Gender Education Gap = Trouble?

Greater percentages of women are graduating college than men, and it appears this discrepancy is increasing. I can't help but think about the changes and messages of the last several decades that promote women's issues. Many significant strides have been made, and I think just about anyone can view at least some of them as positive (and most may see mostly positives).

When it comes to marriage, women tend to marry men who are older and more educated than they are. If this "mating gradient" continues, something is going to have to give. Fewer women will be able to find a man with comparable or more education than they have. This means that either 1) more women will not marry, 2) fewer of those who do marry will enjoy the typical financial benefits of marriage, 3) men will begin to catch up with education to become more marriagable, or 4) more married women will carry on significant if not the main responsibility for providing financially for their families. I admit there may be other possibilities, or simply that some or all of these things will happen to particular groups of people.

One likely outcome is that fewer women will marry. However, most women at some point of their lives feel the urge to become a mother. Both external and internal forces probably play into this. We have seen an increase in middle-class professional women becoming single mothers, and this trend could grow due to the education divide mentioned above.

If marriage rates are not affected, then likely the employment hours of mothers (as a group) will increase. This would tend to demand other changes: mother will continue to have fewer children, or fathers will step up and fill the domestic void. The former has been happening more consistently than the latter. In fact, husbands of employed mothers (as a group) are not more involved with domestic responsibilities than are husbands of non-employed mothers. Most employed wives do the lion's share of the work at home as well. This trend could change, of course, but there are many things working against it. A third option is to have more paid childcare. All these options act to change the nature of the modern family--for better or for worse.

How many college-educated young women today are going to be satisfied marrying a man without a college education?

What is easy to forget is that social forces that push one gender one way will also influence the other gender. Females have had effective advocates for some time now, and it is understandable why these advocates have been needed. The argument--whether stated explicitly or not--has been that males don't need an advocate. Perhaps an unintended consequence (some may say it has indeed been intended, at least by more radical elements of feminism) of the unilateral advocacy is an imbalance that will end up doing nobody any favors. This is not to be interpreted as an argument for vilifying feminism, saying it is no longer useful, or that it never should have existed. I'm merely observing an imbalance that could create other social shifts that may be unsatisfying to say the least for many of those who have been benefited in the past by the unbalances advocacy.

Perhaps the easiest solution is to promote education among males. Some find that threatening and believe it will deemphasize education for females. That need not be the message or outcome at all. The fact is that males are disproportionately struggling in elementary school and beyond, be it with grades, behavior/attention disorder diagnoses, dropping out, underenrolling, etc. There is a whole body of literature I won't get into here about these trends. The point is, even if females are thriving by comparison in the educational system, many of them will feel better served if males are keeping pace with them.

The critic will read this and say, "sure, now that males are falling behind you start paying attention to gender inequity in the schools. Nobody cared when females were not keeping pace with men!" There is some truth in that. However, in the past, males did not benefit less by marrying a less educated woman, especially in terms of the domestic elements of a family. The question to answer now is, will women benefit more by having less educated husbands (or no husband at all because the pool of educated elligibles is shrinking)?

Of course there are women who want a lifestyle that is very career-focused and relatively family free--and this trend might work for them. Is that most women? Will society be better off if because of these trends birthrates among the middle class continue to decrease? Will fathers really make a reversal and have domestic responsibilities their main role in terms of time and focus?

Time will tell.

In the mean time, I suggest that emphasizing education for males and females is probably a good thing--and if males need a little extra attention to help them catch up, both men and women will benefit from it.

The Inevitability of "Gay Marriage"

Is "gay marriage" inevitable? I think so. The opposition to it is slowly lessening nation wide (though one must be cautious when interpreting opinion polls--even gay marriage advocates point out that the favorable numbers are skewed somewhat because some people do not want to admit their opposition to gay marriage, except in the voting booth). Nevertheless, the numbers appear to be shifting.

Why wouldn't they? Several factors are converging.

One, religion is slowly becoming less influential of people's behaviors. Most major world religions have traditionally viewed marriage as heterosexual. Some have factions within them that are changing but overall that doesn't matter--people are becoming more secular in their decision-making and lifestyle.

Two, academia and the media are disproportionately sympathetic to the gay/lesbian movement and they are two of the largest influences on a rising generation's world view. It is very difficult to find a TV show or movie that portrays a gay character in a negative light, unless there are other gay characters who are the heroes and most enlightened characters. Gay characters are everywhere, and are either portrayed as being above average in positive characteristics or are not commented on at all. Textbooks gloss over critical analysis of issues such as homosexual parenting and gay/lesbian permissive lifestyles--but continue to critique traditional marriage for its allegedly inherent gender imbalances and dangerous patriarchy.

Three, people who are less than completely sympathetic to gay issues are quickly labeled as ignorant, bigoted, religious nut-jobs, or evil. Who wants to be on the receiving end of that? Similarly, other catchy terms such as "marriage equality" are being thrown about (as if sexual orientation has ever disqualified someone from getting married)--who dares be against "equality"?!

