage or separation after an average of 18 months, says Susan Brown, PhD, associate professor of sociology at Bowling Green State University's Center for Family and Demographic Research and a contributor to the 2002 collection of essays and studies Just Living Together. She says that according to some research, there may be a psychological cost to raising a family without the mental safety net of marriage.
"I've found that cohabiters are more depressed than married people, and it seems to be because of relationship instability," Brown says. That means most unmarried parents who live together get married eventually -- or break up and seek other potential spouses.
The Growth of Gay Families
According to the Urban Institute, 2 in 5 gay or lesbian couples live in a house with children under age 18. But because the U.S. Census Bureau doesn't figure same-sex relationships into their data, it's hard to pinpoint exactly how many children are living with gay or lesbian parents.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) places its bet between one and nine million children, which means somewhere between 1.4 percent and 12.5 percent of all kids. While the AAP issued a statement saying that children of same-sex couples deserve two legally recognized parents, no state can grant federal marriage benefits to these couples, and only these states -- California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Vermont -- allows state rights, such as the guarantee that unmarried parents can visit a child in the hospital.
Two moms, one donor: One couple, Sue Hamilton and Christy Sumner, used a sperm bank when they decided to have a baby. While the couple isn't able to marry in their home state of California, Hamilton recently adopted their daughter, which is legal there. Negotiating state laws puts extra stress on gay and lesbian families, but Hamilton and Sumner have encountered a few sympathizers. "One of the hospital workers fell in love with our family," Hamilton says.
"She thought it was nutty that birth certificates have to read 'mother' and 'father,' and typed up a mock certificate that just has our names on it."
Can Your Employer Help You?
Some large employers are scrambling to catch up to how families are changing. Traditionally, companies required workers to be married if they wanted benefits for household members. But now, "in order to attract and retain quality employees, the benefits need to be more flexible," says Kevin Marrs of the American Society of Employers, an organization that tracks information for firms in the Detroit area. He concedes, however, that because domestic partner benefits can cost a company more money, many small independent businesses don't yet offer them.
Families, Privileges, and the Law
Few laws protect untraditional families. In fact, at this point federal laws don't prohibit discrimination based on marital status, so unmarried families can and do face discrimination in these key areas:
housing
employment
adoption
insurance
child custody
hospital visitation
the ability to make a decision for a partner or child in an emergency
Wilson and Mayes are lucky -- their decision to not get married is made easier by the fact that their state, Texas, permits common-law marriage status. Declaring that lets them enjoy joint health coverage through Mayes's employer, and it smoothed the adoption process. If all states had such laws, a great many people would benefit. But only 16 states recognize common-law marriage -- and three of those require couples to prove they've been living together since the '90s, according to Nolo Press, which publishes plain-English legal information.
Why Aren't Laws Catching Up to How We're Living?
To many politicians, pushing for marriage is easier than changing laws. President Bush proposed spending $1.5 billion over five years on a Healthy Marriage Initiative to encourage couples (especially in poor communities) to marry. The money hasn't been approved, but the Department of Health and Human Services is running the program.
"Bush [advocates] marriage among low-income populations as a way to ameliorate poverty. But I'm not sure that's the answer," Brown says.
Daniel Lichter, a sociology professor at Ohio State University, goes even further. In his 2003 study, "Is Marriage a Panacea?" he shows that poverty rates for disadvantaged women who marry and then divorce are actually higher than for women who never marry in the first place. (One thought is that the loss of financial stability as a direct result of divorce -- which costs money in itself -- may set women back.) So getting married doesn't always ease the financial burden of raising kids, and it certainly doesn't help open the rigid boundaries of what "counts" as a family.
The answer probably lies in making sure all families -- whether Mom and Dad drive the minivan to soccer practice or Mom piles her stepkids onto the city bus -- receive the same kinds of rights, benefits, and treatment. Access to affordable childcare and living wages are also more direct solutions.
