Additional Titles










Divorce And Child Support Are Eviscerating Military Recruitment











David R. Usher
January 27, 2007

Like most everyone who still has a head on his shoulders, I was taken aback by the New York Times Article, "51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse," by one Sam Roberts.

It seems the Times comes under fire quite often for publishing disinformation, and this article is no exception. Fortunately, Peter J. Smith, a writer for LifeSite, did his homework and figured out the article is a lie. His article "New York Times Gets Another Story Very Wrong - This Time it�s about Marriage" sets the record straight:

"Roberts creates his own analysis by using the Census Bureau�s �Living Arrangements of Persons 15 Years Old and Over by Selected Characteristics�, by including in his 51% figure of women living without a spouse: unmarried teenage and college girls still living with their parents, women whose husbands work out of town, are institutionalized, or are separated from husbands serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Perhaps most disturbing is how blatantly Roberts� claims are at variance with US census bureau statistics. Among marriageable women over 18 years old, 56.9% of women are married, with 53% having a spouse present, 1.4% with a spouse absent, 9.9% widowed, and 11.5% divorced. Yet, 67.3% of women 30-34, and 70.5% of women 35-39 are married, a far cry from the profiles of women offered by the Times of women finding fulfillment outside marriage. ...

�Obviously 97% of women between the ages of 15 and 19 are never married!� Medved fumed. �What does it tell you when he�s including girls living home with their parents as single women and then uses that to create this lie that the majority of women are unmarried?�

So why would the New York Times lie about marriage statistics? In my analysis, feminists wish to create the appearance that women are not marrying, so that women won't marry. Feminists spent the last 45 years trying to convince women that marriage is a trap built by control-obsessed men who are all dangerous, and that sexual liberation means having children out of wedlock with as many men as possible to maximize child support entitlements. This fooled a lot of women by appealing to fear or selfishness, but it has not fooled them all.

It seems that feminists are trying a new approach -- treating women like cows -- figuring they can trick even more women to follow them into the swamp of impoverished victimization.

The Times article might also be an attempt to convince Democrats in Congress that feminists now hold the majority of women's votes -- and should therefore be catered to with mindless care. I have news for Congress on this level: Republicans were just unseated partially because they ignored the wishes of moderate and right wing voters, who put Republicans in power in the 1994 landslide with a strong "family values" mandate. PROWA and VAWA are greatly disliked by a large majority of voters. A great majority of responsible women do not like it. Most women in the welfare state feel stuck in it, but are not inured to it. Most would like a way out -- namely a marriageable man who has not been destroyed by the welfare state.

However, debunking the Times article does not mean that all is well. 43.1% of women of marital age are not married. This is a tremendous problem which translates into our even more serious problems such as father-absence, teen and parental suicide, teen crime and violence, poor school performance, poverty for women and children and of the elderly, the child support dilemma, and lack of health care coverage. This problem is threatening the American Experiment, making it impossible fight a robust war on terror while maintaining a consistent budgetary surplus.

The fact is this: marriage is not entitled in any way. But there are many federal programs that actively disentitle it based on orchestrated feminist theories, thus destroying it. The answer is this: Federal government must stop interfering in the marriage market. Permanent entitlements must be ended, and welfare must be reformed to function as a temporary public tithe -- as it functioned prior to 1974.

I would not buy the New York Times even if I was completely out of fish wrap and my parakeet had to sit on bare cold rusty-crusty metal. But I would sure buy this internet publication if it were for sale in my town.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Perhaps you might want to register your consumer opinion with The New York Times:

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Chairman & Publisher:

Scott H. Heekin-Canedy, President, General Manager

� 2007 David Usher - All Rights Reserved

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

David R. Usher is Legislative Analyst for the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition and is a co-founder and past Secretary of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.












It seems the Times comes under fire quite often for publishing disinformation, and this article is no exception.