What's wrong with this article? Marriage and Taxes, part 2
by lindabeth

Especially in light of my critique of 'marriage'-centric social organization, check out this article from CNN.com:

"Study: Single parents cost taxpayers $112 billion":

Divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing cost U.S. taxpayers more than $112
billion a year, according to a study commissioned by four groups advocating more government action to bolster marriages.

hmm...what's wrong with this so far? (hint: it's something to do with the premise of the article)

Ok, I'll tell you.

  1. It implies that divorcees and parents who are unmarried are not 'taxpayers.'
  2. Thus, it positions those not divorced or single parents--married people, single people (aka not-yet married), and married parents--as the 'ideal taxpayer-citizen'

And that's just the first paragraph.

Next:

Sponsors say the study is the first of its kind and hope it will prompt lawmakers to invest more money in programs aimed at strengthening marriages.

Could it possibly be that our social and economic structures heavily favor married parenting, and that's what needs to be investigated, rather than 'strengthening marriage'??

Two experts not connected to the study said such programs are of dubious merit and suggested that other investments -- notably job creation -- would be more effective in aiding all types of needy families.

...which is good, especially since I heard on NPR recently (I can't find the show reference! aah!) that divorce and income are correlated (and ya know, 'the sanctity of marriage' etc. is of utmost important to preserving 'traditional' --read: patriarchal capitalist --values).

There's more:

Scafidi's calculations were based on the assumption that households headed by a single female have relatively high poverty rates, leading to higher spending on welfare, health care, criminal justice and education for those raised in the disadvantaged homes.

Right, because there's a natural connection between single mothering and poverty, apparently, so we need to fix the 'single mothering' rather than, say, the 'feminization of poverty' or the socio-economic structure that perpetuates single-parent (mother) poverty.

See, there's two problems here with our socio-economic structure:

  1. The assumption of two parents present and sharing a home. The model used to
    be male breadwinner/female domestic servant. Now, women are 'allowed' to have economic independence but continue to bear the homemaking burden.
  2. Women are paid less money, plain and simple.

So in a single-parent family where that single parent is a woman, she's doubly screwed economically.

At the end of the day, the article--along with the study and those who commissioned it--assumes the natural and neutral center of American life (ought) to be marriage and specifically, married-parenting. Further, they conclude that we should tell people how they should structure their networks of association in their life because it would cost less in government expenditures and because they are deviating from some sort of arbitrary 'normal'. Sure marriage is the norm in American society; that doesn't make it natural. It's still an arbitrary primary structure of social relations.

Sure sounds like life, liberty, and all that jazz to me!

Submitted by lindabeth (view blog) on Fri, 04/18/2008 - 09:24

Comments

 

I like your way of thinking

Many moons ago while I was in grad school, I took a research course on poverty.  My project was to investigate whether children in homes with two adults - like a mom and grandma or unmarried partners - would have life outcomes that were just as good as kids from married homes.  My theory was that having a second adult in the home is helpful to sharing family responsibilities, no matter what the adult relationship is.

Anyway, what I found is that children from married households did better than kids from two adult households who did better than kids from single adult households.  I was pretty depressed about it, until my wise professors pointed out that ultimately married households hold legal and social program advantages over other types of households that could contribute to the success of their children.  The little lightbulb in my head lit up.

The obvious conclusion is that we should encourage marriage.  It's also the easy way out.  The interesting, realistic, and innovative conclusion is that we should acknowledge the reality of complex family relationships and devise legal and social programs to benefit children from all households.  Change our system of benefits, and you get better, fairer results. 

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants

Submitted by Suzanne Reisman on Sun, 04/20/2008 - 09:38
 

exactly

married households hold legal and social program advantages over other
types of households that could contribute to the success of their
children

This is precisely what people forget, or neglect to realize, I believe, and we jumpt to label factors as "causes" when they're merely "contributory" and the causes are much broader.  

 

And your research sounds like it was very interesting! My Master's work is very related to this topic, looking as normative gendered marriage as it's produced discursively and cross-institutionally.   

Submitted by lindabeth on Sun, 04/20/2008 - 12:03
 

The Purpose of Marriage

The American view of marriage is very romantic. It is based on the premise that two people fall in love then join to create a next generation. That, this is normal and natural and that humans are naturally monogamous.

The real purpose of marriage throughout the world is a union created for protection and wealth building. The idea of love never enters the picture. The American view condemns the practice of arranged or strategic marriage and pretends that if you don't marry fo love you are doomed to a life of misery.

While marriage for love is a wonderful thing when it works...it is clear that as woman became economically independant the neccessity of marriage deminished. Even if they were only marginally economically independant a freedom to "do you own thing" emerged. This in turn has contributed to the demise of Marriage in America on any level, for love, economics, or protection. While most people will "try" it, they lack the need to remain married since their is virtually no social taboo now in the USA against divorce. Families, friends, and society in general are even supportive when it comes to divorce.

When we look in the natural world thoughout millions of species, monogamy is the exception not the rule. But where it exists, it is so strongly instinctual that animals will pass their entire reproductive life alone rather than "sleep around". This is not the case with either males or female homo sapiens. Both sexs show a great propensity for multiple partners or serial monogamy which is nothing more than mating for a season.

Now, back to the issue at hand, since we have removed the taboos for childbearing out of wedlock it behoves us to address the equality issues between men and women. The womens rights groups have dropped the ball. Where they fought tooth and nail to get women jobs they failed to follow through in terms of creating an ominiternal society. We are still very much a parternal society and the rules of the game remain the same especially when it comes to economic power. As long as our society favors men, women will continue to seek marriage as an economic solution. Which is in fact what it is and always has been.

Submitted by Ecoblogical on Thu, 08/14/2008 - 08:50
BlogHer

© Copyright 2008 BlogHer | Terms of Service