Only Caitlin Flanagan Could Make Mark Sanford Look Good

A guest post from Linda Hirshman:

With a cover story by working mother scourge Caitlin Flanagan, next week’s Time takes the occasion of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford’s staggeringly banal adultery to tell America that “Marriage Matters.”

Why does marriage matter? Not, of course, because of the harm to the deer-in-the-headlights brigade—Silda Wall Spitzer, Jenny Sanford, etc. That would put Flanagan on the side of the adult females.

Marriage matters, because single parent families are bad for children, the only people who count. “Drastically” bad: “on every single significant outcome ... children from intact, two-parent families outperform those from single-parent households ... If you can measure it, a sociologist has; and in all cases, the kids living with both parents drastically outperform the others.”

OK, maybe poor people, more often single than their critics from the elite Flanagan class, have worse outcomes, but aren’t those problems more about, say, poverty than single parent families? And in fact sociologists have been looking for reliable data that sorts that out since the invention of sociology in the nineteenth century and as recently as 2005.

But instead of looking at the recent work, Flanagan gives us her usual brew of autobiography (my parents’ fifty-year marriage, my husband’s caretaking), outmoded studies, and interviews with experts from right wing foundations such as David Blankenhorn, President of the Institute for American Values (and a loud spokesman against marriage for same sex people), and Heritage’s Robert Rector.

Unbeknownst to Flanagan, in 2005, the centrist Brookings Institution published “Marriage and Child Well-Being,” which included a report from Penn State’s Paul R. Amato on “The Impact of Family Formation Change on the Next Generation.” Looking at a decade’s work, Amato reported “the results of individual studies vary considerably: Some suggest serious negative effects of divorce, others suggest modest effects, and yet others suggest no effects.” When Amato ran his own numbers, he concluded for example, that “if the share of adolescents living in two parent families returned to its 1970 level, it would have ... a relatively small effect on the share of children experiencing these problems. In general, these findings, which are likely to disappoint some readers, are consistent with a broad, sociological understanding of human behavior."

Broad sociological understanding or Flanagan’s autobiography, take your pick. Most children are raised by women. Given the state of marriage, most 21st-century American children are going to spend some time with single mothers. Everything else being equal, probably two parents are “modestly,” as Amato says, better. But the last thing Time should be doing is running another unsubstantiated, apocalyptic cover on the awful consequences of most American women’s fates. Remember Newsweek’s “You’re more likely to be killed by a terrorist than to find a husband after the age of thirty-five?” Decades and infinite cultural damage later, they had to take it back. With the Internet, Time could just take it down.

Tags: caitlin flanagan, marriage

VIEW THIS CONVERSATION

Samantha Henig is the associate editor of Double X, and can be reached at samantha.henig@doublex.com.

Comments

Amato Study

By: TO | Mon, 01/04/2010 - 18:13

TO Says:
January 3rd, 2010 at 2:36 pm
I realize this is several months after the original post, but I wanted to provide an updated link to the Amato study in case anyone else discovers this post and attempts to find the study (like I did):

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/000...
.
I also thought it would be worth mentioning that after having read the brief summary of the Amato study posted here, I was surprised by what I found when I actually read it.
.
First of all, I expected to read that Amato found that the data are inconclusive as to whether there is any negative effect of divorce on children. But his conclusion is actually very nearly the opposite:
.
"In a more recent meta-analysis, based on sixty-seven studies conducted during the 1990s, I again found that children with divorced parents, on average, scored significantly lower on various measures of well-being than did children with continuously married parents. As before, the differences between the two groups were modest rather than large. Nevertheless, the more recent meta-analyses revealed that children with divorced parents continued to have lower average levels of cognitive, social, and emotional well-being, even in a decade in which divorce had become common and widely accepted."
.
It is true that he does not claim that divorce (or single parenthood) is the *sole* cause of childhood problems, and he does state that the effects are statistically "modest." And it is also true that he states that that returning the number of adolescents living in two-parent households back to 1970 levels would have a "relatively small effect."
.
However, to highlight these and only these conclusions leaves the reader with, at best, an incomplete understanding of the study. I was surprised to find that, despite the conclusions quoted in this post, he additionally concludes the following:
.
"The importance of increasing the number of children growing up with two happily and continuously married parents and of improving the well-being of children now living in other family structures is self-evident."
.
How does he explain the apparent disconnect? He states that the effects of single parenthood on the well-being of children is statistically similar to the effect of high-cholesterol on heart attack risk:
.
"The increase in the risk of cardiovascular disease associated with high blood cholesterol is comparable in many respects to the increase in risk of behavioral, emotional, and academic problems associated with growing up in a single-parent household."
.
"…interventions that increase the share of children growing up with two continuously married biological parents will have modest effects on the *percentage* of U.S. children experiencing various problems, but could have substantial effects on the *number* of children experiencing them. From a public health perspective, even a modest decline in the percentages, when multiplied by the large number of children in the population, represents a substantial social benefit." (The original has italics where I have used asterisks).
.
Perhaps Professor Amato would disagree with Caitlin Flanagan to the extent that she exaggerates the negative effects of single parenthood on children or to the extent that she treats marriage as a panacea for childhood problems. But based on the findings of this study – and despite the impression I got from reading this blog post – it appears that he would agree with her 100% that being raised by a single parent is a significant negative risk factor for children.

