Start A Petition

Why God, Family and Tradition Do Not Equal Happiness

World  (tags: 'CIVILLIBERTIES!', 'HUMANRIGHTS!', children, conflict, families, freedoms, government, news, politics, population, world )

- 1989 days ago -
The countries with the highest birth rates aren't just highly religious; they're poor, have abominable human rights records and lack access to reliable birth control.

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Kit B (276)
Thursday December 13, 2012, 10:15 am
(Image Credit: alternet)

Conservatives are freaking out about the death of the traditional family. But the family appears to be getting better.

Are we living in a post-familial age? According to a new report, The Rise of Post-Familialism: Humanity's Future?, the answer is yes: the traditional family unit is slowly dying out as more people choose to forgo children and even marriage. As a result, society is economically imperilled, lacking the necessary workforce to support older generations. We're also "values-challenged", entering a brave new world of materialistic indulgence, selfishness and protracted adolescence.

Sounds awful, doesn't it? Luckily, almost none of it is true.

People around the world are indeed delaying childbearing and marriage, and larger numbers of people never marry or reproduce at all. But that is not synonymous with a moral decline, or selfish decadence. It represents an uptick in women's rights, a commitment to creating the family one wants, and wider choices for everyone.

It's no shock that the drop in the number of children a woman has came along with the advent of the birth control pill. The countries with the highest birth rates aren't just highly religious; they're poor, have abominable human rights records and lack access to reliable birth control. Contrary to New York Times columnist Ross Douthat's position, it is not in fact the country with the most babies that wins: if that was the case, Nigeria would be running the show.

Despite the clear correlation between reproductive rights and prosperity, the report's author, joined by conservative commentators, laments the decline in childbearing because, as David Brooks says, it represents a rise of individualism and personal freedom and that's a bad thing. Brooks writes:

"People are not better off when they are given maximum personal freedom to do what they want. They're better off when they are enshrouded in commitments that transcend personal choice commitments to family, God, craft and country."

But the moral case against individualism and choice doesn't have legs. It's a moral good when people have a wide array of choices and increased personal freedom not just for the individual, but also for children, family and society. And the evidence backs that up.

Valuing tradition, family and God doesn't automatically translate into healthy families or economic prosperity. Just look at the United States: the states that most idealise the conservative model do have higher birth rates, earlier marriage, higher levels of religiosity and more consistent church attendance. They make up consistent conservative voting blocks. They also have the highest levels of divorce in the country, the highest poverty rates, the highest teen pregnancy rates, the lowest child health ratings and the lowest education levels. On the other hand, the states that champion "liberal values" do have later marriage rates and lower birth rates. They're also richer and better educated, the children that reside in them are healthier and families split up less often.

And contrary to the assertions in both the report and the commentary surrounding it, a lower birth rate does not actually mean that individuals end up voting to support only the interests of affluent childless singles. Quite the opposite: the social safety net is much stronger in liberal, supposedly individualistic, lower-birthrate blue states. An array of choices seems to mean that people respect and support a variety of paths.

The rest of the world tells a similar story. There are obviously myriad complex factors that play into a nation's success, but the places where people are the healthiest and the most economically stable are the relatively liberal nations that provide for social welfare while allowing many different models of family to flourish.

Meanwhile, the arguments in favour of a return to the traditional family remain unconvincing, and even insulting. For example, NYT columnist Ross Douthat accuses single people of being "decadent" in their selfish singledom (an argument neatly taken down by Ann Friedman). In the report itself, the authors project a nobility on to staying at home and "sacrificing" for one's family, as opposed to young people who show "an almost defiant individualism" and "indulge themselves in hobbies, fashion or restaurants". Singapore pastor Andrew Ong says that the child-free media culture is "about not growing up".

Listening to these guys, you would think that kids are an awful drag, that raising a family requires (almost entirely female) sacrifice, and that such hardship simply must be endured for something they don't quite specify. By contrast, they seem to think that single people are in a perpetual adolescence, out partying, eating and drinking until, I suppose, we get ours by dying alone with our cats.

That's not making much of a case for marriage and babies, is it?

In reality, most of these selfish singles are in fact eventually getting married and having babies. They're just doing it later. The result is that these selfish late procreators are wealthier, their marriages last longer and their kids are healthier. How awful.

Investing in future generations is crucial, but conservatives seem to value not so much investment as major personal sacrifice in the here-and-now that results in poorer outcomes for everyone involved. And for what? So that future generations can grow up to sacrifice themselves too? Feminists and other liberals aren't against supporting children and making the world a better place. We just realise that the best way to do that isn't by making ourselves collectively miserable, but by actually taking steps to improve society for everyone, now and later.

