By Bonnie Erbe
Noted academic Stephanie Coontz frequently writes on the evolving American family and the changing role of marriage. Usually, she is right on. But her latest essay for CNN.com is far off.
She takes on what she refers to as conservative moralists and pundits for advocating marriage before parenthood. There are plenty of things conservatives get wrong, especially on the social-issues front. But advocating marriage is not among them. And progressive academics who fail to note that lose a lot of credibility ― not only with pundits such as myself, but with the public.
Coontz makes the point that marriage is no longer tied to economic security for single mothers: "In an era when two incomes are increasingly necessary to raise a family, getting married makes excellent economic sense for a woman who wants to have a child. But first she needs to find a man who can actually make a financial contribution to the marriage ― an increasingly difficult task, especially for working-class African-American women."
She is correct when she notes that two incomes are "increasingly necessary" (sometimes I wish my husband and I had three or four). She's also right that it's especially tough for black women to find marriageable men, a sentiment I've heard over and over. But by leaving open the question of if women (of any color) who have children outside of wedlock are just as secure as women who marry before procreating, she sanctions unwed motherhood.
Conservatives who blame the country's economic woes on the skyrocketing rate of single motherhood are wrong, if that's the only economic factor they cite. But few, if any of them, blame single motherhood for all the nation's economic woes. To do so would be silly and wildly incorrect. What about the mortgage crisis, the loss of millions of jobs, high oil prices and all those other pesky factors?
But when conservatives advocate marriage before parenthood, they provide an important media counterpoint to the unending barrage of images, news items and Hollywood films glamorizing single motherhood. That is the worst thing for young American women to absorb.
Here's another quote from Coontz: "White working-class women, with or without high school degrees, also increasingly face a shortage of marriageable men. And they have good reason to approach marriage cautiously, even if they get pregnant, because economic insecurity is strongly associated with marital distress."
So Coontz is arguing against marriage for pregnant women and girls, on the theory that they might encounter "marital distress?"
What kind of nonsense is that? The distress of raising a child while trying to finish high school or work a low-wage job (Coontz refers mainly to high school graduates) is certain to trump almost any marital distress.
Coontz serves her audience better by working to end domestic violence and desertion than by telling young women that single motherhood gives them more security than married parenthood.
The data irrefutably show that women who marry before having children are much more economically secure than those who don't. Coontz makes minor reference to that when she says, "It is true that single parenthood is associated with poverty, especially in the United States." But she goes on to blame poverty for the rise in single motherhood, which comes off as another endorsement for single parenthood over marriage.
It's a shame that progressives and academics have come to endorse single motherhood, rather than sending the message that women hold themselves back by having babies out of wedlock. They see it as non-PC to chastise single mothers ― and do the reverse, and praise or support them, which is the last thing girls need to hear.
Bonnie Erbe, a TV host, writes this column for Scripps Howard News Service.