completely misrepresents

By: sapec | Sat, 08/01/2009 - 00:04

This blog completely misrepresents Flanagan's article in the Time. If anything, she was talking about the importance of fidelity and commitment in keeping a marriage together, and *one* reason to do so, is to think about the children, even if we dont care to think about our spouses. In fact, in the whole MarkSanford/Spitzer/Ensign saga, the children and the damage to them because of their fathers' adultary is rarely mentioned by mainstream pundits. She is the only one who has--as far as I know--called out Sanford and his ilk for engaging in behavior that was not just reckless, but was selfish, self-centered and undeniably cruel to the real victims: the wife and children, even when so many in the MSM were gushing over the sappy love letters. Reactions to her piece seem nothing more than a knee jerk reaction against the concept of marriage as anything more than individual fullfillment. A stable Marriage does matter to children, however much, those of us who are divorced or separated are at loathe to admit. But if we look beyond the chip on our shoulders, and actually look at the data, the sleeper effects of divorce are very prevalent. Consider this: children from broken families are at least twice as likely to get divorced themselves...a finding that was established first in 1995 by Wallerstein and subsequently confirmed by other big longitudinal studies. Its comfoting to note that the Time article has more reach and is likely to be read by a large no: oof people than the musings of an obscure blogger here. Bravo, Flanagan.

I firmly believe that

By: Diamond | Sat, 07/25/2009 - 03:54

I firmly believe that marriage matters. It is not just about you live with your family as a whole but you will set a good example among their children. The spiritual moral and emotional well being of children will depend on the kind of parent he has. Marriage is a vow a life long commitment. Members of the lobby (you could say) The Family, who reside at the C Street house in Arlington, VA – outside Washington DC, Congressmen, are looking to establish a Christian Totalitarian State in the US, where political leaders are accountable to none because they are "chosen" people. Members like Mark Sanford, John Ensign, and Todd Tiahrt, while being staunch Christians, have ALL had affairs in office. (You aren't supposed to – it's in the Ten Commandments!) People who like rationality, sense, and accountability in government would give cheap loans to get rid of The Family.

For more info visit: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2009/07/21/c-street-house-family-2/

confused

By: eewee | Mon, 07/06/2009 - 15:01

I just read Flanagan's article, and I'm confused as to why Linda Hirshman accuses her of not being "on the side of the adult females." The only explanation that makes sense is willful misunderstanding or misrepresentation on Hirshman's part. Flanagan even quotes Jenny Sanford approvingly at the conclusion of the piece. And she most certainly does not defend Mark Sanford. The bulk of Flanagan's criticism in this article is very clearly directed at Sanford and his ilk--men who put their own pleasure before the well-being and dignity of their partners and children.

As for being up-in-arms about Flanagan's assertion that single-parent households are damaging to children, there's certainly room for debate on the issue, but Hirshman's post reads more like a personal diatribe against Flanagan than a rebuttal of her ideas. (And BTW, Flanagan explicitly discusses and endorses the fact that the underclass bears the brunt of the hardship caused by single-parenthood).

For an example of Caitlin Flanagan decisively siding with adult females, read her great piece on Katie Couric that she wrote for The Atlantic. Sorry for the length of this post, but I feel obligated to defend any writer who articulates such a perfectly satisfying sentiment as: "You’re not really a huge power broker of the female variety until some bitchy man writes a nasty biography of you, a literary pap smear meant at once to diagnose and humiliate." Genius. It's ridiculous of Linda Hirshman to imply that Flanagan doesn't root for women.

Regarding Poverty...

By: KK | Sun, 07/05/2009 - 22:50

Samantha makes a good point in stating that "aren't those problems perhaps about poverty?" Quite possibly. The exact same poverty that single mothers invite upon themselves, and their children, when opting for divorce or separation from their husbands (which, sorry to say it, is the regular scenario for divorces).

