Traditional Marriage and the Family

The two parent family is and has been the norm in hundreds of known civilizations throughout history. (Rauchut, 2008, p. 183). Today, however, the notion of marriage and family are considered archaic and obsolete…no longer serving the needs of a nation and its citizens. This in a nation, though, that finds 90% of all women getting married at some point in their life and many women who consider marriage and a family very important. There are some ideas in our current culture that are taking their toll on these important institutions and government isn’t doing much to help.

One way that government has contributed to the dissolution of the family is through the AFCD where, according to Dafoe Whitehead, women were promised an entitlement to a lifetime of cash as long as they had dependent children, no job, and were not married to someone with a job. (Marshal, Lerman, Dafoe Whitehead, Horn, Rector, & Strober, 2008, p. 533) In such an effort the government had the best of intentions but the results show that America is no better off because of it. If statistics show that children from two-parent families have a higher likelihood of becoming good citizens. And good citizens contribute to the good of society, why then put policies in place that penalize people for doing the right thing. The unfortunate thing is that the proverbial genie is out of the bottle. How are we to undo decades of damage.

Another contribution of government to the problem is in the sponsoring of Title X clinics that promote the idea of birth control and family planning without ever putting proper focus on the merits of waiting until marriage to have children. While such things should never be compulsory, if one considers the strength that traditional marriage is to the foundation of society, it seems silly not to at least offer such education. (Marshal, Lerman, Dafoe Whitehead, Horn, Rector, & Strober, 2008, p. 536) In all reality, however, the best thing that government can do is to get out of the welfare business and leave those activities in the hands of civil organizations that provide a face with the giving and aid the disadvantaged in becoming responsible and contributing adults.

One threat to the institution of marriage and the traditional family comes when those of the political and social left portray it as out of reach, even undesirable to Americans. Arlene Skolnick describes traditional marriage and family as a “luxury item available only to those with steady jobs and good incomes.” (Skolnick, 2006, p. 520) In contrast, however to her opinion that “steady jobs and good incomes” are practically required are statistics showing that black families, when times were oppressively tough for them, were much more inclined towards traditional marriage and family. Robert Rector said that in 1941 the average black man made the equivalent of $9000 a year, yet at that time 90% of black children were born inside marriage. (Marshal, Lerman, Dafoe Whitehead, Horn, Rector, & Strober, 2008, p. 538) In fact, as poor women have become more independent economically through the assistance of the government, traditional marriage and family have become almost a thing of the past in the communities in which they live. By 1995 70% of black children were born out of wedlock. ( (Marshal, Lerman, Dafoe Whitehead, Horn, Rector, & Strober, 2008, p. 534)

Some call for additional government spending, or at least redirection of spending, to fund child care citing that children of single mothers are 50% more likely to be in poverty. (Strober, 2004, p. 525) This, however, is only addressing a symptom of the problem – namely, increased divorce and an increase in the number of children born out of wedlock. I can think of no social situation into which the federal government has inserted itself that has made the situation better. The welfare state has contributed directly to the dissolution of traditional marriage and the family. Subsidizing child-care will only further that. It would be even easier for men and women to be independent of their own children’s fathers and mothers. Someday we may find that men are no more than sperm donors and women no more than birth canals. What children of single parents see and live with throughout their lives will become the societal norm.

Another contemporary threat to marriage and family is feminism-- the idea that a woman can only find identity and fulfillment through a career. (Graglia, 1998, p. 540) There seems to be a stigma attaché these days to a woman being in the home with her children. Who better, though, to entrust the upbringing and character development of a child to, though, than their own mother. We’ve heard the saying, “a face only a mother can love.” This is true, and maybe it’s not just the face, but the whole being. Mothers can see beyond the foibles of youth. Generally speaking, the love of a mother for her children is one of the very strongest of bonds. Yet mothers feel compelled by our culture to seek fulfillment elsewhere and leave their children to someone whose moral views may be contrary to that of the child’s family and who might be much less tolerant of a child’s short-comings. This is because the care of a child, to them, is mostly a paycheck. They may love children, but it’s a job and that care-giver has no vested interest in the long term welfare of that child. And for that working mother, her major complaint of working, says Graglia, is the “discrepancy between their own image of what being a good mother entails and the reality of their lives.” (Graglia, 1998, p. 545) “For a working mother to admit,” says Crittenden, “to wanting to be with her children – or worse, finding more satisfaction in being wither her children than at work – is to question the results of three decades of social transformation.” (Crittenden, 1996, p. 563)

