combat – Houghton STAR

Is Marriage the Greatest Tool for Lifting Families out of Poverty?

“Marriage” is a hard topic to broach in public debate, particularly in the context of economics. Many women, like myself, view it with a certain amount of trepidation when the subject comes up; the floodgates seem to be open to derogatory comments about “welfare queens” and single-motherhood, with poor women bearing the brunt of poorly-disguised scorn and highly insensitive gaffes. The conversation and ensuing media rigamorale can be so off-putting.

However, it’s not a conversation that we should tune out. Some have suggested that the collapse of the married, two-parent family – the result of decades of rising divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, and rising numbers of couples who do not marry – has resulted in much of the poverty we see today.

Indeed, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) recently made bold a speech on the fifty year anniversary of the War on Poverty in which he said “The truth is, the greatest tool to lift children and families from poverty is one that decreases the probability of child poverty by 82%. But it isn’t a government spending program. It’s called marriage.”

I would agree with Rubio, though with a few objections. To begin with, I don’t think marriage is a panacea to the current economic climate. (Granted, it’s not clear that in context of his speech that Rubio was assuming that it was.) I’m not even sure that it’s “the greatest” tool to combat poverty, either. That lends itself too much to a messianic definition of marriage, which I don’t think is appropriate. (It also seems to cheapen other equally important strategies to combat poverty.)

However, whether we like it or not, marriage and other social relationships do affect us and how rich and how poor we are. As Nick Schultz of the American Enterprise Institute points out in “Home Economics: the Consequences of a Changing Family Structure,” economics is not solely a study of numbers and monetary transactions. The most important economic questions of our time – rising income inequality, depressed wages, and slow economic growth – cannot be answered without touching upon our social institutions. If this is the case, marriage must be addressed.

Marriage delivers on a number of good things that can help relieve poverty. For one, it seems to promote economic mobilization. Our modern version of marriage has all the promise to provide a stable home for children, helping them succeed later in life. Though they acknowledge that the effects of marriage are not the only factor, a new Brookings Institution study makes the claim that “children born into continuously married family [sic] have much better economic mobility than those in single parent families.” So, marriage seems to be good for the kids.

It’s also good for the adults. In the absence of marriage, single parents, particularly single moms, have to struggle working one or more job, along with the regular housework and childrearing. According to a study undertaken by the Atlantic, poor women and single moms are more likely to have higher levels of anxiety, to live with regret, to stress about their kids, and rely on their family and friends for money. Marriage can relieve some of the pressure by turning one income into two.

Altogether, marriage creates a miniature economy that has the potential to benefit all parties and, in the best marriages, this is fueled by a love and warmth that cannot be reproduced elsewhere.

That being said, the solution to poverty in the United States can’t just be “get married,” nor should we expect that to be the solution for every individual. However, marriage is nonetheless an important aspect to resolving poverty and one of our greatest tools. Given its benefits, why don’t we encourage it enough? Let’s stop tuning out the conversation based on political rhetoric and start looking at marriage as the great thing that it is.

In case you have missed the recent headlines, one of Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta’s final significant policy decisions, the military’s ban on women in direct combat situations has been lifted.
We as an editorial staff collectively say, “Finally.” We find compelling the case presented by the four servicewomen who sued the Pentagon and Panetta over the ban, pointing out that women have already in essence been serving in combat situations, and yet have not received formal recognition for their work and their sacrifices.

In an interview with Eyder Peralta for NPR, former Navy Lieutenant Carey Lohrenz said, “We have women in combat roles right now. We are just not able to promote them.” This denial of formal recognition and promotions has gone on too long, and Panetta’s lift of the ban is, in the words of Democratic Senator Mazie K. Hirono, a “great step toward equality.”

Others who read and commented on Elisabeth Bumiller and Thom Shanker’s New York Times coverage of the story don’t see it as such. A New York Times pick comment on their website by the username Harry from Michigan reads, “Next feminists will tell me that women can handle a man in hand to hand combat. How about we have women play in the NFL or any other pro sports…”
First, this comment villainizes feminism, a movement that has made and continues to make great strides in human rights issues for years. Next, to the dismay of Harry, we would point out that some women actually can handle men in hand to hand combat. There are many women who are more athletic than men, just as there are many women who are less athletic than men.

Veteran and Republican Senator John McCain has issued a statement supporting Panetta’s decision, and he added that, “As this new rule is implemented, it is critical that we maintain the same high standards that have made the American military the most feared and admired fighting force in the world – particularly the rigorous physical standards for our elite special forces units.”
Women will now have an equal opportunity to enter direct combat positions, but they do not expect any special allowances. In fact, the key is that servicewomen do not want to be treated any differently from servicemen.

Another online commenter on the New York Times article going by the username Keeping It Real wrote, “Why do American women want to be men? (Or is the real question, “Why are American women not allowed to be women?”)” New York Times pick commenter Academia Nut from Canada retorted, “Why would you limit a woman’s choice to be whatever she wants to be and is capable of being?”

Women have been moving into spheres traditionally occupied by men for years, and as Lohrenz said to Peralta, “We have women in combat roles right now… They’re on the ground in Iraq; they’re on the ground in Afghanistan. This is strictly formalizing and recognizing what their contributions currently are.”

The backlash from commenters such as Harry and Keeping It Real seem to be knee-jerk reactions to the blurring of lines between what is masculine and what is feminine that in the past have been more clear. They are focusing on the differences between men and women when the differences among men and women are much more significant.

This change in policy is not the first of its kind; New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Germany, Norway, Israel, Serbia, Sweden and Switzerland all already permit women to serve in direct combat. There is no word as to whether women have ruined professional sports in these countries yet.