People on the political left just love to attack the intact traditional two-adult nuclear family structure.
The feminists come along and claim that supporting the traditional family is sexist and goes against “women empowerment,” despite the fact that this structure gives women a distinct advantage in terms of their ability to be successful and accomplish their life goals.
Leaders in the black community claim that what we refer to as a traditional family structure is really a “white household dynamic,” which means supporting it is, in their minds, racist; this is despite the fact that when we talk about black youth being disadvantaged and underprivileged, we’re really talking about the fact that they don’t come from this type of family structure.
Progressives tell us that there are many other types of household structures and dynamics, and in today’s 21st-century modern age, we need to look as all types of household structures as “equally valid to each other,” despite the fact that no other household structure, such as one run by a single mother, comes close to the benefits that the intact traditional two-adult nuclear family structure has on children, has on the adults in that type of structure, and has on society in general – meaning that it’s superior in its benefits to society and civilization.
You’ll find that the strongest attacks on the traditional family dynamic come from those who claim that it is fascist and patriarchal to support the traditional family, and that we are “evolving past” the need for this type of household structure. They even seek to pass legislation to destroy this traditional family structure. All of this is just so grossly wrong.
Young people who come from these traditional family structures have a distinct advantage over young people who don’t come from this type of environment. They have a level of privilege and enablement that those young people raised by single mothers, and other household structures, can only dream of – they are better off economically and psychologically, and are less likely to commit crime.
And it isn’t just the young people, the children, that benefit from that type of environment; adults benefit from it, too. Everyone benefits greatly from that loving, nurturing, supportive, protective, encouraging, and helpful environment. It makes all of the members of the family, children and adults, more likely to succeed at whatever endeavors they pursue throughout the course of their lives. We’ll talk about these claims in a moment.
The political left wants us to support government programs they claim are designed to help disadvantaged and underprivileged black youth, all while simultaneously ignoring the very mechanism, the type of household environment, that is more responsible for determining whether those young people are disadvantaged and underprivileged. In reality, working to create more of the types of household environments, that is, the traditional family structure, that are responsible for allowing young people to have a higher level of privilege, and be more advantaged, will do more to help improve the well-being of those young black people than any government program ever could. And doing this on a widespread, society-wide, scale will benefit society, and the black community, as a whole.
I would go so far as to say that the federal government is part of the problem – their social welfare programs have built-in incentives that reward people for making things worse, and basically punish people for making things better. Because of this, these social welfare programs have done more to increase the percentage of people in our society, especially among blacks, that are disadvantaged than anything else. All of the disparities found in the black community that the political left likes to repackage and relabel as systemic racism can be traced back to these social welfare programs, and the effect its perverse incentive schemes have had on changing the black household structure. Despite this fact, we’re told that if we don’t support these programs that we’re racist, we’re bigoted, and we’ve no compassion, even though these programs actually make things worse, not better, for the black community.
Traditional Two-Parent Families and Reduced Crime
I’m going to give you some pieces of information now that should prove how truly beneficial the traditional family is for the well-being of young people. I’ll start out with crime statistics, and after that, move on to psychological benefits, and then economic benefits of the traditional family structure. So, let’s begin with crime statistics:
• Children that are born illegitimately are more likely to commit violent crimes than those born legitimately, that is, within an environment where the father and mother are legally married to each other, and both are living together in a healthy relationship.
• There is a strong connection between lack of parental attachment and involvement in a young person’s life, and that young person’s likelihood of eventually perpetrating a violent crime.
• A rise in violent crime over a thirty year period is directly related to a rise in the number of young people who grew up without a father present in their lives, and high-crime neighborhoods are characterized by single-parent households with no father present. In other words, there is a strong connection in fathers being present in young men’s lives, and greatly reduced likelihood of criminal activity in those young men. They are better skilled at conflict resolution. This fact alone should show the importance of the traditional family environment and its connection to social stability and reduced crime.
• On a statewide level, the higher the percentage of the population that comes from a traditional husband-and-wife family, the lower their violent crime rate. For example, the states that have the highest percentage of traditional families have a violent crime rate of 343 per 100,000 people, whereas states that have the lowest percentage of their populations in traditional family households have a violent crime rate of 563 per 100,000 people.
• Across the country, a 10% increase in fatherless homes, that is, homes with a single mother raising children by herself, correlates to a 17% increase in juvenile crime, suggesting that there is a type of “compound disinterest” that takes place concerning the traditional family, or lack thereof.
• The type of aggression and hostility usually seen in adult criminals can be seen, or foreshadowed, in those same people earlier in their lives, such as by unusual aggressiveness seen as early as 5 or 6 years of age. This aggressive behavior is much more likely in children who don’t come from traditional family environments, but are raised in a home by a single mother.
• While looking into specific neighborhoods that are considered high-crime areas, 90% of children raised in a safe and stable home environment (that is, homes where a father and mother are both present, there is proper parental supervision and lack of parental strife) avoid criminal activity, whereas only 10% of children raised in an unsafe and unstable home environment avoid criminal activity. Seriously, folks, that’s a big, big difference, don’t you think?
• If a man, who has been a habitual criminal matures to the point of maintaining a stable marriage relationship, this maturity, which allows him to have that healthy relationship, parallels a gradual decrease in criminal activity by that man. Not only that, but it also greatly decreases the odds that his children will commit a violent crime.
• Having both a mother’s strong affectionate attachment, and a father’s authority and involvement, in a child’s life seems to be the most important buffer against that child having a future life of crime. What you’ll find in many of America’s inner cities is a distant, not close, relationship between a single mother and her child, which can become an abusing and neglectful relationship. It is estimated that around 60% of all child abuse is done by single mothers, and that most of the other 40% happens by that single woman’s boyfriend or that child’s stepfather. These conditions greatly increase the risk of that child growing up to become a psychopath.
