Is Lyndon Johnson partially to blame for the rise in single-parent homes?

[TheReckoning]

In 1963, when Lyndon Johnson took office, about 20% of Children did not have a father in their home/their parents were unmarried when they were born.

Nowadays, that number is 40%.

Some people have suggested that Lyndon Johnson’s guarantee of government handouts if were a single parent disincentivized women from being married while having children, raising the percent of children raised without both parents.

Do you agree with theory? Did Johnson’s polices cause this?

Given how children without two parents end off typically significantly worse off than parents with two parents, this has been a concern for many.

[Vice President Christian Man]

It's always possible but it undoubtedly saved even more from being in poverty.

[Ferguson97]

Some people have suggested that Lyndon Johnson’s guarantee of government handouts if were a single parent disincentivized women from being married while having children, raising the percent of children raised without both parents.

People who have suggested this are idiots.

So the argument here is that these women are getting pregnant, and then refusing to marry the fathers of their children... because then they wouldn't be entitled to certain welfare benefits? Almost all of them would be better off marrying their children's father and just living off the wages that he earns.

This nonsensical "welfare queen" argument should have died in the 80s.

And one of the biggest reasons for the rise in single-parent homes is the rise in mass incarceration.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This is a grotesque idiocy that flies in the face of any serious social sciences research. All the empirical evidence suggests that a strong welfare system strengthens the family, which is why people who are genuinely conservative/traditional and not just creeps who get off on controlling others ought to support it.

What really caused the rise of single-parent households was, well, partly the sexual liberation and policies that came with it (which I do support, but I understand why socons take issue with them) but perhaps even more importantly, mass incarceration. Of course, given that OP is an ardent supporter of the latter, there's no point in taking his whining seriously here.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

No he is not, and even if he were it wouldn't be as bad as OP is making it sound, for the reasons Christian Man lays out. Commodifying interpersonal relationships is what has hollowed out American family systems, not a noble failed attempt at decommodifying them. I'd argue that the harder edges of the sexual revolution were just such a commodification, but the sexual revolution was not a Great Society program.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

In a very small way, but the Sexual Revolution is the main reason.

[TheReckoning]

This is a grotesque idiocy that flies in the face of any serious social sciences research. All the empirical evidence suggests that a strong welfare system strengthens the family, which is why people who are genuinely conservative/traditional and not just creeps who get off on controlling others ought to support it.

What really caused the rise of single-parent households was, well, partly the sexual liberation and policies that came with it (which I do support, but I understand why socons take issue with them) but perhaps even more importantly, mass incarceration. Of course, given that OP is an ardent supporter of the latter, there's no point in taking his whining seriously here.

Were people seriously having significantly more premarital sex after the sexual revolution? That flies in the face of the idea that people will have as much sex and live as much hedonistic lives as they want, regardless of social stigma around that. That is the idea of most behind most socially progressive people.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Exactly as vacuous, irrelevant and insubstantial a reply as I expected. No point in engaging.

[TheReckoning]

Exactly as vacuous, irrelevant and insubstantial a reply as I expected. No point in engaging.

FFS questioning just how much the sexual Revolution actually changed social behaviors-instead of the social perception of behaviors- is legitimate. Why are you so averse to anyone disagreeing with you?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Exactly as vacuous, irrelevant and insubstantial a reply as I expected. No point in engaging.

FFS questioning just how much the sexual Revolution actually changed social behaviors-instead of the social perception of behaviors- is legitimate. Why are you so averse to anyone disagreeing with you?

Because you're sidestepping the entire point of the discussion (a discussion you yourself started) to get us on an irrelevant tangent based on some ridiculous strawman of "what progressives believe" (yes, most people are fully aware that changing cultural attitudes and actual policies is going to affect social behaviors, progressive or not).

If you're not going to address the substance of my post (as you never do) I see no reason to do the same. In fact I've already given you more attention than you deserve by posting here in the first place.

[TheReckoning]

Exactly as vacuous, irrelevant and insubstantial a reply as I expected. No point in engaging.

