What are your thoughts on the two opposing viewpoint editorial articles (the breakdown of the family). Provide thorough explanations to the following questions. (1) Which viewpoint do you most agree

What are your thoughts on the two opposing viewpoint editorial articles (the breakdown of the family). Provide thorough explanations to the following questions. (1) Which viewpoint do you most agree
The Breakdown of the Family Causes Teen ViolenceSource Database: Opposing Viewpoints Digests: Teen Violence It would be simplistic to attribute all the violence committed by teenagers to one cause. However, it is clear that the breakdown of the traditional family structure that has occurred in recent decades is a major contributor to this problem. More and more children are being raised in homes that lack the economic and emotional stability that only an intact two-parent family can provide. The consequences of this trend are far-reaching. Experts agree that being raised in a single-parent home increases children’s risk for a variety of problems, including poverty, poor educational performance, emotional problems–and violent behavior.Social scientists have established that children raised in a single-parent family are more likely to commit violent crime. Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, a social historian and the author of a comprehensive article describing the harms of single-parent families, writes: Nationally, more than 70 percent of all juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes. Boys from single-mother homes are significantly more likely than others to commit crimes and to wind up in the juvenile justice, court, and penitentiary systems.1 In addition, research indicates that neighborhoods with a higher proportion of single-parent households have higher rates of violent crime. This evidence suggests that Americans have underestimated the important role the traditional family structure plays in ensuring the well-being of the nation’s children and society at large.Divorce and Unwed ParenthoodIn order to appreciate the impact of the changing family structure on the problem of teenage violence, it is necessary to understand why the number of single-parent families has increased. The answer lies in the changing social values and norms regarding divorce and unwed parenthood. Prior to the 1970s, the belief that a stable, two-parent family was essential for a child’s well-being was widely shared. When a marriage turned bad, parents were expected to sacrifice their personal happiness and weather the marital storm for the sake of the children. There was general agreement that it was better for children to have two parents, even if the marriage was less than ideal.In the mid-1970s, however, the prevailing view of the importance of an intact family began to shift. Parents’ happiness began to take precedence over that of their children. Divorce became a socially acceptable alternative to an unhappy marriage. Today, while no one would expect a woman to remain in an abusive marriage (in such a case divorce is in the children’s best interest as well as the adults’), too many marriages are dissolved simply because they have become difficult, inconvenient, or constraining. Consequently, 50 percent of marriages in the United States today end in divorce.The effects of divorce can be traumatic. Children of divorce are put through a chaotic and distressing ordeal as they are forced to accept the dissolution of their family–their source of security, love, and support–and adjust to a new family arrangement. Additionally, their new lives are often unstable, involving shared custody arrangements, stepparents and stepsiblings, and their parents’ new romantic partners. All of this instability can undermine a child’s sense of security and belonging, which in turn can lead to various problems, including poor school performance, depression, and delinquent behavior. Along with divorce, unwed pregnancy and childbirth have also become more socially acceptable. Prior to the 1970s, if a young girl or woman became pregnant outside of marriage, she was subjected to censure by the community. If a marriage could not be arranged, her child was branded “illegitimate.” Since the 1970s, the stigma associated with unwed motherhood and illegitimacy has been greatly reduced. As a result, the proportion of babies born to unwed mothers increased from 5.3 percent to 30 percent between 1960 and 1996. This number is even higher among African Americans: sixty-eight percent of African American babies are born to unmarried women. African American single-parent families are concentrated in poverty-stricken inner-city neighborhoods, where rates of violent juvenile crime are highest.Due to society’s increasing tolerance of divorce and unwed motherhood, America has seen a dramatic increase in the number of single-parent families, most of which are headed by mothers rather than fathers. The number of American children living in single-parent families rose from 5.8 million to 18 million between 1960 and 1996.Welfare’s ContributionThe rise in single-parent