Commentary: How Cohabitation Is a Sin Against Social Justice: NCRegister - Jim Huggins
Commentary: How Cohabitation Is a Sin Against Social Justice: NCRegister|
Current Mood: pensive
|Date:||December 8th, 2009 11:41 pm (UTC)|| |
I wish she had given citations for the studies she mentioned. I'm curious to see how the injury rates for children compare if both parents are present but not married vs both married biological parents present. I get the impression she's using cohabitation to refer mostly to mother + biologically non-related male companion and the statistics she references do make it clear that a non-related male present in the household does increase the likelihood of injury to children in the household. However, I think her argument would be stronger (or damaged, if the data goes that way) if studies show that a non-married but cohabiting father is more likely or not to injure his child than a married father. As is, I think her argument is a good one against mothers "shacking up" with a boyfriend, but fails to address cohabitation with both biological parents or childless cohabitation.
I thought this myself while reading the article. Not remotely damning to cohabitating couples - just couples where the female has children not belonging to the male.
In a strange way,I was vague amused that none of her many moments of prolepsis seemed to address that very basic scientific concern. :-/
Keep in mind, though ... the latter part of the article kinda addresses that point. Yes, you could argue that certain types of cohabitation present less dangers than others. But the author's point at the end brings in the social justice aspect ... is it fair to say "well, *I'll* never be in that situation, so it must be ok"?
It's not a full argument, to be sure. But it is an interesting point to ponder.
|Date:||December 10th, 2009 07:40 pm (UTC)|| |
I'd actually suggest that bit at the end only really makes room for other social classes where a woman with children is living with a man. Doesn't really say anything for couples without children, or unmarried couples where there are children belonging to both. :-/
True enough. Except that couples without children can become couples with children, with or without intent. And unmarried couples with kids can become estranged couples with kids, creating the opportunity for the scenario above.
And, yes, there's an awful lot of conditionals in that argument above, which doesn't make it the soundest of arguments.