Here is a quote from the lede:
"In 1890, 80 percent of black American households were headed by husbands and wives. That's just 25 years after the end of the Civil War.
In 1900, the percentage was mostly unchanged, and so it remained -- between the high 70s and the low 80s -- for 1910, 1920, 1930, for every decennial census report until 1970, when it was down to 64.
For the 2000 Census, the percentage of black families headed by married couples was 38. The only good news is that it was also 38 percent in 1990, suggesting that the trend may have stopped getting worse.
Now consider this: Fatherless families are America's single largest source of poverty. The Annie E. Casey Foundation's "Kids Count" once reported that Americans who failed to complete high school, to get married and to reach age 20 before having their first child were nearly 10 times as likely to live in poverty as those who did these three things."
I'm not arguing that fatherhood is a panacea or a cure-all for poverty, clearly education and wisdom in the timing of having a child are major contributing factors. What I am arguing, though, is that if we are serious about helping those in poverty, we must be serious about helping families. First, we must do whatever we can structurally to help fathers remain committed to their children and their children's mother. In this case, I see carrots as being much more powerful than sticks. Both tend to be economic in nature, but the stick options often fail on account of the fact that garnishing wages or increasing taxes on a poor person just makes that person poorer.
Safety nets and structural help only go so far, however, and certainly don't help discourage having children before graduating high school or before the age of 20. This is where I think we, as a culture, fail miserably. Firstly, we refuse to place any heavy burden or responsibility on fathers for pregnancy - particularly young, unmarried fathers. Last time I checked, the father was a major contributing factor to the creation of a child, yet fathers bear significantly less social stigma and fallout from the pregnancy. Case in point: I recently heard a story of a catholic high school which refused to allow a pregnant girl to walk at graduation. However, the father (another student), faced no such restrictions.
This story is indicative of the disproportionate blame we put on girls for pregnancy, as if the boys were simply innocent bystanders. I suspect that the blame should be reversed. For young men who think they can simply be promiscuous, we should ask one question: Are you man enough to be a father?
I feel like I've wandered a bit far afield on this post, so I'm going to try to bring it around and conclude with this: regardless of when or how it happened, fathers need to be responsible for the care and upbringing of their children. To help in this effort will require education, incentives, consequences and the culture at large must agree to the premise. It's also time for men to step up and take responsibility, regardless of other factors. This is a highly complex issue with many variables, but one thing is certain: there are a lot of kids out there looking for a few good men. The few, the proud, the dads.
No comments:
Post a Comment