families, especially among minorities in the inner cities, has been encouraged by the ready availability of welfare. Although the welfare reform law signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996 places new limits on these programs, it will take time to undo the damage done by decades of excessively liberal policies.There is no doubt that welfare has encouraged illegitimacy. Welfare’s guarantee of financial security for unwed mothers has eliminated the economic disincentive to bear children outside of marriage. Robert Rector, a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, explains how welfare contributes to illegitimacy in the inner cities: Largely because of welfare, illegitimacy and single parenthood have become the conventional “lifestyle option” for raising children in many low-incomecommunities…. While young women do not necessarily bear unwanted children in order to reap windfall profits from welfare, they are very much aware of the role welfare will play in supporting them once a child is born. Thus, the availability of welfare plays an important role in influencing a woman’s decision to have a child out of wedlock.2The Absence of Fathers By encouraging out-of-wedlock births, the welfare system effectively eliminates the father from the family. Indeed, welfare recipients risk losing their benefits if they choose to marry. In a sense, then, welfare has replaced the man as the husband and father of the family. Charles Augustus Ballard, the founder and president of the National Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Development, explains how welfare diminishes the role and presence of fathers in inner-city families: The vast majority of assistance programs … are aimed at young mothers. At best, fathers are irrelevant; invisible men drifting in and out of their children’s lives. At worse, fathers are a presence that can disqualify a mother for government benefits. Fathers … get the message: They are a problem–an obstacle in the path of a system built to help single mothers cope. I sometimes wonder whether any of us appreciate the radical experiment we are conducting in the inner cities of America. In all of history we have never seen a stable society without fathers. Yet just a society seems to be the aim of our social policy.3 Whether in the inner cities or the suburbs, the lack of a father can have detrimental consequences for a teenager, especially– but certainly not exclusively–a teenage boy. As William J. Bennett, the former U.S. secretary of education and a well-known commentator on America’s social and moral issues, states: Although single women can do a fine job raising children … it is a lot harder to do it alone…. You cannot raise young boys to become responsible citizens unless there are other good men in their lives–men who will spendtime with them, discipline them and love them.4 The consequences of being without a father can be tragic. While girls without fathers are more likely to become pregnant at an early age, fatherless boys are more apt to join gangs. As Michael Tanner, the director of health and welfare studies for the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, writes, Boy’s growing up in mother only’ families naturally seek male influences. Unfortunately, in many inner city neighborhoods, those male role models do not exist…. Thus, the boy in search of male guidance and companionship may end up in the company of gangs or other undesirable influences.5 And while in the company of these influences, he is apt to succumb to the temptations of drug use and crime–including violent crime. As Ballard states, the absence of fathers is at the root of the youth violence that plagues the inner cities: Look at the social pathologies that plague us today: drug abuse, homicide, gang violence, crime. Now survey the youth who fall prey to any or all of those calamities, and ask them where their father was when their lives took a turn for the worse. Or visit our prisons and ask the men locked up what role their father played in their lives. You’ll find too many say, “no role at all.”6It is up to all of us to reverse the process of family disintegration that has left teenagers adrift without the discipline and guidance of fathers and other positive male role models. To protect the nation’s young people, as well as our own future, we must commit ourselves to mending split familiesand nurturing new unions so that they remain intact. Footnotes 1. Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, “Dan Quayle Was Right,” Atlantic Monthly, April1993, p. 77.2. Robert Rector, “Welfare Reform,” in Issues ’96: The Candidate’s BriefingBook. Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation, 1996.3. Charles Augustus Ballard, “Prodigal Dad: How We Bring Fathers Home toTheir Children,” Policy Review, Winter 1995, p. 66.4. House Ways and Means Committee, William J. Bennett testifying beforethe Subcommittee on Human Resources, January 20, 1995.5. Senate Judiciary Committee, Michael Tanner testifying before the Subcommittee on Youth Violence, June 7, 1995.6. Ballard, “Prodigal Dad,” p. 66.  Source Citation: “The Breakdown of the Family Causes Teen Violence.” Teen Violence. Scott Barbour, Ed. Opposing Viewpoints Digests® Series. Greenhaven Press, 1999. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. 11 January 2006< http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC>
