05 Pat Fagan The State Of Marriage And The Family
•Download as PPT, PDF•
2 likes•447 views
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Similar to 05 Pat Fagan The State Of Marriage And The Family
Similar to 05 Pat Fagan The State Of Marriage And The Family (20)
More from amado sandoval
More from amado sandoval (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
05 Pat Fagan The State Of Marriage And The Family
- 2. Government / Citizen Marketplace / Income Education / Learning Family / Sex–Affection Religion / Worship-God
- 5. “ Rejection/Ambivalence Ratio” for Every 100 Children Born 40 1950 Children Aborted Children of Divorce 50 60 70 Children born out of Wedlock 30 20 10 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 Source: National Center for Health Statistics data and Alan Guttmacher Institute data
- 7. Source: C. Harper and S. McLanahan, “Father Absence and Youth Incarceration,” ASA Annual Meeting, San Francisco, August 1998. Data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth.
- 14. In Britain, a Child Whose Biological Mother Cohabits was 33 Times More Likely to Suffer Serious Abuse than a Child with Married Parents 5 Biological Parents Married Mother Married to Stepfather Biological Mother Alone Biological Parents Cohabiting Source: Robert Whelan, Broken Homes and Broken Children , 1994. Family Structure Biological Father Alone Biological Mother Cohabiting 10 15 20 25 30 35 Comparative Risk Ratios for Serious Abuse, 1982-1988
- 15. In Britain, a Child Whose Biological Mother Cohabits was 73 Times More Likely to Suffer Fatal Abuse than a Child with Married Parents 5 Biological Parents Married Mother Married to Stepfather Biological Mother Alone Biological Parents Cohabiting Source: Robert Whelan, Broken Homes and Broken Children , 1994. Family Structure Biological Father Alone Biological Mother Cohabiting 10 15 20 25 30 35 Comparative Risk Ratios for Serious Abuse, 1982-1988
- 17. Runaway Children in UK 0% Step-Families Lone-parent Families Two-parent Families Percentage of children running away overnight before the age of 16 10% 5% 15% 20% 25%
- 19. MARKETPLACE & INCOME
- 20. Note: Figures do not include transferred income.
- 22. {
- 23. Impact of Divorce on Income of Families 10,000 Before Divorce After Divorce 20,000 30,000 40,000 $50,000 1993 Average Annual Income Source: Corcoran and Chaudray, Unpublished Research Paper, Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, May 1994 Family Status
- 27. Schema: Having Vs Belonging in the US
- 28. EDUCATION
- 31. FAMILY MARRIAGE & SEXUALITY
- 41. HEALTH, MENTAL HEALTH
- 42. Adolescents in Poor Health by Family Structure Source: The National Longitudinal Study of AddHealth, Wave II (1996) PA58
- 45. CHURCH RELIGION
- 61. REJECTION PLUS HIGH RELIGIOUS PRACTICE INTACT PLUS HIGH RELIGIOUS PRACTICE REJECTION PLUS LOW-NO RELIGIOUS PRACTICE INTACT PLUS PLUS LOW-NO RELIGIOUS PRACTICE COMBINED FAMILY AND RELIGIOUS PRACTICE DIMENSIONS
- 71. 5 Tasks --- 5 Institutions Family / Sex Affection Church / Worship School / Education Government / Citizen Marketplace / Income
- 72. Government/ Citizenship Economy / Income Education Family Marriage Church Worship
- 74. “ Rejection/Ambivalence Ratio” for Every 100 Children Born 40 1950 Children Aborted Children of Divorce 50 60 70 Children born out of Wedlock 30 20 10 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 Source: National Center for Health Statistics data and Alan Guttmacher Institute data
- 75. World Rejection Index 1999-2000
- 76. Schema: Having Vs Belonging in the US
- 77. Culture of Belonging Vs Culture of Rejection and Alienation
- 78. Two Great Commandments Love God (Worship) Love Your Neighbor (Spouse)
- 79. Government/ Citizenship Economy / Income Education Family Marriage Church Worship
- 83. The End ----- Is To Belong
Editor's Notes
- There are five major institutions in society: The Family The Church (Synagogue or Temple) The School (Grade School, High School, University and Media) The Government The Marketplace (The Economy) In which five major tasks are accomplished: Begetting and forming the next generation Dealing with transcendent truths Learning and teaching Using physical force (locus of power) for the common good Taking care of material needs through exchange of goods and services
- First we will look at the relationship between how well different forms of the family do in the marketplace with special note to the presence or absence of belonging to each other between the father and mother and in turn together in belonging to their children.