Discrimination against unmarried families is still real. But those families also have the love and courage it takes to press for change. Says Hamilton, "It really doesn't matter what kind of relationship the parents are in -- what matters is the love they have for their child. That is what makes a family."
Cris Beam is a writer in New York City.
Originally published in American Baby magazine, May 2005.
Okay... there is *some* truth to that... but, it ain't THAT bad.
The only one I think young men need to be aware of, is this...
When interviewing for a JOB... wear a ring on your wedding finger. Just don't say anything about it, and when asked, be cryptic.
Trust me.
Then, if you're hired, take it off and play dumb when asked about it later.
This actually worked for a friend of mine a couple of years ago and he swore it helped (I guess being married means you're more likely to be reliable???)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: I like that CHeesecat. Women marrying each other...even Sebster to....but...what if we can't watch?
<gets popcorn>
What channel is it??
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/21 04:26:39
I'm sure it's going to go over really well around here, but I don't have a lot of respect for a guy who doesn't know how to do that sort of thing.
If I called any of my male friends or relatives to help me change a tire I'd deserve all of the scorn that they gave me. And boy, would they.
Oh don't get me wrong, he got scorned. He has a tough time managing which end of the screwdriver to use, and I have no problem pointing it out when it happens. He'd never actually had to do it before, and to be fair, now that he's seen it done, I'm sure (I hope) he could do it if he had to.
He was coming over to my apartment to chill out anyway, and he bought me a six pack for my trouble, so I consider it the price for fixing stupid.
Besides, I don't think I can abide ANYONE changing a tire with that piddly little excuse people call a scissor jack. I keep a hydralic jack, jack stands, and 4-way lug wrench in my car at all times. I don't feth around on the side of the road.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/21 04:44:31
whembly wrote: But "no fault divorces" means that even if the ex-wife had an affair, they're still entitled to half of her ex's earnings, house, car, retirement, alimony, child support and custody... and then some.
Err, no. No-fault divorce means that you CAN get a divorce even when neither spouse has harmed the other, it doesn't exclude the ability to get a divorce in response to the other person's actions. And it certainly doesn't require an even split in everything no matter who is guilty.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
No Fault divorce would make marriage more preferable, because the state won't lock you into it if you realise it's a mistake.
I'm no convinced the princess thing is really any larger a phenomenom than the extended adolescence you see among boys, both groups are extending their youth, and having kids in their 30s rather than their 20s. There's good parts to that (travel, career freedom) but negatives as well (29 year old girls who think the most important thing in the world is a new pair of shoes, 29 year old boys who say brah).
I think the biggest factor in declining marriage rates begins and ends with people no longer expecting or judging others for not getting married.
And no fault divorce means the state will not require a reason for a couple to get divorced. It used to be that you had to establish in a court of law that one party had done something horrible, or that both parties had made serious attempts at bridging their differences but it was not possible, before the court would grant a divorce. No fault means that no longer exists.
And no, moral failings do not determine how property is distributed. Why should it? You get back what you put in, and you split the stuff acquired during the marriage down the middle.
Oh, and I've recently gotten married myself. And yeah, it was in part because we wanted to have kids. But it was really because we both wanted to spend the rest of our lives together, and wanted to have one day to tell our friends and family that. To me, that's reason enough. For lots of people that isn't much of a reason, and fair enough to them.
Honestly all the fussing about declining marriage rates misses a simple principle - people are free to do as they please. Marriage rates used to be higher because people were pressured into marriage, and now that isn't the case. Surely more personal freedom is better?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/21 04:53:44
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Any human being in possession of a car should be able to do basic maintenance on said car. Up to and including checking all fluids, changing one's oil, rotating and changing tires, etc. That's not a "man" thing, or at least it shouldn't be. That should be a "basic survival in the real world" thing.
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
whembly wrote: But "no fault divorces" means that even if the ex-wife had an affair, they're still entitled to half of her ex's earnings, house, car, retirement, alimony, child support and custody... and then some.
