Thomas Sowell has a really excellent smackdown of the New York Times for one of its latest propaganda pieces, in which the New York Times suggested that most American women today do not have husbands. Hidden in Sowell's column are a couple of bonus gems that I'll highlight in a moment. First, here's an excerpt:
The latest in a long line of New York Times editorials disguised as "news" stories was a recent article suggesting that most American women today do not have husbands. Partly this was based on census data -- but much more so on creative definitions.
The Times defined "women" to include females as young as 16 and counted widows, who of course could not be widows unless they had once had a husband. Wives whose husbands were away in the military, or in prison, were also counted among women not living with a husband.
With such creative definitions, it turned out that 51 percent of "women" were not living with a husband. That made it "most" women and created a "news" story suggesting that these women were not married. In reality, only one fourth of women have never married, even when you count girls as young as 16.
While the data quoted in the New York Times story were about women who were not living with a husband, there were quotes in the story about women who rejected marriage.
What was the point? To show that marriage is a thing of the past. As a headline in the San Francisco Chronicle put it: "Women See Less Need for Ol' Ball and Chain."
In other words, marriage is like a prison sentence, complete with the old-fashioned leg irons with a chain connected to a heavy metal ball, so that the prisoner cannot escape.
This picture of marriage and a family as a burden is not peculiar to the New York Times or the San Francisco Chronicle. It is common among the intelligentsia of the left. . . . .
Partly it is because marriage is a fundamental component of a social order that the left opposes. Moreover, marriage is seen as one of the social restrictions on individual free choice.
These are not new ideas, even though they may be more pervasive than in the past, simply because the intelligentsia is larger and more vocal today.
As far back as the 18th century, Rousseau said that man is born free but is everywhere in chains. In other words, the social restrictions essential to a civilized society were seen as unnecessary hindrances to each individual's freedom.
It never seems to occur to those who think this way that if everyone were free of all social restrictions, only the strongest and most ruthless would in fact be free, and all the others would be subject to their dictates or destruction.
Sowell articulates well his main point that the story claiming that half of all "women" were "living without a husband" is based on misleading definitions.
Two of Sowell's additional points are also worth underscoring, because they have more general application.
First, Sowell correctly notes that the New York Times is specializing these days in producing one editorial after another disguised as news.
Unfortunately, every New York Times "news" story must be evaluated from this point of view. An aware reader should ask, "What's the agenda here?"
Not only does this mean that every New York Times "news" story must be taken with a grain of salt, but it also means that no reader can rely exclusively on the New York Times, nor the mainstream media who follow its lead, to get the whole story on any given news day. Stories that do not fit the New York Times' political agenda will not be reported at all or will be reported only belatedly or in a distorted manner.
Second, Sowell's comment on the age-old tension between freedom and societal restriction is worth repeating and remembering:
As far back as the 18th century, Rousseau said that man is born free but is everywhere in chains. In other words, the social restrictions essential to a civilized society were seen as unnecessary hindrances to each individual's freedom.
It never seems to occur to those who think this way that if everyone were free of all social restrictions, only the strongest and most ruthless would in fact be free, and all the others would be subject to their dictates or destruction.
This is true on multiple levels.
One area where this lesson urgently needs to be applied is in the international arena. If enough nations of the world fail to take effective action to stop terrorists and tyrants, then the inevitable and immediate result is that the remaining decent, civilized nations of the world are a little less free.
If we value our own freedom, we must do what it takes to protect it.
I read that NYT article with dismay. It is very sad to see such egregiously flawed data interpretations promulgated as 'fact'. I have quite a bit of training in this type of survey research, and I am aware of the methodology the survey used, and it is reasonably valid. HOWEVER,the NYT "reinterpreted" the data, turning a valid piece of science into a woefully inaccurate, misreported article. Methodological problems abound with this “NYT reinterpretation” of this survey. “Common-law is neither mentioned or defined, but without clarifying this point, the term “married” makes no sense, since it is not clear what happened to “common-law” and “cohabitation” couples. The accompanying table implies that these categories have been combined with “legally married”. Furthermore, the age categories start at age 15, and of course the majority of 15 to 20 year olds are single, so including this age category would exaggerate the “% of women who are not ‘married.’” In addition to including children in a ‘marriage’ study, the interpretation ignores the fact that first marriages are now occurring progressively later in life, and increasing longevity is increasing the time that seniors live as widows and widowers. These trends will inevitably yield a high % of women who are not married, irrespective of divorce statistics. Finally, these data are 6 years old, and the failure to adequately define the socio-demographics in this study makes it impossible to accurately compare it to previous studies. Legitimate scientists would correct egregious flaws like these, or journal editors would refuse to publish their paper.
Beyond this disastrous methodology, I agree that this is an unbalanced political ideology piece rather than valid research reporting, because the data is interpreted almost entirely from a women’s perspective, which of course ignores the men’s perspective, yielding inherently imbalanced and confusing interpretations.
At least, the article does express certain opinions, and other studies do show that divorce is easy and prevalent in North America. In other words, I agree that marriage, as a concept, is in trouble, and I'm not blaming any particular gender or interest group for this. Historically, the most remarkable change in marriage is that it is no longer governed by contract law, where it had resided for thousands of years. Marriage vows, promises, and ceremonial statements, such as, “To have and to hold, in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer, until death do us part”, bear little legal weight, are no longer a legal contract, and are unenforceable in law. Marriage and divorce law is generally too unwieldy to remediate most unethical, immoral, or even illegal spousal conduct. Divorce proceedings in North America are rife with deception, fraud, embezzlement, perjury, defamation, and catastrophic financial and emotional outcomes. Children are especially victimized. The philosophy of “marriage for love”, a concept that is relatively recent in human history, has not provided adequate guidelines about what to do when love breaks down.
Pre-nuptial contracts have begun to replace marriage vows, because they can be written in myriad ways, are enforceable, and are supported by all the power and precedence of thousands of years of contract law, with enforcement processes and procedures clearly understood by most litigation experts. The simplest method to bypass the problems of Las Vegas-style marriages and divorces made on a whim, is for couples to write and sign their own “cohabitation” contract, to replace marriage licences and pre-nuptial agreements. This method is feasible right now by couples of any gender combination or sexual orientation. The contract can specify certain benefits exchanges and obligations, with certain penalties for abrogating parts and/or all of the contract. Specific legal marriage documents would not be used, but a ceremony marking the signing of this cohabitation contract is feasible. If the couple later have conflict over the contract provisions, it could be settled by standard litigation procedures. As in all important contracts, great care is needed for each signatory to commit fully to the process, with a clear understanding of the consequences of abrogating the contract and its provisions. This may seem 'cold', but it’s actually quite 'hot'. Couples who love and trust each other deeply would sign the contract willingly, because they wrote it, and “to have and to hold” would be legally defined and enforceable. If they cannot negotiate such a contract, they may well not be ready for any type of cohabitation arrangement. It would also force irresponsible signatories to reconsider their negative behaviours in light of tangible legal consequences. This contract method would not replace marriage for everyone, but it would create another legal route to recognize romantic commitment. It would motivate both signatories to stick together through “thick and thin”, since they would know that easy, no-fault, consequence-free divorce or abandonment was not possible. There would be serious and clear legal consequences for signatories who let themselves fall out of love.
Posted by: DemocracyRules | February 07, 2007 at 11:16 AM