Four, people are more highly attuned to civil rights and social justice these days--many are very compassionate and trying to be open-minded and inclusive. These motives are typically factors in embracing differences, and some very well-intentioned people will embrace the gay movement the way they would embrace civil liberties for racial minorities. Additionally, the increased acceptance of homosexuality has made it more likely that people know someone who is openly gay--and since that person is likely not a monster, and may even be a terrific human being, it becomes more difficult to separate the feelings toward a particular person and comprehensions about social institutions created to serve the greater good of a society. "How could Bob and Sam hurt my marriage? Who am I to judge?!" (in which case all laws against anything deemed deviant by society would be unjustly judgmental)

Five, people these days find it increasingly difficult to think about marriage as a social institution. They do not think about the role marriage plays in society--they see it as basically an issue of rights and freedom, or of simple romantic expression (as if allowing marriage is the only way to let adults love each other). It has become more subjective than in times past, and much more romanticized. It has become largely about personal gratification and less about a means of social organization and connection. Why deny someone the right to experience personal joy? When people are prone to frame the issue in such a way, those who try to answer based on the same premise will have difficulty coming to anything other than a sympathetic conclusion--they won't have much context for an impetus to challenge the premise upon which that question is based.

In short, how can those who believe that maintaining traditional definitions of marriage is best for society compete for the hearts and minds of the rising generation? I'm frankly surprised that there is as much opposition as there is (which goes to show that those who make what we view on TV are more sympathetic to gay issues than the average viewer--at least for now; opinion polls constantly reveal more moderate or conservative thinking on issues than demonstrated by TV/Movie characters and the majority of talking heads). There can be no doubt that there are concerted efforts to increase sympathy for gay issues via mainstream media. And why not? For the reasons I identified above, many see no reason not to do so, and in fact believe it is their moral obligation to do so as a means to free an oppressed people. Though such assumptions are questionable in some ways--but also understandable--that doesn't change the point that it's happening, and building momentum that will probably not be turned back. In fact, it is difficult for one critical of such efforts to even blame those involved in pushing the agenda--at least some of them--because they have no basis for understanding why it might have negative social effects, and they believe they are demonstrating compassion (and in fact are doing so--at least toward some, though perhaps at the expense of others for generations to come). Why should they think otherwise--hardly anyone is making the case--or at least getting a legitimized platform on which to make them.

Some trying to make the case actually hurt the case--they hold to simple religious traditions for their own sake and come across as pushing their religion on others. There are plenty of good secular and non-secular reasons to be hesitant about gay marriage and gay parenting (which will go hand in hand--a key reason some are concerned), but most of the soundbites the media presents of the opposition are just the simple anti-gay sounding platitudes of simplistic reasoning (which for some may be the only basis for their opposition because they too are part of a culture affected by the trends mentioned above and do not understand the potential social ramifications of changes to the institution of marriage). In effect, the poor arguments emboldens more sympathy for gay marriage.

The rising generation will not even fathom why one might oppose gay marriage. They will chalk it up to simple bigotry--"people used to own slaves, used to segregate schools and bus seating, used to be against interracial marriage, used to think the world was created in six days and that every word of the Bible was literal...and they used to be anti-marriage-equality. Isn't it nice how we've progressed?" They may be correct in the end--society may not continue to break down; it may foster stronger family bonds; and more parents will choose to stay in their committed relationships and take care of their children. Or, things will have deteriorated even more quickly as the links between parenthood and marriage undergoes a radical divide with a seemingly subtle (to those who think marriage is just about love--which has never been the case) change in the definition of marriage.

It would be nice to see if some in favor of "gay marriage" are as open-minded as some of those against it. Are they able to appreciate why some who are hesitant about gay marriage are not simply mean, ignorant, or religiously brainwashed. That would be a risky acknowledgment to make because it could invite the same stereotypical assumptions to be thrown at them that get applied to those concerned with protecting traditional marriage.

"Hate" Used to Mean Something

Dear World:

Can't we stop all the hate?! Please, open your hearts and minds. I'm tired of my rights being ignored and violated. I won't stand for it anymore! Here are a few of my demands:

I want to be considered a minor. The current definition is too narrow (bigots!). Why shouldn't I get movie discounts, have my parents blamed for my crimes, and only have easy homework? Stop the hate!! Age equality for all!

If I can't be considered a minor, then I should be able to call myself (and be recognized legally as) a senior citizen. That way I can retire and enjoy my pension now, sleep in, get discounts for my meals, and receive social security. Stop the hate!! Still waiting for age equality.

And why must I be considered a male? The definition of female should be expanded to include me! Why shouldn't I be able to enter a women's locker room, or try out for the field hockey team, or get to enjoy couches in public restrooms? Stop the hate!! Gender (and bathroom) equality for all!

I would also like my dog to be considered a child. That way I can take him into any store or restaurant I please, get an extra deduction on my taxes, and send him to school when the long summer months come to an end. Stop the hate!! Species equality for all!

