The easiest way to sell divorce is to make it advantageous to wimmynz “financial independence”.
Length: 2,700 words
Reading Time: 9 minutes
Reader’s Note: In this essay, a few terms are introduced for the sake of brevity.
- Dolearchy (dole + archy) is here defined as government sponsored aid programs and certain legislative policies having ultimate control over society (or a segment of society).
- Free Income refers to income from alimony, child support, federal and state benefits and programs, imputed income, and the like. “Free” means it is available to her whether she gets out of bed in the morning or not.
- Financial Independence is not used in the sense of becoming independently wealthy, but in the sense that the woman is able to manage her own finances (supported by “free income”) outside of a man’s authority.
- Upper-middle (and higher) class marriages are referred to as UMC/+ marriages, while lower middle (and lower) class marriages are referred to as LMC/- marriages.
NovaSeeker’s post, Is Patriarchy for Deplorables? (2021 May 31), brought up the question of why upper-middle (and higher) class marriages (UMC/+) are more egalitarian and more feminized yet less prone to divorce, while lower middle (and lower) class marriages (LMC/-) tend to be more patriarchal, yet more prone to divorce. Several reasons were given in a follow up post, Patriarchy is the Default Setting (2021 June 2).
However, NovaSeeker doubted whether certain facts and statistics surrounding single parent households are indeed trustworthy. As he wrote,
“In fact, the data are even worse than this, when one takes into account family formation. In that data, the percentage of kids raised in intact families by “class” is compared. However, that data looks at “couples” only — in lower SES segments, single parenthood is much more common. Because of this, the data concerning how people who aren’t in the couples category are doing, with respect to breadwinning in the lower levels, dramatically overstates the difference, I think, because it omits the data that relates to the children that are raised outside stable couples in those classes — situations where there isn’t any “intact patriarchal model” at all, because there isn’t an intact family of any kind.
This does, indeed, break down by the mother’s education levels, married and unmarried, as seen in this article from EconoFact: Widening Socioeconomic Differences in Childrens Family Structure. And, the data also “leaves out” the highly educated high-income people who are not coupled, or do not have children, too. So it skews on that side, too, although the overall tendency is for uncoupled UMC and higher people, who are not divorced, not to have children regardless of their sex.”
This post will take a closer look at some more data to find the truth of the matter. Namely, the following questions will be addressed.
- What is the percentage of single and married parent homes?
- What is the percentage of single and married parent homes by socio-economic class?
- What is the percentage of single parent homes headed by men vs. by women?
- How do government sponsored aid programs affect the institution of marriage?
- What is the impact on men?
- Is patriarchy truly for deplorables, or is this merely a misinterpretation of badly skewed statistics?
The Decline of Married Parent Homes
The article cited by NovaSeeker above offers the following data on family structure. The article says,
“Only 63 percent of children in the U.S. today live with married parents (defined as either biological, adopted, or step parents), down from 73 percent in 1990 and 77 in 1980. The next most common type of family structure for children to be living in is with a lone mother: 21 percent of children live with a mother with no likely partner present, up 3 percentage points since 1990. Another 7 percent of children live with an unmarried parent and partner, up 4 percentage points since 1990. Five percent of children live with a lone father, up two percentage points since 1990. Four percent of children now live in households with no parent present. That number has been roughly stable since 1990.”
As can be seen in the following bar chart (Fig. 1), single mother homes make up the grand majority of single parent homes. This is because (1) having children out of wedlock is slowly becoming more fashionable, and (2) divorcing women are routinely awarded custody for various reasons, namely the Tender Years Doctrine coupled with legislation that favors women.
The article also states a deplorable fact…
“There are large gaps in the share of children living with married parents across racial and ethnic groups, even within education groups. Non-Hispanic White and Asian children are significantly more likely to live with married parents, as compared to Hispanic and black children.”
Racial inequalities are simply unacceptable to monochromatic social engineering! Since any talk about racial differences is taboo, I’ll just say that an intact marriage smells more like Patriarchy with each passing year! It’s truly deplorable!
But in spite of all the inequalities, we cannot overlook the plight of single mothers — many of whom willingly chose their fate.
“Gaps in children’s outcomes between those with married and unmarried mothers – what we might call a “marriage premium for children” – depend on the resources the mother has herself, the resources her partner would bring to the family, and the ways in which children’s outcomes are affected by parental resources.”
