12.03.2010

pew research: "the decline of marriage and rise of new families"

Via Andrew Sullivan, Chart Of The Day: What is a family?, from the Pew Research Center.

A majority of respondents don't consider my family a family. Although I actually don't care, because I know we are a family. (Which may make you wonder why I posted this.)

Even more interesting, 18% of respondents judged an unmarried male-female couple with children as not a family. And 12% thought a single parent with children is not a family! How do we wrap our heads around that one? It may be bigotry, but it also may be a failure of the imagination. People cannot imagine a type of family other than the kind in which they were raised. Their minds are very small.

Another interesting chart: percentage of people who think the changes in marriage and family types are a good thing, a bad thing or neither.

The summary of the report is very interesting: here. I'd like to see future surveys include polyamorous, multiple-adult households - just to piss off the bigots.

13 comments:

johngoldfine said...

I know Andrew Sullivan once gave JOS a gratuitous sideswipe, but he is a brave, decent, and intelligent writer, who has fought for gay marriage legalization for over 20 years; who is unrelenting and implacable in his loathing of USAian torture; who heaped and still heaps ashes of contrition on his own head for believing Dubya's lies about Iraq; who is a pariah among what passes for conservatives today; whose position on Palestine is indistinguishable from wmtc's AFAICS; whose blog was a pioneer and still is fresh.

So, I'm glad to see you hat-tipping him via Pew.

L-girl said...

I'm not hat-tipping Andrew Sullivan. I am linking to him because I won't pretend I found something I didn't.

AFAIC, Sullivan gave JoS a great plug - it's some of the best publicity either of us have ever gotten.

Sullivan and I may see eye-to-eye on a few points, and he is obviously a good writer, but I am no fan of his by any means.

redsock said...

Sullivan supported the invasion of Iraq, including the possible use of nuclear bombs. He has since changed his mind, admitting that he "was clearly blinded by fear of al Qaeda and deluded by the overwhelming military superiority of the US".

(Wiki notes that in 2004, Sullivan claimed that Noam Chomsky supported the Soviet Union. Chomsky asked if Sullivan could find even one quote where Chomsky showed any support for the "brutal dictatorship" of the Soviet Union. Sullivan refused (and still refuses) to answer Chomsky's request.)

L-girl said...

Sullivan may have changed his mind about this one invasion. But - as far as I know, correct me if I am wrong - he supports US military interventions in general and sees the US as a force for good in the world. I believe he sees the invasion of Iraq and the "current" use of torture as anomalies. I see them as fully in keeping with US expansionist policies.

I also believe him to a be a fiscal conservative. Quite the opposite of my economic views.

He supports same-sex marriage. Big shit. He's gay and he wants equal rights. What a surprise. If that makes him brave, the standards are far too low. But then, I don't consider any writer in NA brave for writing their own views. There's little to no risk, so there's no bravery involved, IMO.

L-girl said...

I do agree that he is certainly not scary-seeming like Limbaugh or Beck. But those people are not engaged in serious discourse. Intelligensia like Michael Ignatieff or Andrew Sullivan calling for the US to invade other countries may actually be more dangerous.

It is literally impossible for me to believe that people that intelligent were tricked by the Cheney gang, then let them off the hook because of it.

tornwordo said...

Nice to know that we are not considered a family. I wonder how that would skew in Canada. I'm gonna use that graph but credit you instead of Andrew. My views on him match up fairly similarly with yours.

L-girl said...

I'm curious how that would skew in Canada, too. Theoretically, much better - but by how much?

Thanks for the link. :)

John F said...

After brief consideration, I see that there can only be one valid criterion to define family. Do the two or more people in question consider themselves to be a family?. If so, then they're a family. And fuck all the bigots.

James said...

Documentary film-maker Roger Nygard (best known for Trekkies) recently made a film called The Nature Of Existence, in which he interviews religious leaders, scientists, friends, family -- just about anybody -- on the question of existence.

His next film, he says, is going to be even more difficult. He's calling it The Nature of Marriage, and he plans to cover at least as wide a sampling of people -- and types of "marriage" -- as in the current film.

L-girl said...

After brief consideration, I see that there can only be one valid criterion to define family. Do the two or more people in question consider themselves to be a family?. If so, then they're a family. And fuck all the bigots.

WHY do people insist on defining other people's lives? What is up with that???

His next film, he says, is going to be even more difficult. He's calling it The Nature of Marriage, and he plans to cover at least as wide a sampling of people -- and types of "marriage" -- as in the current film.

That sounds terrific! That means he almost certainly will find poly families, group marriages, triads and such, among other arrangements.

Thanks for the link, too. I didn't know about that film.

James said...

I haven`t seen Nygard`s `The Nature of Existence` yet, but I have heard him interviewed on a couple of podcasts I follow recently. He`s specifically said he will be including open marriages and poly marriages in the film.

Mike said...

I'm still waiting to see how that polygamy case in BC works out, could be interesting. The lawyer for the government has already said Canada's polygamy laws are meant to protect children from forced polygamous marriages aren't meant to be applied to polyamourous adults, of course that's not what the law actually says...

L-girl said...

Right, those laws are always meant to protect something that's already protected. Like the proposed fetus-as-person laws are meant to protect women from abuse. Yeah, right.