There is a consideration to make when discussing the single parent family. No doubt it is a family. Not an ideal family statistically speaking, but no doubt a family. There are circumstances where this fracturing of the family has come as the result of circumstances beyond the control of the mother. I say mother here because it seems that this is usually where the children end up. An abusive or unfaithful father may be to blame. Perhaps the single-parent is a widow or widower. In such situations the single-parent is at a disadvantage by way of their children who are prone to just about every social problem. Problems like, delinquency, crime, early pregnancy, and emotional difficulties. (Hymowitz, 2008, p. 560) This can even be a problem in step families that seek to become, once again, the traditional norm. In situations like this these families do need help. The help should come, though, from civil organizations. From churches and organizations specifically designed to assist parents in need. Parents, however should never relinquish their responsibilities. Parents should strongly consider that, contrary to opinion, divorce isn’t a health life experience for children. A survey showed that children preferred an unhappy marriage to a divorce and that the negative effects of that divorce were felt as long as 10 years later. (Graglia, 1998, p. 543) There are times when divorce occurs because of something I call, “The Grass is Greener Theory.” This theory holds that one or both partners in a marriage falls out of love and feel that there is another, better option out there somewhere. In this case the relationship has become disagreeable not because of any obvious wrong doing by either spouse. In these cases, I think the parents are obligated to work out their differences and overcoming any extant selfishness for the longer term benefit of their children.

Traditional marriage is not dead. It should not be dead. It is the “foundation of any healthy society” (Santorum, 2008, p. 570). Motherhood does not make a woman less valuable, in fact they fill a role that no other can or should fill. Robin Parker talks about the woman who can do it all and is more happy when they do so (Parker, 2008) In fact, I believe that any additional experiences and education a woman gains before, during, or after marriage and motherhood can only serve to make her an even better mother to her children. These experiences enrich her life and give her a broader base of experience to improve the lives of her children. Even without that, though, mother is a shining star in society. Some say that children are our best hope, I contend that there is no hope without mother. She deserves the support and help of her husband and the father of their children. They should work together to make sure their children are being raised in such a manner as to make them good citizens. They should take an active role in the lives of their children that might be compromised when both mother and father are out of the home. Children shouldn’t be left to the guidance of strangers, or worse still, media (Hagelin, 2006)as a substitution to parenting unless there is simply no alternative. Can mothers be effective in the workplace? No question they can and are. Is a mother effective in the home? Like none else.

The best thing government can do now is begin the transition of welfare services to civil organizations that are better equipped to handle them. With government doing nothing to impede marriage, the next thing that must happen is that parents must begin taking the lead role in providing for the moral education of their children. Fathers must return to the home and set better examples for their sons. Lastly our society must embrace the traditional family for the exceptional value it offers our great nation and those facets of our culture that currently undermine the morals of our children by targeting them must cease those activities. Our nation can stand only as long as it’s foundation is secure. The family is that foundation.

Works Cited

Crittenden, D. (1996). The Mother of All Problems. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 563-569.

Graglia, C. (1998). from Domestic Tranquility. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 540-548.

Hagelin, R. (2006). Taking Back Our Homes. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 576-579.

Hymowitz, K. S. (2008). Marriage and Caste in America: Separate & Unequal Families in a Post-Marital Age. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 559-562.

Marshal, J. A., Lerman, R., Dafoe Whitehead, B., Horn, W., Rector, R., & Strober, M. H. (2008). The Collapse of Marriage and the Rise of Welfare Dependence. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 529-539.

Parker, R. (2008). Superwoman: Myth, Reality - Or What? Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 573-575.

Rauchut, E. A. (2008). Marriage & Family. American Vision and Values , 179-199.

Santorum, R. (2008). The Necessity of Marriage. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 570-572.

Skolnick, A. (2006). Beyond the "M" Word: The Tangled Web of Politics and Marriage. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 518-523.

Strober, M. H. (2004). Children as a Public Good. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 524-528.