FFS questioning just how much the sexual Revolution actually changed social behaviors-instead of the social perception of behaviors- is legitimate. Why are you so averse to anyone disagreeing with you?

Because you're sidestepping the entire point of the discussion (a discussion you yourself started) to get us on an irrelevant tangent based on some ridiculous strawman of "what progressives believe" (yes, most people are fully aware that changing cultural attitudes and actual policies is going to affect social behaviors, progressive or not).

That’s not true at all. For instance, most progressives say that demonizing teen sex/teaching abstinence-only sex education has no effectiveness at actually preventing teens from having sex, so comprehensive sex ed is the only way to go, because teens will have sex anyways.

[Ferguson97]

Exactly as vacuous, irrelevant and insubstantial a reply as I expected. No point in engaging.

FFS questioning just how much the sexual Revolution actually changed social behaviors-instead of the social perception of behaviors- is legitimate. Why are you so averse to anyone disagreeing with you?

Because you're sidestepping the entire point of the discussion (a discussion you yourself started) to get us on an irrelevant tangent based on some ridiculous strawman of "what progressives believe" (yes, most people are fully aware that changing cultural attitudes and actual policies is going to affect social behaviors, progressive or not).

That’s not true at all. For instance, most progressives say that demonizing teen sex/teaching abstinence-only sex education has no effectiveness at actually preventing teens from having sex, so comprehensive sex ed is the only way to go, because teens will have sex anyways.

I would argue that students choosing to practice safe sex versus unsafe sex as a result of the education that they received to be evidence in favor of our argument, not against it.

Behaviors surrounding sex aren’t just a binary “you’re either having it or you’re not”, it also relates to who’s having sex, who they’re having sex with, and how they’re having sex.

[Blue3]

Perhaps it got more women a way out of abusive relationships.

[TheReckoning]

Perhaps it got more women a way out of abusive relationships.

Is there any evidence to suggest women are less likely to be in abusive relationships than they were in the 1960s?

[buritobr]

I though this thread was about he sending young men to be killed in Southeast Asia. Their children rose in single-parent homes.

[KaiserDave]

Antonio learning the hard way the perils of talking to the chaos and stupidity agent TheReckoning.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Antonio learning the hard way the perils of talking to the chaos and stupidity agent TheReckoning.

Oh, I knew. I knowingly went against my better judgment in engaging this one time.

[Aurelius]

Of course he is. The Great Society's welfare programs punished kids and mothers for having men in the home.

[PSOL]

Well, Lyndon Johnson really did prevent a great society from truly coming by focusing on beating and shooting up young people who wanted a better future for themselves.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Of course he is. The Great Society's welfare programs punished kids and mothers for having men in the home.

Pretty much all family welfare schemes "punish" either being or married or not being married, once one accepts a definition of "punishment" that extends to "not getting, or getting less of, a particular benefit". This is maybe a distant fifth or sixth in a list of cultural and political changes of the 1960s that disincentivized two-parent homes.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No, homeless people are mostly blk men they give migrants section 8 vouchers over Blks and many single moms do qualify for Section 8, rise of blk men homelessness give rise to single parents household

If we get reparations for Blks it will eleviate the homeless crisis Cali is already starting Reparations

[TheReckoning]

but perhaps even more importantly, mass incarceration. Of course, given that OP is an ardent supporter of the latter, there's no point in taking his whining seriously here.

Given how most people in prison are there for violent crimes, are those really the kind of people who want raising children? Quite frankly, I wouldn’t trust most of them around children at all.

[President Johnson]

Lyndon Johnson is only to blame for listening to the wrong people on 'Nam and for not sticking with running in 1968 and prevent Nixon from ever reaching the Oval.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

but perhaps even more importantly, mass incarceration. Of course, given that OP is an ardent supporter of the latter, there's no point in taking his whining seriously here.

Given how most people in prison are there for violent crimes, are those really the kind of people who want raising children? Quite frankly, I wouldn’t trust most of them around children at all.

Then why do we have an incarceration rate three times higher than any other OECD nation and roughly seven times the average?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Demonstrably. Like this isnt even disputable.