- The basic tasks of the five institutions are present in all the actors at all stages of life: In the family where (obviously) the children are born and the next generation learns the basics of life from their parents; The child learns to learn and study The child learns the fundamentals about God and the transcendent issues of life The child learns fairness, justice and responsibility for others – basis of citizenship The child learns to work and sees his parents cooperate in work
- This chart illustrates the “Rejection Ratio” for the United States since 1950. This measure is calculated by showing how many children are born out-of-wedlock or how many children under age 18 experience the divorce of their parents in a particular year compared to the number of newborns coming into our society that year. This ratio gives us a handle on what proportion of a generation experience serious rejection as they grow up. In 1950, for every 100 children born that year, 12 experienced serious rejection: four by being born out-of-wedlock and eight by experiencing the divorce of their parents. By the year 2000, almost 60 children experienced this form of rejection for every 100 children born that year. America has become a nation of rejection.
- This chart illustrates a Rejection Ratio that includes abortion, for which reliable numbers became available in the late 1960’s. The black bars indicate the abortion ratio. By the year 2000, we can say that for every 100 children conceived, only about 28 reach age 18 living in an intact family with the mother and father who brought them into existence. America has formed for itself a culture of deep rejection. It has become an extraordinarily dangerous place for children: 72 out of every hundred conceived now experience serious rejection: abortion, out of wedlock birth or the divorce of their parents.
- This chart looks at the rates of incarceration for juvenile delinquents by family structure. This particular chart illustrates not just simple correlations but the regression results after controlling for parental income and education. Interestingly, these results highlight stepfamilies’ difficulties in attaining a sense of intactness and belonging. The highest rate of incarceration (of boys in the main part) is in families where the mother comes from outside the original biological family to form the reconstructed stepfamily. The next highest is when the father is brought from outside the original biological family to form the new stepfamily. The next comes in the never married, single-mother family. The lowest rate is in the always-intact, married family. There are dramatic differences among these rates: 1, 2.07, 2.71, and 3.7. Next we will look at the correlations between belongingness and sexual activity.
- There is a significant relationship between abuse in the family and later crime. In a key study of 14 juveniles condemned to death because of murder in the United States 12 were found to have been brutally abused and 5 had been sodomized by family relatives.
- However, drawing from British data because there is no similar data from the United States, we get a picture of the different levels of serious child abuse across family structures. The lowest level of serious abuse occurs in the always-intact, married family. In Britain the stepfamily abuse levels are six times higher; the always-single mother family, 14 times higher; cohabiting family 20 times higher, and the single-father family 20 times higher. The most dangerous family structure is when the mother cohabits with a boyfriend who is not the father of the child. This abuse rate is 33 times greater than in the intact, married family. Here the father neither belongs to the child nor the mother.
- This chart looks at serious abuse that results in the death of the child. Again, the most dangerous place for the child is when that family structure where the mother is cohabiting with a boyfriend who is not the father of the child. Fatal abuse occurs in this family setting 73 times more often than in the intact, married family. Almost all of these children are very young, around one year old. When the father belongs in marriage to the mother and the child he is extraordinarily protective of the life of his children.
- This graph bridges the UK and US data and compares the rates of abuse from their different surveys. What is noticeable is that the slope (increase in rates) is pretty similar for both countries when the different family structures are compared. (For this comparison all two-parent family structures had to be collapsed into one).
- Running away (permanently) from home is highly correlated with drug crime and prostitution in most countries. The rates of running away vary significantly by family structure (by levels of belonging and rejection). The step family has the highest rate of running away from home in the UK. We do not have good data on this for the United States.
- Partner abuse varies significantly by family structure and contrary to the radical feminist critique the safest place for women is in the married family (though when divorce or separation takes place there is a very significant rise in abuse). However even taking these divorce and separation rates into account the ‘ever-married’ woman experiences a much lower rate of abuse than does the ‘never-married’ woman. Cohabitation is a form of ‘belonging’ that has much greater rates of abuse. Married men are the most protective of their wives and children.
- First we will look at the relationship between how well different forms of the family do in the marketplace with special note to the presence or absence of belonging to each other between the father and mother and in turn together in belonging to their children.
- This chart illustrates family structure and median family income (without transferred income from the government) in the year 2000, i.e. what the family earns in the marketplace. The same pattern emerges again: the never-married single-mother family has the lowest median income ($9,400); the separated family has a median income of $20,000; the divorced (parent-rejecting) family has a median income of $23,000; the cohabiting (ambivalent about marriage) family has a median income of $30,000; the stepfamily/second-marriage has a median income of $50,000; and the always-intact married family has a median income of $54,000.
