Marriage Passe

Or at least according to recent reporting that says 51% of women are living without a husband. Apparently there was some pretty questionable statistical fudging used to get to that 51% number - such as counting girls down to age 15 and married women who weren't living under the same roof with their husbands at the moment for one reason or another. But the fudging is another topic.

The fact remains that marriage is in trouble. Part of the gay marriage argument is that it's pretty cheap among heteros anyway, so why lock them out? Sounds like the old "two wrongs don't make a right" sort of argument to me. I think gay marriage isn't about gay people wanting to marry each other. It's really about gay people wanting the government and employer benefits of marriage, treated equal to hetero couples in consideration of adoption, and undermining churches still trying to hold on to basic moral values. But that's another topic.

The story accompanying these managing statistics used them as some sort of evidence that feminism has taken over. Basically, that women have decided that they don't need men in their lives, and are now liberated in big numbers to demonstrate the fact. Maybe some women don't need men (I'd have to say I don't need women with that sort of attitude either), but I would strongly and passionately state that their children do! (Need fathers, that is). But that's another topic.

What the story really leads me to is the fact that this information, fudged as it is, represents something tragic, not something to be celebrated.

Behind the numbers, there is no doubt about the tragic impact this has on children, and by extension, the society. Take out the 15 to 21 year old unmarried girls, the huge numbers of widows, and you still have way too many poor unmarried mothers raising children certain to become poor unmarried mothers themselves.

The reporters telling us about this topic want to pretend it's about the liberation of women to pursue self-actualization and fantastic careers without the oppressive restriction of some jerk husband. What they conveniently leave out of the story is the relatively tiny population that can be reasonably identified in this utopian category.

What's really happening is this: Single women shacked up with a guy who may or may not hang around when the baby (or babies) arrive. Or women that don't let the guys move in but still have 2 or 3 or 4 or more babies that are housed, fed, and raised by taxpayers. I can't ever run for office, because I'd be publicly crucified for daring to "judge" people like this.

Don't misunderstand - I'm not just judging women. The men who shack up with them, get them pregnant, then won't take responsibility for their own kids deserve just as much judgement. As a businessman, if I were interviewing a man who tells me without prompting that he's currently living with his girlfriend, I would not hire him. Here's why - if the guy is willing to move in with a woman while keeping the door wide open to bolt as soon as he gets bored or something doesn't go quite right (say she gets pregnant, for example), then how can I trust him to show any commitment or strong ethical practices as a representative of my company?

I've heard it in person from young, supposedly intelligent people:

Marriage is an anachronism.

We have such a great relationship, why ruin it by getting married?

We don't need to be married to have love and commitment for each other.

Sound familiar?

Know what happens to kids raised by single mothers? I do. Especially boys - how can a boy ever learn how to be a man if there isn't a "real" man present as a father figure?

A few months ago I was working with a client where they needed some help setting up their employee benefits. I spent several hours reviewing the employees and their company-provided benefits - you know, health insurance and life insurance and so on. I was astounded at what I saw.

Most of the men were married, especially those in skilled and management positions. Most of the women were single. Almost all the single women over 25 had children. A large majority of married men and women had children with different last names. And it was not unusual to see 3 or more different last names among the children.

Were the unmarried women with children liberated career women? No. Almost none of them. The single women with kids had the lower-level jobs. Because they have to leave work at 3:30 every day to pick up the kids from school. Overtime is impossible. If a meeting goes past 3:30, they just have to miss it. If something goes wrong and needs to be addressed at the end of the day, somebody else has to do it, because she has to go home and take care of the kids. They can't afford day care, unless they're lucky enough to have a grandparent in town. They barely made it through high school, and college is an old, dead dream given up long ago.

Of course I didn't meet but a few of them at that company, but many I did meet had boyfriends. Some live-in, others not. Think they consider themselves liberated? Interested in a bet on how they'd answer if you asked them how liberated they feel? What do you think they'd say if you asked them whether they needed a man?

Most importantly, how do you think their children are doing? What's the chance their kids, especially their daughters, will go to college?

See, it's not cause for celebration. It's a tragedy. It's an outrage. All sold every day by nearly everything we see on TV. Isn't everybody on TV shacking up or having sex with any hottie that shows up? And despite all that, isn't it interesting that the characters never get pregnant or catch a disease? Even if a baby comes along, somehow it doesn't in any way change the lifestyle of the TV mom, does it?

It's a gigantic lie. If I were a public figure, I'd be crucified for holding the mirror up to the lie. But isn't it time somebody did?