• You’ll find that as much as 80% of all rapists, who acted out of displaced anger, came from homes that had no father present. Or, to put it another way, young men who don’t come from a traditional home environment where a mother and father are both present, but instead come from a home where no father was present in their lives, are 14 times more likely to commit rape.
• 70% of juveniles in juvenile detention centers, about two out of every three of them, came from nontraditional home environments with no father present.
• 85% of the youths sitting in prison, that is, 17 out of every 20, came from nontraditional homes where no father was present. This means that children who don’t come from traditional family structures have as much as a 20-times better chance of ending up in prison.
Psychological Benefits of Two-Parent Families on Youth
Traditional family structures, and the nurturing and loving environment they provide, don’t just benefit society by reducing likelihood of criminal activity, but benefit society by greatly improving young people’s psychological and emotional health. Consider the following:
• Like I just said, about 60% of all child abuse is caused by mothers with sole custody of their children – meaning there’s no father present.
• Children who don’t come from traditional family structures, but come from homes with no father present, make up 85% of all behavioral disorders found in children. This translates into those children being almost 20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders.
• 90% of all runaway children came from nontraditional homes with no father present; they are, in some cases, 32 times more likely to run away.
Children who don’t come from traditional home environments, but grew up in households with a single mother, and no father present are:
• 5 times more likely to commit suicide
• 9 times more likely to drop out of high school
• 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances
• 9 times more likely to end up in mental institutions
• 20 times more likely to end up in prison (yes, the type of behavior that causes one to commit crimes lies within the realm of psychology)
Economic Benefit of Traditional Two-Parent Families
Besides the traditional family structure benefiting society by reducing crime, and improving young people’s psychological health, it also benefits society with its economic benefits. Consider the following:
• Higher levels of marriages in society, the bedrock of the traditional family, are directly related to more economic growth for society as a whole. States with a higher percentage of their households in traditional two-adult families have a higher GDP than states with a lower percentage of their households being two-adult families.
• Traditional families mean more upward economic mobility versus those not from traditional families – this includes the adults and the children.
• The higher the portion of youth in communities that are part of traditional two-parent families, the lower the likelihood of childhood poverty.
• Here’s the most obvious economic statistic: two-adult families have a higher median household income versus households with only one adult. I mean, duh! Two incomes are better than one, right? A household with two incomes coming in can do a lot more, and go farther, than two incomes split into two households, right?
• The type of household, and structure of the family, is a stronger predictor of economic mobility, level of childhood poverty, and median family income, than race, age, or education. When we focus on these other things rather than working to improve the type of family structure that improves upward economic mobility, increases median family income, and lowers levels of childhood poverty, we’re missing out on dealing with the most important point.
• The role of a father, in a healthy relationship with his wife, does more to help foster a positive labor market orientation, such as being disciplined enough to go to work, even when not feeling like it, handling finances better, and staying out of trouble, among young men. The young man has a good model to copy in his father. This increases the young person’s chances of flourishing and prospering.
Numerous studies have come to similar conclusions. The numbers may be slightly different in different studies, but the results are the same – the intact two-adult nuclear family is far, far better for society, and our young, than anything else. And the lack of two-adult families is far, far worse for society than anything else.
Conclusion
Now consider this: three-fourths of white people come from intact traditional families, but almost three-fourths of black people are raised in single-parent households. When looking at this through the lens of the data points that I just gave you, couldn’t that explain the economic disparity between blacks and whites? Couldn’t that explain why black youth are disadvantaged and underprivileged compared to their white counterparts? Couldn’t that explain every single disparity in the black community that the political left likes to repackage and relabel as systemic racism or structural racism? You bet it does!
There are several reasons for these numbers. Intact two-adult families, where the two adults have a healthy relationship with each other, help young people see how stable adults peacefully, respectfully, and lovingly interact with each other, and make healthy compromises – this allows the young people to have a model they can eventually copy. Lack of this model makes the young, lacking in those skills, unable to know how to act in certain situations, and thus increases their chance of antisocial behavior that leads to crime, violence, failed relationships, and psychological issues, and hinders upward economic mobility. This is because this environment tends to heavily influence a person’s behavior and moral choices, including choices to follow peer pressure into criminal activity or substance abuse. In healthy families, young people know that if they get rejected by a group of friends for not doing something bad, they still have their family standing behind them.
The loving and nurturing environment helps young people to feel loved and appreciated, making them much less likely to have psychological issues. If they’re down, they can get encouragement. If they’re good at something, they get that “atta boy” they might be missing in other environments.
Family, stable home environment, and fatherhood have a lot to do with influencing future social behavior in the up-and-coming generation. A father that goes to work each day, knows how to treat his wife and children and other members of the community, stays out of trouble, and knows how to handle his finances well, has a very, very powerful influence on his children’s, particularly his sons’, behavior, than anything else in society. A good role model, right in the same house, who shows that he personally cares about the child’s well-being, is so much more successful at developing a child’s future behavior, which allows that young person to flourish when reaching adulthood, that it makes all government programs that try to influence a child’s behavior look worthless in comparison.
Yes, a child needs his or her mother, but focusing entirely on the mother completely ignores the important fact that they need their father also. Both roles are important. That’s why the traditional two-adult nuclear family structure is so good for the well-being of children, and their future ability to be prosperous, achieve their dreams, stay out of trouble, and be successful.