- The issue of belonging, rejection, and indifference, is powerfully illustrated in this chart of the percentage of children in poverty by family structure. Each label on the different family structures is a shorthand history of belonging, rejection, or indifference within the family. The lowest level of poverty is in the always-intact family (12 percent), where the parents have always belonged to each other and to their children. The next family structure, the stepfamily, is similar at 13 percent. Here, the parents and children belong to each other, but normally in the history of the family there is serious rejection (divorce) one of the parents for a former spouse or partner (divorce or out of wedlock birth). The level of poverty in the divorced, single parent family is much higher at 31%. This is a form of the family fractured by the parents’ rejection of each other. The next highest level of poverty is in cohabiting parents who are characterized by ambivalence about their future with each other (39 percent). The separated, single-parent family has a similarly high level of child poverty at 41 percent. Finally, the always-single mother family has the highest level of child poverty at 67 percent. This is the family structure where the father has never belonged to the mother nor fully to his children. Data such as this shaped the welfare reform debate of 1994-1996 .
- This is a simulation experiment we conducted at The Heritage Foundation in which we “married’ the real fathers with the real mothers of chidren in single parent families (using annual mini-census data). When we did so the vast majority of children were raised above the poverty line, reducing the number in poverty from 3.93 million to 0.75 million. That is 3.17 million children were raised from below the poverty line just by having their fathers married to their mothers and without any government transfers of payments. Rejection (not belonging) between parents has a high price on all of society but especially on the children.
- This chart illustrates the size of the drop in income when a family moves from being intact and married to fractured and divorced. In this particular study, fairly representative of this type of study, the drop is 42%, which is a drop greater than that experienced by the nation during the Great Depression. Children of divorcing/rejecting parents go through a ‘Great Depression’ in their family income during the divorce.
- This slide illustrates the culmination of a series of research projects which went about isolating the effect of marriage on men’s earning power. Controlling for all other factors (even genetics --- using monozygotic twin studies) men who are married increase their earning power by 27% in general. The last slide which showed the effect on child poverty of fathers being married to the mothers of their children did not have this effect in there (the men were not married). Should that have been the case, nearly every child would have been lifted out of poverty.
- Belonging and rejection have massive impacts on the accumulation of wealth. This chart illustrates accumulated wealth within the family, for families with children under 18 in the year 2000. The huge difference is clear between the married family structures where mother and father belong to each other and all other family forms. The always-intact, always-belonging married family with children has 343 times more wealth than the never-married, single-parent family with children under 18. These parents yet have many years of earnings and savings to add to their wealth. The disparities will widen over decades. To drive home the point of the effect on the marketplace let me ask the question: What families own the stock of the companies of the United States? Where does the surplus capital come from to invest in the continued and future growth of the economy?
- This chart illustrates the twin factors of The level of belongingness in family in the United States (downward) And The constant dollar value of the median family income in the United States (which encompasses all the different family structures). I interpret the above chart to indicate that the phenomenal growth of the US economy benefited the family significantly until the family began to break down. Clearly the continued growth in real terms of the US economy since the mid 1970’s has not been passed on to all families in the US.
- The trend lines are produced here …median income rising slowly for the family despite real GDP growth while levels of belonging in the family decrease. Yet if we look at the capital wealth of families in the United States we will get some indication of where the disparities lie.
- To partake of the capacities of the modern economy a person needs a basic education at least, much more if he is to do well. The family is the foundation of all education and the head start (or lag) a child has as he enters school has never been compensated for, to the best of my knowledge, by any national education effort by any government in modern history. When government education programs do raise the level of those most in need it tends to raise the levels of all … a great common good but one that illustrates the critical importance of the family in education. The following charts illustrate this relationship.
- Now we will look at how the handling of oneself sexually has massive impact on family life, on the life of the individual involved and on society at large. From these charts a strong conclusion that man is made to be monogamous can be drawn though it will take a number of charts for this to become obvious. Man is made to be united to just one other. Woman is made to be united to just one other. So the data tell.
- Here is the impact of monogamy on the stability of marriage. The first bar is the woman who has never had sexual intercourse outside of marriage (0 partners outside of marriage). 80% of such women in the United States have stable marriages … stay united to their husbands. The rest of the chart tells the rest of the story: the more sexual partners the more likely they are to divorce. Even having one partner brings the rate of divorce very close to one in two chances (54 %).
- Even having one non-marital sexual partner leads to the probability (30%) of out of wedlock birth that is almost the same as the national average of out of wedlock births (33%).
- This chart illustrates the significance of teenagers’ judgment that their father is warm, loving and cares for them. The child in an intact, married family is 12 times more likely to experience warmth and love from her father than is a child in the always-single parent family, 7 times more likely than a child of divorced parents, 3 times more likely than a child of cohabiting parents, and 1.5 times more likely than a child in a stepfamily. There are clear implications from this data for levels of virginity in different family structures, as the next chart illustrates .