One of the ways we're doing that is by making it easier for women to choose to have children. Demanding that women sacrifice everything for child-rearing isn't exactly getting the young ladies to line up, but that's what our current employment model is based upon. It is actually exceedingly difficult in much of the world for women to achieve highly in a career while also having a thriving family and personal life. Our current employment model is based on a family economy with a male partner who is able to work full time, and a female partner who stays at home and tends to the children. Women are now in the workforce in unprecedented numbers but the workforce hasn't adjusted to give people much time for anything other than work. And conservatives have championed this model, praising folks who do multiple jobs just to make ends meet or work 80 hours a week. High-achieving men still often have wives who stay home. What happens, then, is high-achieving women either "opt out" and let their husbands do the bread-winning, don't get married or decide that they want to have kids later or not at all. And the economy suffers for it.

But young single people don't just want to slave away at work all day, and we don't have someone at home taking care of the rest of our lives. We also want a work-life balance. We may not be going home to children, but we want to pursue our hobbies, spend time with the families we've created and engage with our communities. We realise there is much more to life than just work but we also think there's much more to life than a traditional family.

That kind of push-back could be the key in making work-life balance a reality. Historically, women's work has been undervalued and disrespected. One reason "work-life balance" is discussed but not actually executed is because, I suspect, it's women and the most disrespected and undervalued group of women, mothers who that balance is perceived to benefit. So what if this new group of highly effective, highly motivated, hard-working young single people are now demanding more balance and reasonable work hours and leave policies? Everyone benefits.

Women today also want relationships that are mutually supportive and egalitarian, something they might struggle to find but not for the reasons conservatives seem to think. Lots of men haven't caught up, and still want wives who will be subservient and financially dependent. For men, getting married and having kids comes with increased social status and emotional benefits, not to mention actual salary increases and workplace opportunities. For women it's the opposite: motherhood brings with it lost income and opportunity. There simply aren't enough subservient women who are willing to put themselves in financial, social and sometimes even physical peril to have a "traditional family".

Despite its reliance on rightwing values, there is much to be gleaned from this report. It identifies a place where liberal feminists worried about gender equality and conservatives worried about fertility rates can come together to promote both of our goals. Make reproductive freedom a priority, including the right to have healthy babies. We do this by promoting healthcare that covers the family planning tools that lead to healthy, wanted pregnancies. Federally mandated parental leave and other family-friendly policies like state-sponsored childcare would also make it easier for women and men to work and raise families. More affordable housing programmes would make it more plausible for parents to stay in the places where they choose to live, and where they have put down their social roots and earned their stripes at work. Real investment in public education would relieve much of the financial burden for parents who want their children to have the same opportunities they did.

Finally, support a variety of lifestyles and choices. When the traditional family model isn't something that everyone is expected to personally sacrifice to create, we can construct and implement policies that benefit actual families, in all of their incarnations. When they are not a crass economic contract where financial support is traded for housekeeping and child-rearing but instead a unit based on love, respect and mutual support, marriages last longer. The conservative and religious promise that there is only one best way to live, one that requires temporal sacrifice and is justified solely by obligation but will be rewarded by happiness in the afterlife, but it doesn't actually lead to good outcomes here on Earth.

Family isn't dead. It's just getting better. Expanding its definition and allowing people to choose their own happiness model is just making it more highly valued than ever.
***Many good links within body of article at VISIT SITE*****

By Jill Fiilpovic | alternet |

Jill Filipovic. is a lawyer in Manhattan who formerly served as the Gender and Reproductive Justice editor at AlterNet. More of her writing is available online at her blog, Feministe.

Alice C (1797)
Thursday December 13, 2012, 11:50 am
Happiness is getting the basement cleaned out and being able to pay this months bills : )

Nancy M (197)
Thursday December 13, 2012, 1:59 pm
" As a result, society is economically imperilled, lacking the necessary workforce to support older generations."

Lacking the workforce to support older generations is also used in support of allowing more illegals immigrants in.

Interesting article and I do agree with much of it. "traditional family"? My sister still eats dinner every night with her husband and kids.

Barb K (1688)
Thursday December 13, 2012, 3:41 pm
Personally, I wouldn't even be here without God.

Past Member (0)
Thursday December 13, 2012, 4:21 pm
Great article. Thanks.

Past Member (0)
Thursday December 13, 2012, 5:14 pm
Yeas. Why?