Err, no. No-fault divorce means that you CAN get a divorce even when neither spouse has harmed the other, it doesn't exclude the ability to get a divorce in response to the other person's actions. And it certainly doesn't require an even split in everything no matter who is guilty.
Er... no... that's not right.
It simply means, you can divorce without penalty (no matter what either party has done). That's what it really means...
Dividing marital asset is determined by state laws...
In my state, my ex was entitled to a minimum of 1/3rd of my earnings if she asked for it, as I made more than 2/3rds more than she did... (among other things... not in this thread).
whembly wrote: In my state, my ex was entitled to a minimum of 1/3rd of my earnings if she asked for it, as I made more than 2/3rds more than she did... (among other things... not in this thread).
I'll agree with you that alimony is a pretty fethed up concept in this day and age. Women are free to get jobs now, so they should do just that if they get divorced.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
No Fault divorce would make marriage more preferable, because the state won't lock you into it if you realise it's a mistake.
I don't think you truly understand the impact of this:
is a divorce in which the dissolution of a marriage does not require a showing of wrong-doing by either party.
Therefore, the impacts are, among others:
- No – fault divorce has given more power to Family Court Judges in deciding issues such as custody, splitting marital assets and spousal support.When there is no one at fault, A judge’s decisions are based on his feelings and feelings are not always objective.
- Where once the Family Court Systems allegiance was with the institution of marriage, it is now with the institution of divorce. Family Courts used to put effort into protecting the sanctity of marriage. Now the main concern is to make divorce quick and easy and get it off the docket.
I'm no convinced the princess thing is really any larger a phenomenom than the extended adolescence you see among boys, both groups are extending their youth, and having kids in their 30s rather than their 20s. There's good parts to that (travel, career freedom) but negatives as well (29 year old girls who think the most important thing in the world is a new pair of shoes, 29 year old boys who say brah).
It's definately a phenomenon...
I think the biggest factor in declining marriage rates begins and ends with people no longer expecting or judging others for not getting married.
whembly wrote: It simply means, you can divorce without penalty (no matter what either party has done). That's what it really means...
It means you CAN divorce without penalty. You used to have to prove in court that the other person had done something before you could get a divorce at all, no-fault divorce laws just give you the OPTION to simply agree to end the marriage. It does NOT mean that you are required to get a no-fault divorce and give up the ability to demand appropriate compensation for the other person's actions.
In my state, my ex was entitled to a minimum of 1/3rd of my earnings if she asked for it, as I made more than 2/3rds more than she did... (among other things... not in this thread).
Then your state laws suck, but that has nothing to do with no-fault divorce.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
whembly wrote: In my state, my ex was entitled to a minimum of 1/3rd of my earnings if she asked for it, as I made more than 2/3rds more than she did... (among other things... not in this thread).
I'll agree with you that alimony is a pretty fethed up concept in this day and age. Women are free to get jobs now, so they should do just that if they get divorced.
Yeah... my attorney went out of her way to warn me this... that if my ex asked for this, the judge would rule against me. For what its worth, my ex didn't pursue this... so, kudos to her.
whembly wrote: It simply means, you can divorce without penalty (no matter what either party has done). That's what it really means...
It means you CAN divorce without penalty. You used to have to prove in court that the other person had done something before you could get a divorce at all, no-fault divorce laws just give you the OPTION to simply agree to end the marriage. It does NOT mean that you are required to get a no-fault divorce and give up the ability to demand appropriate compensation for the other person's actions.
Oh... I gotcha... sorry, misread what you said earlier... my bad.
I think that's the problem, it's too easy to get divorce. Traditionally, you either worked on your marriage, or had to SHOW why want the divorce. Nowadays, it's too easy to get the divorce, rather than to work on the marriage.
In my state, my ex was entitled to a minimum of 1/3rd of my earnings if she asked for it, as I made more than 2/3rds more than she did... (among other things... not in this thread).