- This chart looks at the rates of teenage virginity by family structure and includes adopted and foster children. Again, we see the same pattern emerging: the more stable belongingness in the family history, the greater the level of virginity. In this chart, we see also the dramatic difference between adopted children and foster care children. Both of these groups of children come from troubled backgrounds but are treated very differently. Children adopted early into intact, married families, are more likely to keep their virginity as illustrated here. Prior to adoption, the parents are screened not only for financial resources but also for the level of belongingness. The adopted infant comes into a family full of a desire to belong to the child. Hence, the great outcomes. By contrast, the foster child more frequently experiences many moves and many experiences of rejection. Hence, the awful outcomes. Adopted children have the highest levels of virginity, and foster children have the lowest. There is a clear correlation between belongingness and rejection and levels of virginity.
- Illustrating a different aspect of “abortions overwhelmingly take place outside of marriage” phenomenon: 80% take place to women under 25 years of age…. To women who have sexual intercourse outside of marriage.
- Abortion is very much a product of early teen sexual intercourse … of having intercourse before being ready to take care of a baby.
- This is the total number of children surgically aborted each year. It continues to drop in the United States. The vast majority (81 %) of abortion take place outside of marriage (yellow). 19% are to married mothers (blue).
- This is a clearer illustration of the decrease in out of wedlock births among teenagers. Abstinence is working in the United States and is part of the US Federal Governments policy: to teach children to remain chaste till high school children to stay chaste till marriage. And they are responding. It is possible to rebuild a culture of love, of unity.
- Families are the building blocks of our society. When rejection occurs in the family, especially between the parents when they separate or divorce, the mental health of children is affected.
- Given the material advantages that accrue to married families (a father and mother working together in unity can do much more for their children than can a single parent), some of the difference can be seen in the health of children. It is interesting to note that it is the step family (whose income is close to the intact married family) whose children are most likely to be in poor health.
- This chart on emotional disorders of children comes from nationally representative data of the United Kingdom, as we have no such data for the United States. We can see the same trend here. Children from families where the parents belong to each other have the lowest level of emotional disorders. In ascending order, children of cohabiting parents come next, followed by always-single parent families, and finally the divorced-single-parent family. Normally, children of always-single parents do not experience firsthand the rejection of the absent parent. That event happened early in their life. Children of divorced parents have often lived through the pain of that rejection, and it is reflected in this measurement and in a few other emotionally-sensitive outcomes.
- This chart adds the conduct disorders in red (aggression, acting out, lack of self control) to the emotional disorders (in blue) of the last chart. Again this data is for the United Kingdom. Of note here is that the always single mother and the single mother family has the great incidence of children with conduct disorders. The lessened capacity to monitor the child (one parent rather than two) is likely a major contributor to this incidence.
- To partake of the capacities of the modern economy a person needs a basic education at least, much more if he is to do well. The family is the foundation of all education and the head start (or lag) a child has as he enters school has never been compensated for, to the best of my knowledge, by any national education effort by any government in modern history. When government education programs do raise the level of those most in need it tends to raise the levels of all … a great common good but one that illustrates the critical importance of the family in education. The following charts illustrate this relationship.
- The culture is all about how we belong to each other at different levels and in different ways. At the heart of culture is ‘cult’ …the practice of worship of God. All the following data is from the Federal Government’s own survey.
- This chart illustrates the “Rejection Ratio” for the United States since 1950. This measure is calculated by showing how many children are born out-of-wedlock or how many children under age 18 experience the divorce of their parents in a particular year compared to the number of newborns coming into our society that year. This ratio gives us a handle on what proportion of a generation experience serious rejection as they grow up. In 1950, for every 100 children born that year, 12 experienced serious rejection: four by being born out-of-wedlock and eight by experiencing the divorce of their parents. By the year 2000, almost 60 children experienced this form of rejection for every 100 children born that year. America has become a nation of rejection.
- This chart illustrates a Rejection Ratio that includes abortion, for which reliable numbers became available in the late 1960’s. The black bars indicate the abortion ratio. By the year 2000, we can say that for every 100 children conceived, only about 28 reach age 18 living in an intact family with the mother and father who brought them into existence. America has formed for itself a culture of deep rejection. It has become an extraordinarily dangerous place for children: 72 out of every hundred conceived now experience serious rejection: abortion, out of wedlock birth or the divorce of their parents.
- The trend lines are produced here …median income rising slowly for the family despite real GDP growth while levels of belonging in the family decrease. Yet if we look at the capital wealth of families in the United States we will get some indication of where the disparities lie.
- The basic tasks of the five institutions are present in all the actors at all stages of life: In the family where (obviously) the children are born and the next generation learns the basics of life from their parents; The child learns to learn and study The child learns the fundamentals about God and the transcendent issues of life The child learns fairness, justice and responsibility for others – basis of citizenship The child learns to work and sees his parents cooperate in work
- Other research papers which go into these policy areas in greater detail may be obtained on this web address. Papers by myself, Robert Rector and Kirk Johnson.
- For access to thousands of findings from the professional journal literature on the effects of family and of religion on social outcomes go to this web site. www.familyfacts.org