
Michael McManus has an interesting commentary “Fixing no-fault divorce” in the Wednesday Jan. 24, 2007
The Washington Times, p A16, at this
link.
McManus starts with the recent media reports that now over 50% of women live without a married spouse. He traces all the statistical details, including that for people who have never married or tried to marry, and that number is way up, too.
Some of this could be due to the rocky increase in social acceptability of open homosexuality in much of urban mainstream society (though still not everywhere, by any means). But McManus makes a subtle point. Marriage is simply too risky now. Many people don’t want to insure themselves against the “risk.” You see this concern in pre-nuptial contracts. But you see it in the crippling effects of divorce on one partner (it can be either partner) often resulting in tragic results for both adults and children.
That is why many states are taking a hard look at no-fault divorce and sometimes promoting covenant marriage.
Suzanne Fields has an op-ed on Thursday Jan 25 2007 in The Washington Times, p. A21, "The Singles without bliss: women without men" -- another interpretation of the singles and never-married. She points out that women face a biological expiration date for pregnancy, whereas men don't ("Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?") She mentions the Meryl Streep character in
The Devil Wears Prada (2006), which gave the actress an Oscar nomination; but she could have discussed the gripping film from the UK, "
Children of Men".
Philip Longman indeed made an interesting argument in his book
The Empty Cradle that we have, from a “personal responsibility” point of view, made marriage and especially parenting so expensive and risky that in, advanced affluent cultures, populations may not replace themselves. Does this have a bearing on our whole approach to rationalism?
Update 3/4/2007:Blaine Harden has a story in the Sunday March 4, 2007
The Washington Post, p A3, "Numbers Drop for Married with Children: Institution Becoming the Choice of the Educated, Affluent", at this
link. The story indicates that many lower income couples see marriage as confining and leading to conflicts and fights and as bad for children, despite the tax benefits. Robert P. George, Maggie Gallagher and Jennifer Roback Morse will certainly respond to this one!
Update 3/5/2007:The New York Times Magazine on March 4, 2007, p. 20, has a story by Sharon Lerner, "The Motherhood Experiment: Many advanced countries face collapsing populations. Making it easier for women to work may be the best way to increase birthrates." She comments that in some countries, especially the United States, "the welfare of the family is typically seen as the responsibility of individuals rather than the government" and that countries that have always supported working mothers with paid maternity (and sometimes paterninty) leave like Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland have higher birthrates and better participation of women in the workplace. The U.S. has compensated for its lower birthrates in well-off populations with immigration, which could create "political" problems (even more so in Europe, where some Muslim populations have high birth rates). She notes "morally repugnant" pro-natal practices in the past: Mussolini taxed bachelors (already noted in Crane Brinton's college history text
A History of Civilization) and in the 1980s Singapore supported maternity among well-off populations and discouraged it in the poor.