Then your state laws suck, but that has nothing to do with no-fault divorce.
News flash, most states work like this...
And yeah, it DOES have something to do with no-fault D... under the old system, you can get divorce, but you can say That person had an affair, or that person spent all my money on gambling, or whatever "fault"... the remaining assets are taken into account will divving up the marital assets.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/21 05:04:36
whembly wrote: I don't think you truly understand the impact of this:
is a divorce in which the dissolution of a marriage does not require a showing of wrong-doing by either party.
Therefore, the impacts are, among others:
- No – fault divorce has given more power to Family Court Judges in deciding issues such as custody, splitting marital assets and spousal support.When there is no one at fault, A judge’s decisions are based on his feelings and feelings are not always objective.
- Where once the Family Court Systems allegiance was with the institution of marriage, it is now with the institution of divorce. Family Courts used to put effort into protecting the sanctity of marriage. Now the main concern is to make divorce quick and easy and get it off the docket.
I can't help but read that last part but think that's how it should be. It is no place of a judge or any court to make me stay with my partner if I don't want to be. If we want to invest more time and effort into our marriage, then we will do so, but having a judge go over our failed relationship won't help any of that.
I also simply do not agree that divorce hearings are based on a judge's feelings. There is simply no scope for personal feeling in the divorce, because unlike past divorce proceedings there is no scope for personal judgement on the part of the judge. It's about the dissolution of assets and the assignment of custody rights.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/21 06:27:56
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I once knew a woman who almost made the shoes stereotype real. She had an entire bedroom filled with nothing but shoes. Beautiful girl too, smart, into latex, absolute firecracker in the sack....but the shoes thing was too much for me.
I have a shoe closet. Granted, its mostly full of old running shoes I'm too lazy to throw out and various cleats for various surfaces, but I still have one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote: I have not experienced a war on men. I make 10-20% more than my mammary gland enhanced counterparts.
But 10-20% less than those with enhanced mammary glands.
Whole bedroom, racks on the walls racks in the middle. Labeled organized by type and color. She told me she had lost count but there were literally hundreds. It was quite the sight.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
What many feminists do not realise is that they are not men. They cannot have the same expectations as men do because they are not men.
Initially marriage protected women - if someone got you pregnant marrying him sorted out the problem making him legally and financially responsible. The decline in marriage is inevitable since without it women still have the same protections under the law.
That being said, women face a lot more discrimination then men do.
Really?
Women have cheaper insurance
more likely to retain custody of children
less likely to die violently
have more public money spent on them in terms of healthcare and education
not draftable
Phototoxin wrote: What many feminists do not realise is that they are not men. They cannot have the same expectations as men do because they are not men.
If feminists who possess s aren't men, then what are they?
Initially marriage protected women - if someone got you pregnant marrying him sorted out the problem making him legally and financially responsible. The decline in marriage is inevitable since without it women still have the same protections under the law.
It "protected" women at the cost of making them property, not people.
And fortunately we've now invented this thing called abortion to deal with unwanted pregnancy. I think it's a much better idea than being forced to live with someone for 18+ years to avoid suffering the hardship of being a single mother.
Women have cheaper insurance
more likely to retain custody of children
less likely to die violently
have more public money spent on them in terms of healthcare and education
not draftable
Err, lol? I mean, really, what else do you say to someone who thinks that women (as a whole) have a better position than men? It would be a less shocking display of ignorance if you were to claim that 1+1=4.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Manchu wrote: You're all giving good reasons why marriage is in decline but it's not in the words that you're posting.
Damn, that was priceless.
This thread has been a really hilarious read, and glimpse into the nerdy male mind. Enlightening.
There is also a new book of rubbish out called "The End of Men" that would probably get alot of you guys wound up. Almost makes me wnat to have a Dakka book club.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
--->insert evil laughter<----
s aren't men, then what are they?