What are your thoughts on the two opposing viewpoint editorial articles (the breakdown of the family). Provide thorough explanations to the following questions. (1) Which viewpoint do you most agree
The Breakdown of the Family Is Not the Cause of Teen ViolenceSource Database: Opposing Viewpoints Digests: Teen Violence It has become fashionable to blame all of society’s problems on the breakdown of the traditional two-parent family and the demise of “family values.” We have been told repeatedly that children who grow up with only one parent (usually their mother) are vulnerable to a wide range of problems in life, including poverty, emotional disorders, teenage pregnancy–and teen violence.This focus on the single-parent family structure is misplaced. It is true that the family structure has changed; the number of single-parent families has risen dramatically in recent decades. It is also true that a single-parent family is more likely to be poor than a two-parent family. But it does not follow from these facts that the single-parent family structure is the source of all of society’s social problems and the root cause of teen violence.Correlation Does Not Prove CausationFor argument’s sake, let’s assume that it is true that teenagers from single-parent homes are more likely to commit violence. This fact does not prove that the single-parent family structure is the cause of the violent behavior. As psychologists Arlene Skolnick and Stacey Rosencranz state, this type of reasoning “ignores the principle taught in elementary statistics that correlation does not prove causation.”1 Skolnick and Rosencranz point out that the actual cause of the problem might lie in any of a number of factors: Single-parenthood may be correlated with many problems affecting children, but the causes may lie elsewhere–for example, in economic and emotional problems affecting parents that lead to difficulties raising children and greater chances of divorce.2 Blaming teen violence on single-parent families and women who have babies out of wedlock is a simplistic response to a complex problem. If the breakdown of the traditional family structure is not to blame for teenage violence, what is? Several factors stand out as key causes: growing up amid poverty and violence, the availability of guns, and discrimination against women and minorities.The Role of Poverty and Violence The primary cause of teen violence is poverty. If single-parent families are more likely to raise teens who commit violence, it is because such families are more likely to be poor. Indeed, approximately 50 percent of female-headed families with children under eighteen live in poverty. It is the poverty of these families, rather than their structure, that produces violence. Mike Males, the author of The Scapegoat Generation: America’s War on Adolescents, has studied violent crime and has concluded that violence is caused by “the stresses of economic adversity.”3 As proof, he points out that the rates of violence were high during the Great Depression, when the nation suffered perhaps its severest poverty in history. He also compares the crime rates in poor areas with those in more affluent areas. Examining California, he writes, “Fresno, California’s poorest major county, suffers violent crime rates double those of Ventura, one of the state’s richest.”4 The fact that poverty, not the single-parent family structure, is the true cause of teenage violence is borne out by sociological evidence. In a review of the sociological literature on the subject, Kevin N. Wright, a professor of criminal justice, and Karen E. Wright, who works for the Planned Parenthood Association, conclude that “economic conditions inherent to single-parent families may place children at greater risk”5 of delinquency. Findings such as this suggest that rather than lamenting the decline of two-parent families, society should focus on providing single-parent families with the economic resources they need to raise children successfully.Along with poverty, the presence of violence in the home and community contributes to the problem of teen violence. According to Delbert S. Elliott, the director of the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence at the University of Boulder, children exposed to violence and physical abuse in the home face a 40 percent increased risk of engaging in violence as teenagers. In addition to violence in the home, the quality of the neighborhood can also impact a teenager’s involvement with violence. Young people who live in poor, violent neighborhoods with an abundance of drugs and gang activity are more likely to become involved in violent behavior—including gang violence.The Availability of GunsGuns are a major contributor to the problem of teen violence. There are 200 million guns circulating in