[recycled material - first appeared here]
I can see religious conservatives pulling this quote from a science article out of context already -
In the past nearly four decades, black women have made great gains in higher education rates, yet these gains appear to have come increasingly at the cost of marriage and family.
Perhaps they'd even mention that the source of that sentence was a professor of sociology at YALE University.
Yep, look what happens when women leave the kitchen and go to college: their marriage and family suffers!
But wait, careful minds want to know, how do their marriages and family suffer? The answer: they don't. Huh? How could this be? Well, you'd have to look no farther then the title of the piece to find out. Or read the entire article, but who does that?
It seems that the rate of marriage and child-bearing is going down for educated black women. The way their education is "costing" marriage and family is that less black women are getting married and having a family. So it is not actually marriages or actual children that are suffering, but potential marriages and potential children.
Does education abort a family? Should it be outlawed?
As you might guess, I applaud the news. Education is a good thing, even if it leads to fewer marriages and children. The second of those two I would actually include in the benefits of education to society. But not because I am anti-children. I am anti too many children.
Tags: culture, language, rationality
June 4th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
I agree — well, if by “too many children” you mean children you can not afford to give a good emotional, health and material start in life. Have as many as you want, if you can afford it!
June 5th, 2011 at 9:07 am
Sabio, Yes, I definitely mean that. Having children simply to “check that box” isn’t admirable. Having children to love and raise well . . . different story. I also mean that, in a world of bazillions of humans, “too many children” in terms of pure numbers ain’t a good thing. Would you agree with that? Have I been hood-winked by Malthusian thought?
June 5th, 2011 at 9:53 am
Yes, you the stench of the Malthusian fallacy fills this post. His theory has been wrong since the 1700s. New technology innovation keep popping up and destroying his apocalyptic growth curve.
But I have an apocalyptic personality, In 50 years I have seen wild areas I love destroyed, I have seen fishing become unsafe and much much more. So maybe it we can keep going, but will it be worth it? But, agreeing with you, I don’t think so.
But why stop having children, they don’t cause a problem? I see several solutions.
(1) Mass partial extinction (war, catastrophe, disease)
(2) Genetic Intervention (unlikely)
(3) Volunteerism (impossible)
(4) Government intervention (fails every time)
(5) Education ( helps a little)
(6) Prosperity (helps more)
(7) Rapture (yeah, right)