Elaine Al Meqdad (283)
Thursday December 13, 2012, 5:27 pm
Sorry...This is the most stupidest article anyone on care2 has ever written!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Honey...You wouldn't be here without God! And if you can't see the moral decline in this country simply for the fact that the Liberal agenda has always been about "If it feels good, do it". You somehow think because the ability to do something means it's ok! boy, you can sure tell who the hippys are...They're stuck in the 60's time warp and that warping of the mind came by way of that very thought process, brought on by that very era! Did not note and will collect my 20 Pts. for the waste of my time.

pam w (139)
Thursday December 13, 2012, 6:16 pm
(Speaking of being stuck in the 60s time's Elaine to demonstrate her inattention in English class.)

Breaking away from sterotypical "roles" and fundamentalist, anti-human behaviors and expectations is setting many of us free.

Increased education, better jobs, opportunities for travel and exposure to other cultures is responsible for a much wider understanding of the planet and its problems.

No longer should we have the "THIS IS THE BEST NATION ONE EARTH" delusion. Instead, we have the opportunity to form new objectives and ideals.

No longer must we have the "marriage, wife at home, two kids" expectation. The definition of "family" is changing to one we've created to serve the new millenium....not the roles of our fore-fathers.

Kit B (276)
Thursday December 13, 2012, 6:23 pm

If you bothered to read the article Elaine you might understand this about "the here and now" not about the sixties or the fifties, that was the last century. Step into the 21st century. Over 20% of the nation does not believe in nor accept the traditional form of family or god. Have a cup of coffee, wake up and smell the real world.

None of us would be here without evolution.

Glenn B (196)
Thursday December 13, 2012, 6:26 pm

Angelika R (143)
Thursday December 13, 2012, 6:55 pm
I can find nothing stupid or objectionable in that article (exept what the warriors on women have said there) As stated : just take off the shades and look around you, statistics are there! Thanks Kit.

JL A (281)
Thursday December 13, 2012, 10:23 pm
I love it when people write such thoughtful articles demolishing myths at odds with the facts so respectfully that most people interested in knowledge would pause to think if they still believed any of the myths. One of the myths is that the conservative writers' referenced have cornered the market on church, God, religion and Christianity--last data I saw indicated their views went with a minority of denominations/church membership in this country. Thank Kit.

Cynthia Davis (340)
Friday December 14, 2012, 5:44 am
Elaine A......The only waste of time I see is the waste of time you took to comment on an article you clearly did not take the time to read, and why would you care to be so verminous against something you didn't read, unless you have some kind of unchristian hateful agenda here. Also I would dare to say you have no know knowledge of what a Liberal agenda is if you think it's simply to do what feels good. I'm sorry but what ever it is that's digging a hole in your soul is something you probably need to look into.

Nancy M (197)
Friday December 14, 2012, 6:06 am
It really is a great article and all I can say about SOME opinions is that I think there are some who would rather live in the middle ages.

Past Member (0)
Friday December 14, 2012, 12:30 pm
I've watched the so called "Conservatives" destroy the country and its families ever since the inception of their pro family propaganda. There's nothing pro family about them.

marie C (163)
Sunday December 16, 2012, 5:01 pm
Noted thanks Kit as usual a well thought out thread giving us lots of food for thought
I enjoy your articles so very much

Jennifer A (1)
Monday December 17, 2012, 4:22 pm
Having children later in life makes a lot of sense. A person's brain isn't fully developed until they reach the age of 24. I think that the best way to go is to settle down around early 20s, date for a while until you're sure of the person and then get married and have kids in your late 20s if not early 30s. Of course doing this requires a certain amount of self reflection and knowledge of what one wants from life because settling down might not be something that a person desires.

Jennifer A (1)
Monday December 17, 2012, 5:13 pm
I'm not sure how conservative values = God. I'm sure that conservatives associate themselves with the religion but as a democratic/liberal mix who's also Christian, I don't like the bias that being Christian means having conservative values.

Everything else in the article was great though, I believe that people should wait later to have children. Before having a child, a couple needs to be mature relationship wise, mentally as well as financially.

Dorothy N (63)
Tuesday December 18, 2012, 1:29 am
Lol, iIf you ask people who want babies why they want babies, the reasons can always be considered selfish ones, in that they're considering their own wants.

They want: someone to love; someone to love them; someone to care for them in their old age; someone to carry on the family name; someone to continue the family business; a small version of themselves or their loved one; someone to carry on family traditions; someone to continue some mission they themselves value.

The most selfish are, I personally believe, those who wish to have more than two children, especially if many more - and isn't it selfish bringing children into a world in which they cannot any longer expect to be healthy or now even born without some health problem or defect, to be in a world with industrially poisoned air, food, water, to almost certainly live in poverty, if they live at all?

But seriously, far more selfish are those demanding that people breed to suit their purposes.

And those are the ones that actually really, really bother me.

DaleLovesOttawa O (198)
Sunday February 3, 2013, 8:59 pm
Fascinating and timely article, definitely not a waste of my time.
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in World

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.