It takes probably more than $250,000.00 to raise a child from infancy to age 18 right now, and that's WITHOUT college OR a single major illness.
That's no cakewalk for a double-income family that stays together. Now, boot out your husband, subtract his income, TRY to get child support (whether you deserve it or not, or if he's willing or able to pay it, is in the lap of the Gods), and see how easy it is. Divorce, unless it's a matter of life and death, is an invitation to poverty, and ought to be viewed as such.

Single parent-families (an oxymoron in my view) aren't "Drastically Bad" because they've got less money (although that's a factor), they're bad because there's only one guardian, who's normally stressed beyond their limits by work and domestic duties. There's scattered supervision or discipline, 'parenting by proxy' by hirelings, infighting about custody, et bloody cetera...just rent the movie THIRTEEN, it's based on actual events...none of which I'd wish on my worst enemy.

I daresay two-parent families are doing much more than 'modestly' better.

single parents

By: deekay | Fri, 07/03/2009 - 16:15

I am always mystified by the belief that single parent families are an aberration caused by modern social ills, irresponsible women and commitment-phobic men. Haven't there always been single parent families? Maternal mortality ratios in the U.S., in the 1930s, show 670 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births. Obviously things have improved in the U.S. since then, but even the U.S. has never achieved the goal set forth in a maternal mortality initiative (Healthy People 2000). And the U.N. finds the United States to rank 41st in an analysis of maternal mortality rates in 171 countries. Maybe Caitlin Flanagan should concentrate her efforts and rhetoric on ensuring proper, affordable and obtainable healthcare for all pregnant women (or all women, but that might be asking a bit much from C.F). Good neonatal care (access to folic acid?) would probably do more for America's children than Flanagan's Disney Dream family delusion.

(statistics obtained from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00054602.htm)

um, i am thinking you 'bothered' a lot...

By: Caerolle | Fri, 07/03/2009 - 11:14

omnibaby:
`
I know you were responding to Flanagan's attack, and understand that you found the idea that you didnt get 'married' b/c you are selfish or uncommitted or lazy or something. I just wanted to say that if you are raising kids, and in the situation i am kinda guessing, then you are very committed and putting forth a huge amount of effort and caring. Flanagan is the one who seems selfish and self-indulgent to me, and arrogant to boot. Please dont let her get to you, she is just wrong, in so many ways, and on so many levels, ok?
`
One other thing, to me, legal status is one thing (and something we should all be able to have), but marriage is more than that and transcends it. To me, if you have committed yourself to another, and they to you, in front of your conception of a greater force and to your friends, family, and whoever, then you are married. I dont even feel that it needs to be officiated. No, you dont get all the rights and privileges that come with legal status, but for yourself and your family, you know. And if you entwine your life with that other person, financially, emotionally, and in raising kids, then it isnt a casual, convenient thing where you can just walk away.
`
The legal status is a major thing, I know, especially if you are gay and have kids (not saying that you are! just a big issue to me, 'cause I *am*! ). The laws are currently a mess—even if you *were* married, I think most places wont allow two ppl of the same sex to adopt or another person of the same sex adopting someone else's biological child like someone in a straight marriage would be able to do. So all that is a huge problem. However, you are the real parent to those children, no matter what the law says! :)
`
I hope i didnt overstep and offend you with any of this, I just wanted to let you know that *I* respect your life, even if Flanary doesnt.
`
Carol :)
`
PS: how did you get a picture up? I cant figure out how to do that~

absolutely missing the point

By: NinaPina | Fri, 07/03/2009 - 09:24

As a 'child of divorce' myself these tirades about damaged goods drive me crazy! My parents fought endlessly, as a result of which my mother developed a drinking problem, and my father was endlessly alienated - in short, not exactly a rainbow childhood. I am now 21, am graduating from a prestigious masters programme, and am about to embark on what will hopefully be a long, fruitful career. In other words, the outcome of divorce is not a given, and it has everything to do with a family's income level! As far as I know, my brother and I were much better off after our parents separated, and if anything we learned to handle ourselves and take care of others well before many of my friends even thought about such things. I am not arguing for the benefits of divorce, but please, can we get a little more nuance in our discussions of family life?!

"didn't bother"

By: omnibaby | Fri, 07/03/2009 - 09:14

I love how my children can rest easy in the knowledge that their parents just couldn't "be bothered" to get married. as if there could be no other explanation for our lack of legal status as a couple!

Won't get fooled again

By: gtodon | Fri, 07/03/2009 - 08:07

Despite the headline, this post has absolutely nothing to do with Governor Sanford. Apparently some sleazy editor thought he or she could attract more traffic to Double X by writing misleading headlines. Congratulations, sleazy editor: it worked.