The problem is that the “marriage premium for children” doesn’t register on the LMC/- female radar.* So the article cites several scientific studies that show children who grow up in an intact family fare better in life (as if that were ever in doubt), and then concludes that…
“These trends and gaps matter because research has shown that on average, children from married-parent homes benefit from the extra resources that a married-parent home offers relative to other types of household arrangements. Conditional on other family and parental characteristics, children who grow up with an unmarried mother have lower levels of educational attainment and higher levels of teen childbearing…”
Of course, our gubmint overlords believe the best and easiest way to “fix” this inequality (shriek!) is to put single mothers on the dole!
* H/T: Kentucky Headhunter
Wimmyn Follow the Money…
In addition to the data on married parent homes, let’s take a closer look at single parent homes.
Quite by coincidence (or the hand of God, if you prefer), I came across an old post from Artisanal Toad’s Hall entitled, Following the Money… (2013 August 17), which addresses this topic. (I know some readers will be shaking their heads at the mention of ATH, but this post is about finance, not polygamy.) Below, I’ve reposted this essay in its entirety (separated by star bars). I’ve taken the liberty to update the numerical figures cited to the current 2021 values, and I’ve edited the text for clarity and ease of reading.
* * * * * * *
According to the 2012 data, there are about 12,279,000 single parent households in the United States. The vast majority of them are headed by women, as can be seen in the chart below:
What we immediately notice is that single-family households are dominated by households headed by women, with an almost even split between the never-married and the divorced or separated. Looking at the income of single family households (Fig. 3), we see that almost half of all single-parent households headed by women (45.6%) have a household income less than $25,000 a year (<$2,083 per month).
Included in the census definition of income is child support, alimony, federal and state benefits, and other income. This distinction is important to properly understand Fig. 3, because “income” as described by the Census Bureau goes beyond even the IRS definitions of taxable income, to include literally all monies received. The only thing missing (and a major omission in most accounts) is imputed income, such as in cases in which the ex-wife lives in the home purchased by her ex-husband and he is required to continue paying the mortgage. Another example is the state-run health-care programs for children that operate on an ad hoc basis, essentially for free. There is no accounting for these benefits, which would cost a significant amount if purchased on the open market.
As an illustration*, let’s consider the situation of a divorced mother with two children. The average monthly child support payment is $430 per child. If we assume she is receiving child support payments, then she would be receiving around $960/month in child support. The average SNAP** benefit is around $127 per month per person. The SNAP benefits for three people (two children and herself) amounts to $381/month. If we only count these two sources of income ($11,520/year in child support and $12,000/year from SNAP), that is a total of $23,520/year! In other words, a significant number of single mother households (~40%) are supported entirely by the father of their children and the state. In this case, the state is using its police powers to expropriate money from the biological father.
The next chart (Fig. 4) shows a comparison of single parent households by adjusted income, which does not include “free income”. As you can see, once the “free income” is removed, around 28% of single parent homes headed by women have an income below $10,000/year. Over half of these single mother families (~52%) have earnings of less than $25,000/year! In contrast, 41.7% of all single-parent households headed by men have an income of greater than $50,000/year.
As can be seen by the chart above (Fig. 4), single, divorced, and separated mothers are effectively married to the state!
* This illustration only considers child support and SNAP benefits, but there are many other programs as well, including medical insurance for the children (such as the Well Kids program) that account for an “on demand” benefit that would otherwise cost a significant amount of money each month.
** Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
The Impact on Men
The next chart (Fig. 5) considers men fifteen years of age and older, and compares the earnings of married men to men who are either never married, separated, divorced, or widowed. Note that the percentages listed in this chart are all men. Here, we see that married men have a strong tendency to earn more than their never-married or no-longer married counterparts. And yet, the “not married” men in the chart below, who earn significantly less than married men, are the same men typically paying out child support and alimony! As the saying goes, “When it rains, it pours!”
From age fifteen and up, many men will spend some ten years pursuing an education (effectively investing in themselves) without earning any income. Thus, just below 14% of all men who have no earnings are married, a percentage only surpassed by the cohort of married men earning $40,000 to $75,000 per year. Given the economy and long-term unemployment of many men, it is believed chronic unemployment and a shift to grey-market employment accounts for the significant percentage of married men with no official earnings.