American society– 60 to 70 million of which are handguns. These guns often find their way into the hands of young people and are frequently used in violent crimes–including the murder of teenagers. According to a report published by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), the number of juveniles killed by firearms nearly tripled between 1984 and 1994. Gun-related murders are the leading cause of death for African American teenagers between the age of fifteen and nineteen. The Educational Fund to End Handgun Violence reports that guns are responsible for 60 percent of deaths among black males ages fifteen to nineteen and 23 percent of whites in the same age group. These statistics suggest that the large number of guns in the possession of the nation’s young people should be a major cause of concern.There are several reasons why guns are so dangerous in the hands of teenagers. First, teenagers are still too young to have complete control over their emotions and impulses. Second, they are less able to completely grasp the possible tragic results of pulling the trigger. James Alan Fox, the dean of the College of Criminal Justice at Northeastern University, explains why a teenager with a gun is such a threat: A 14-year-old armed with a gun is far more menacing than a 44-year-old with a gun. Although juveniles may be untrained in using firearms, they are more willing to pull the trigger over trivial matters–a leather jacket, a pair of sneakers, a challenging remark, or no reason at all—without fully considering the consequences.6Gender and Racial DiscriminationGender discrimination also contributes to the problem of teenage violence. As noted earlier, about 50 percent of female-headed single-parent families are poor. This poverty has its roots in women’s inequality in American society. As of 1992, women who worked full-time earned approximately 70 percent of the wages earned by full-time male workers. In addition, women face significant barriers to advancement in the American labor market. According to Barbara E Reskin and Irene Padavic, “Women are concentrated at low levels in the organizations that employ them and in the lower ranks in their occupations and professions.”7 Thus, due to gender discrimination inherent in the U.S. economic system, children of mother-headed families face a significant risk of poverty. The violence that results from this poverty should be blamed on the inequality that impedes women’s economic progress, not on the single mother.Racial discrimination also plays a role in teenage violence. The OJJDP has reported that minority juveniles are arrested at rates disproportionately higher than whites. This disparity exists not because minorities are inherently violent but because they are more likely to be poor. Minority single mothers suffer under the double burden of gender discrimination and racial discrimination. Their children, in turn, are impeded due to racial discrimination that limits their educational, job training and employment opportunities as they attempt to make the transition to adulthood. As Elliott states, in minority neighborhoods, “conventional opportunities are limited by racism, discrimination, social isolation from the labor market, and few resources.”8 Faced with these circumstances, adolescents–especially adolescent males—often lash out violently in anger or frustration. They also become disillusioned in their search for legitimate employment and after-school activities and turn to crime and gang involvement.Those who blame the breakdown of the family for teen violence gloss over the realities of poverty, guns, and discrimination that are the true roots of the problem. Rather than stigmatizing single mothers, society should mobilize its resources to ensure that the children of this country receive the support they need to mature into thoughtful, civilized, and compassionate adults. Footnotes 1. Arlene Skolnick and Stacey Rosencranz, “The New Crusade for the Old Family,” American Prospect, Summer 1994, p. 61.2. Skolnick and Rosencranz, “The New Crusade for the Old Family,” p.61.3. Michael A. Males, “Executioner’s Myth,” Los Angeles Times, May 4, 1997, p. M1.4. Males, “Executioner’s Myth,” p. M1. 5. Kevin N. Wright and Karen E. Wright, Family Life, Delinquency, and Crime: A Policymaker’s Guide. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, May 1994.6. James Alan Fox, “Should the Federal Government Have a Major Role in Reducing Juvenile Crime? Pro,” Congressional Digest, August/September 1996, p. 208.7. Barbara F. Reskin and Irene Padavic, Women and Men at Work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, 1994. 8. Delbert S. Elliott, “Youth Violence: An Overview,” working paper, Center for the Study of Youth Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1993.Source Citation: “The Breakdown of the Family Is Not the Cause of Teen Violence.” Teen Violence. Scott Barbour, Ed. Opposing Viewpoints Digests® Series. Greenhaven Press, 1999. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. 11 January 2006 <http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC>