Does Permissiveness Disadvantage Poor Kids More Than Rich Kids?

Ross Douthat, columnist for The New York Times, explores the consequences of a “no rules” culture on working class Americans.

“ . . . our upper class should be judged first . . for failing to take any moral responsibility (in the schools it runs, the mass entertainments it produces, the social agenda it favors) for the effects of permissiveness on the less-savvy, the less protected, the kids who don’t have helicopter parents turning off the television or firewalling the porn.”

The abandonment of marriage has harmed working class Americans more than the privileged. The rate at which children are born to unmarried parents has risen drastically, but especially among working class Americans. The higher income parents in our society are more likely to be married. If they divorce, courts oversee custody and child support.

Among unmarried parents, the father is more likely to skip his responsibilities any time he decides to, with no divorce court to oversee child support.

The permissive, less attached partner arrangement has proved devastating for those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. And, as Douthat suggests, the culture shapers, who tend to be the more well-off, bear a great deal of responsibility for the consequences.

 

2 thoughts on “Does Permissiveness Disadvantage Poor Kids More Than Rich Kids?

  1. Carol

    Good grief! Permissiveness and irresponsible fathering, (mothering too) take place in families of every “social class”and on every rung of the economic ladder. What is the moral responsibility?

    Reply
  2. Ann Gaylia O'Barr

    I think Douthat is saying that the more one has—ie., in terms of talent, education, money, etc—the more responsible one is for the morality of a society. They are more apt to be the leaders.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.