Once past $25,000 per year, married men consistently out-earn not-married men in every category, especially the $40k-$75k quintile, and the relative differences get bigger as the income rises. One inference that might be drawn from this observation is that the not-married men do not have as much incentive to earn more money as their married peers do, given that increases in earnings will result in increased child support and alimony payments.
By comparing Figs. 3, 4, and 5, it can be seen that the “free income” allowance for single parent households headed by men is insignificant, because on the low end of the scale, men receive no statistically significant child support from women, and tend not to apply for or receive welfare benefits.
In addition, there is very much a double standard for men and women in family court as witnessed by the fact that women receive primary custody of the children 80% of the time. Anecdotal evidence indicates only men who are able to hire competent counsel and afford investigative services to prove the woman is less fit than they are to receive custody are actually able to gain custody, such is the power of the bias against men. So perhaps the most reasonable way to view these charts is that only men with enough money to afford good counsel and investigative services are able to gain custody of their children in the current legal environment.
If one accepts that the destruction of marriage creates a disincentive for men to be productive, this is proof that feminism is destroying the US economy.
* * * * * * *
I’ll add another observation to Toad’s analysis.
As to why married men out-earn not-married/divorced men on average, I want to point out that it is not only because marriage apparently incentivizes men to work and to earn. Another reason is because women are more likely to divorce those men who earn less. This is revealed in Figs. 6 and 7.
Yes, the destruction of marriage creates a disincentive for men to be productive. To be more specific, men lose heart and become hopeless because of (1) the forced redistribution of his income, (2) the insurmountable challenge to his socio-economic self-determination, (3) the utter loss of his Patriarchal authority, (4) the erosion of marital stability, (5) the dishonor men are subjected to by the government (and media), and (6) the disrespect and disloyalty of women who choose “financial independence” over husband, marriage, and family.
The Gynogubmint Money Funnel Undermines Marriage (and Patriarchy)
As Dalrock, Toad, and NovaSeeker suggest, independence, finances, and having a comfortable lifestyle appear to be the preeminent priorities of women of all classes (except in cases where a functioning Headship prevails).
The relative ease of women obtaining “free income” from child support, alimony, and other state funded benefits creates an incentive for women to divorce not only lower earning men, but men from all strata (since child support and alimony is calculated from the man’s earnings).
If a woman can maintain the same income after a divorce (or more, judging by Fig. 4), then getting a divorce cuts out the “middle man” (i.e. her husband), and allows her to pursue “financial independence” – not in the sense of becoming independently wealthy, but in the sense that the woman is able to manage her own finances (supported by “free money”) outside of a man’s authority.
Therefore, if natural affection (i.e. tingles) is absent, and the convenient, comfortable trappings of a moderately wealthy lifestyle are not present in a marriage, then she’ll soon be serving him divorce papers, especially when the state is offering generous assistance programs. In short, there is no incentive for a secular woman to stay in a marriage – unless she actually loves the man and can accept a Headship structure. To those well read in the Manosphere, this comes as no surprise, but Fig. 7 makes this fact abundantly clear.
As the saying goes, “No money, no honey!” But Uncle Sam’s got money! So there she goes!
Mind you, this is all backed by state and federal legislation and various state sponsored social programs!
In summary, there seems to be a concerted effort by the state to “sell” divorce to a wide swath of women who happen to find themselves in unhaaapy marriages as a consequence of any number of factors. This phenomenon was well covered by Dalrock. (See the posts listed below.) In light of the above information, we see that divorce is not being “sold” per se, but rather, it’s being doled out through “free income”!
All this easily explains why there are so many single-parent households hosted by women, and especially in the LMC/-.
Finally, in regard to NovaSeeker’s question, Is Patriarchy for Deplorables?, we come to the same conclusion that was reached in the previous post: LMC/- marriages are not LMC/- because they are patriarchal, nor are they patriarchal because they are LMC/-, but simply because only the patriarchal marriages survive!
- Dalrock: Intermediate guide to selling divorce; overcoming women’s better judgment. (2011 March 7)
- Dalrock: Are the vast majority of women truly incapable of experiencing reciprocal love and attraction? (2011 June 8)
- Dalrock: A long term commitment to selling divorce. (2017 June 2)
- Dalrock: Status is a powerful motivator. (2019 September 23)