I also think ping pong should be considered tennis. I might actually have a chance against some of those hot shot tennis pros at Wimbledon if they play my game. Why should I be excluded? Tennis is defined too narrowly. Stop the hate!! Racket equality for all!

Hopefully one of these days society can eliminate hatred by ending discrimination and by being inclusive of everyone. We should just love one another and to not judge. Stop trying to control my life--I'm not hurting anyone! Please, can't we all just get along?

Ah, the power of "hate."

Keep Government out of Marriage?

It is not uncommon to hear someone utter (especially in the middle of a hot debate about potential legal transformations of marriage) the opinion that government should just stay out of marriage and let religion take complete control over it. Sure, this might simplify some things, but I believe the ultimate outcome could be much worse for society. (Mind you, when someone makes an alarming claim as I just did, they don't mean that such an outcome will happen over night--it may take generations to fully manifest.)

Marriage obviously has a long Judaeo-Christian history, but it is about as universal as anything ever could be. Over 70% of all weddings in the U.S. include a religious ceremony. Marriage precedes any current, known government around, yet government plays a large role in it. Shouldn't we keep religion and government separate?

Some things to consider. Marriage is good for society in a variety of ways. It helps the individual citizens of a society. Mountains of research confirms that married people are (on average) happier, mentally healthier, physically healthier, wealthier, and more sexually satisfied than singles/cohabiters, divorcees, and widows. These statistic hold true for marriages as a whole (meaning these statistics are not just comparing people from happy marriages to unmarried or divorced people), though people tend to thrive even more in happy marriages. Marital status is one of the most robust predictors of healthy outcomes. Some of this is explained by the fact that healthier, happier people are more likely to marry, but taking that into account only explains a small portion of the gap between the marrieds and not-marrieds--most of the gap is explained by living differently once (and because) one marries. In short, marriage is a unique type of relationship governed by unique personal and social expectations that tend to foster a beneficial lifestyle.

Children benefit as well from having married parents. It is not just married versus single parents, but there are clear advantages for having married parents over cohabiting parents. Eleven percent of children born to married parents will see their parents split up by age 3; 49% of children born to cohabiting parents will see the same (and 3/4 by age 16). Even accounting for economic, demographic, and relationship quality factors, cohabiting parents are 2.5 times more likely than married parents to split. Poverty rates for cohabiters are twice as high than for marrieds, even when controlling for education, immigration status, and race. When cohabiters have a similar level of education, number of children, and income, they still have more material hardship (no food, can’t pay bills) and get less help from extended family when in hardship.

Cohabiting parents of similar economic circumstances as married parents spend less on education and more on alcohol and cigarettes than do married parents. These are not positive trends for kids, and research on children's behavioral and cognitive/academic outcomes lag behind for these children, and they have more problems with parental attachment. As a whole, children of divorce suffer similar lags and are more prone to adult relationship problems themselves. (I am not trying to make a judgment about anyone's decision about marriage, parenting, or divorce--I realize these are complex and deeply personal issues as well--I'm just talking numbers here from a scholarly perspective.)

A recent national report estimated that divorce and unwed parenthood cost U.S. taxpayers over $112 billion a year. Marriage is not just a private, emotional bond. It is and has fundamentally always been about procreating and linking generations under the most favorable and stable conditions. That of course isn't its only function, but on a social (and biological) level it functions to ensure the next generation is created, survives, and thrives. When it breaks down, society feels the burden. If government is to ever endorse something that benefits its citizenry as individuals and as a whole, marriage is a prime candidate. Government playing a role in marriage acts as a reinforcer that marriage is important and valued.

Marriage as an institution has struggled over the last 40 years particularly (though I think some positive trends have emerged as well, such as more equal partnership within the relationship) and it probably needs the government endorsement (esp. in light of how much of the entertainment and academic industries portray it). People are going to have children no matter what. Marriage is clearly the most promising setting (for the child and for society as a whole) in which to have children. This is not based on a religious or philosophical argument, it is based on compelling research--so compelling that the very progressive voices in the Marriage and Family discipline have finally conceded the point.

A governmental stance that is neutral or adversarial toward marriage will likely contribute to less marriage, more divorce, and more unwed parenthood--none of which has shown to benefit society but rather indicate the opposite. We are already seeing the effects of marital instability. Government did not invent marriage, but it plays a role in upholding it, supporting it, and working to protect the rights of citizens in matters that correspond with marriage, such as inheritance and custody (these are complicated issues that must be addressed in a civil society in which the actions of some can affect the outcomes for others).

However, because government is involved with marriage, it opens to door to plenty of controversy--often with religious undertones. This should not be unexpected because of the long traditions and stakes that both religion and government have in marriage, but not all controversy has to have a religious element to it. There are plenty of secular disagreements about who should be able to marry (or divorce) and under what circumstances. Taking government out of marriage may relieve some of the debate, but I think it would be a factor in larger, more profound consequences for future generations that make current controversies pale in comparison.

NOTE: Of course there are exceptions to the examples stated above--that is always the case. Such an observation in and of itself does not undermine the fact that on a societal level, such trends are still relevant and worthy of attention regardless of exceptional cases.