The Coming Single Mom Crime Apocalypse: Not Really a Thing

unwed_lc

Manosphere misogynists love fantasizing about a coming apocalypse, invariably caused by the bad behavior of feminists and/or women in general, and invariably resulting in feminists and/or women in general lost and forlorn and realizing their mistakes, returning to men begging for help and asking for forgiveness. Like Doomsday Preppers waiting for the planet to suddenly shift on its axis due to the sudden reversal of the magnetic poles, most of the apocalyptic misogynists don’t seem to have the faintest idea of what they’re talking about.

Take, for example, one Paul Elam of A Voice for Men, who transformed himself into an environmentalist last week when he realized it would give him an excuse to rant about the evils of women spending money. Turns out that the “conventional wisdom” his thesis depends on — that women are responsible for 80% of spending — is essentially an urban legend, and that men and women seem to spend roughly the same amounts. Similarly, there’s evidence that suggests men and women in developed countries have similar “carbon footprints,” with men if anything a bit more pollutey.

But of course this is hardly the only bit of apocalyptic misogynistic fantasy that, upon examination, turns out to be based on patent nonsense. Manosphere misogynists – particularly those on the racist right – love to complain about the evils of single motherhood, especially in the “ghettoes,” which they imagine will lead to crime rates spiraling out of control, riots, dogs and cats living together, and any number of other apocalyptic scenarios.

As one commenter on Dalrock’s manosphereian blog put it, providing a pithy summary of the coming single-mom apocalypse:

Single mothers bring the very wellfare state they depend on closer to the brink of colapse with every illegitimate child they pop out, who will most likely in turn create more bastards and be more likely to commit crimes thus placing an ever increasing strain on the state’s purse stings. …

[T]hings will collapse soon enough and then it will be everyone for themselves. No more suckling at the government’s saggy dried up teet.

Of course, manospherians are hardly the only ones who like to blame single moms for everything. You may recall that odd moment in the presidential debates when Mitt Romney responded to a question about gun violence with “gosh to tell our kids that before they have babies, they ought to think about getting married to someone, that’s a great idea.”

There’s just one tiny problem with the whole single-motherhood-means-higher-crime-rates argument: if you look at the history of the past twenty years or so you will find that while single motherhood has been on the increase, violent crime rates have been going down, down, down. Take a look at this chart, which I have borrowed from an excellent post on The Atlantic by University of Maryland sociologist Philip Cohen.

 

cohen_singlemomchart2-thumb-615x590-106252

Huh. First single motherhood and crime rise together, then crime plummets while single motherhood continues to rise. It’s almost as if the two social trends have no correlation with each other at all.

As Cohen writes:

Violent crime has fallen through the floor (or at least back to the rates of the 1970s) relative to the bad old days. And this is true not just for homicide but also for rape and other assaults. At the same time, the decline of marriage has continued apace. Looking at two aggregate trends is never enough to tell a whole story of social change, of course. However, if two trends going together doesn’t prove a causal relationship, the opposite is not quite as true. If two trends do not go together, the theory that one causes the other has a steeper hill to climb. In the case of family breakdown driving crime rates, I don’t think the story will make it anymore.

Once upon a time, when both single motherhood and crime rates were moving upwards, you couldn’t entirely blame some social critics for suggesting there might be some connection. But with twenty more years of data we can see clearly that this just isn’t so. At this point, anyone predicting a single mother crime apocalypse is either a) an ideologue, b) ignorant about the facts or c) both.

In the case of the apocalyptic manosphere ranters, it’s obviously c.

Posted on December 3, 2012, in $MONEY$, a voice for men, armageddon, crackpottery, evil women, grandiosity, misogyny, MRA, oppressed men, paul elam, pig ignorance, playing the victim, politics, racism, reactionary bullshit, single mothers, your time will come and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 145 Comments.

  1. Diogenes The Cynic

    I forgot the technical term for it.

    But if you compare bank stickup numbers, its overwhelmingly male. There are more men who defraud banks than women, but as a percentage, its higher than bank robbers.

  2. I’m well aware that anyone can buy condoms and spermicide.

    But you can’t actually make someone use them and a lot of men will refuse (at which point, of course anyone considering sex with that person could refuse, but for women, if you’ve reached that point, you can’t consider refusing to go further without considering the risk of him refusing your refusal and getting violent):

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1831928/

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkup/2008/09/why_teens_dont_use_condoms.html

    It doesn’t help that the abstinence only garbage being served to kids in schools lies to them about the efficacy of condoms routinely, which further discourages use.

  3. Incidentally, from The Journal of Sex Research:
    “An estimated 3.1 million unintended pregnancies are experienced by women in the United States each year, and just over one half (52%) of these are experienced by women who did not use any method of contraception in the month of conception (Finer & Henshaw, 2006).”

    http://www.questia.com/library/1G1-278880601/willingness-to-have-unprotected-sex

    Which looks a whole lot like young men and women are both throwing caution to the wind. Now, if we could get more of these women on OCPs, maybe that’d help, but something like Norplant or Depo would doubtless be more effective. (I doubt you will get much reliable condom use out of this demographic, and consistent use of the pill may also be putting the bar a bit high.) The breakdown of unintended pregnancies by the Brookings Institute shows that most accidental parents are young and poor, that is to say, likely welfare recipients.

    Also, compared to the cost of raising a kid, BC is dirt cheap. I don’t have an issue with the state subsidizing family planning, in fact, I’m a strong proponent for it, but I do not believe that the current trend of (de facto) reproductive subsidy is sustainable, let alone desirable.

  4. All who care what Spoos believes, raise their hands.

  5. Also, compared to the cost of raising a kid, BC is dirt cheap.

    Yeah dude, it’s amazing how easy it is to save money when you already have money to spend. Poor people far too often can’t afford to save money.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,957 other followers