Why Do Red States Have the Worst "Family Values"?

Change is scary.

The term "conservative" means a reluctance to change, so why is the fact that most of the GOP is against anything that was not done in the 50's surprising to anyone?

Power,

Great seed. It was a long article, but the facts seem to have been solidly researched, and objectively presented. I also like the author's conclusions, and that they are non-partisan and based on data.

Here's the real kicker, though. From the article:

One of the ironies is that we believe that in a less partisan world, there might be greater support for the idea that families need help. Instead, the same forces calling for more attention to “family values” also tend to oppose increases in the minimum wage, true health care reform that would separate health care from employment, more creative ways of increasing the educational attainment of young people in their twenties, and other measures that would provide a better foundation for young marriage.

Exactly. So it's unlikely to change for some time.

Yes change is scary, as Buckeye Voter wrote, and also exciting as PowerIsKnowledge suggested.

Most older people find change scary, because they're content with life as it is and tend not to adapt to change easily as the younger generation does, who fall into categories of risk takers and innovators and are adventurous, as PowerIsKnowledge wrote, more so than older generations. The unknown is what scares them.

It's not just being afraid of "change" - it's more like massive tweaking of tradition. From the article:

In their book Red Families v. Blue Families: Legal Polarization and the Creation of Culture, the authors explain that “red families” believe adulthood is forged by the responsibilities of getting married and having children early. Blue families, by contrast, defer marriage and childbirth until after they have reached adulthood, which usually follows economic and educational attainment.

[T]he red family system is a traditional one that continues to preach abstinence, early marriage and more traditional gender roles. The blue family model invests in women and men and believes in delayed family formation until after young adults reach emotional and financial independence. Sexuality is viewed as a private matter

most of the GOP is against anything that was not done in the 50's surprising to anyone?

I'd go back further than that.

Ignorance, fear and the need to follow an authority figure (which can translate into lack of critical thinking) are common traits of conservatives. If you look at the education and obesity levels of "red states", specifically Southern states, you see an obvious pattern. Then add in the obsession with religion, the lack of urbanization (overall) and the limited access to new technologies and you see trends.

I love quoting Gabby Johnson from Blazing Saddles (followed shortly by the Waco Kid's comment about the people of Rock Ridge) when referring to "Red Staters":

I wash born here, an I wash raished here, and dad gum it, I am gonna die here, an no sidewindin' bushwackin', hornswagglin' cracker croaker is gonna rouin me bishen cutter.

and

What did you expect? "Welcome, sonny"? "Make yourself at home"? "Marry my daughter"? You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons.

#2.1:Change is scary.

But inevitable, nonetheless!

I find change to be exciting and not scary even more so as i age.

...both red and blue states have the same issues...

No they don't. There are distinct differences in teen pregnancy and divorce rates between "red" states and "blue."

If your talking California, it's easier to break into Red countys and Blue countys.

The Central Valley Countys are mostly conserative, farm industrys/ related. and have the highest unemployment, lowest worker wages, lowest worker education, highest teen pregnancy, highest meth labs, and voted for prop 8

The coastal countys are mostly liberal, Technology/related jobs, and have the lowest unemployment, highest worker wages, highest education, and esteemed universitys. less meth labs, and voted against prop 8

now when you look at the state as a whole... you get mixed up numbers.... Our economy is big enough to be a country......so we are not the simplest example to use

U.S. Department of Commerce estimates, California’s GDP (gross domestic product) was nearly $1.85 trillion. And that puts California as the world’s eighth largest economy in 2008. (roughly 13% of the US total) our population is approx 38,000,000

There are distinct differences in teen pregnancy and divorce rates between "red" states and "blue."

You can't get divorced if you don't get married. I lived in Connecticut (one of the red states they mentioned) and I didnt' find it surprising that the divorce rate didn't rank that high because people don't get married, they just live together so when they break up, they can just leave without having to get officially divorced.

they don't go into detail about the actual statistics but I'd be curious to know how far they looked into the data. Most "red" and "blue" states are categorizes as such by a relatively small percentage of people. Did they just take global statistics for each state and make distinctions for that? meaning if a state is 60% blue and 40% red did they look at the states as a whole, or for the percentage of the population they are looking at?

HappyToSeeYa,

It's not just being afraid of "change" - it's more like massive tweaking of tradition.

Tradition defined means a long-established or inherited way of thinking or acting. So if individuals are obsessed with acting and thinking in a traditional way, leaving no room for change, isn't it fair to suggest perhaps they're afraid of change for some reason or another?

I was shocked to find out that when i moved here that it was the meth capital of the nation. utah go figure.

Hi, Ann -

Sometimes, change occurs over time, inch by inch in such a manner that it's not even noticeable. Other times, changes is a massive, unstoppable wave that I called massive tweaking of tradition.

From 1960 until now, there has been a lot of change of both kinds. Small change that has barely registered is not the problem. The change that has red states most upset could be called women's liberation which has been a huge wave of change. The article deals quite a bit with women's change issues like employment, education, abortion, children, and marriage. It mentions that communities that have consistent support systems like the Mormons in Utah as well as other locations where spouses participating in religious activities are not as affronted by small or big change as people without any safety net.

Hmm. I didn't realize it until I started typing this response that the change that is most upsetting is change involving the traditional role of women. The article discusses on abortion issues at great length. Men complain loud and often about women's reproduction resulting in the fight about women's rights to decide on the use of their bodies especially with regard to having or not having children.

I'm not taking back my first comment, but I see that the fear is from having to adapt to new male-female relating. Women vote, have jobs, get education, use contraception (or not as they please) and make decisions. Their decisions may echo their partners or stand in opposition to their partners, requiring compromise instead of the man making the decision and being done with the process.

I'm having flashes of memory about the storyline from Fiddler on the Roof. Tradition!

the only one who owns me is me.

I object to the "barefoot and pregnant" statement. There is so much more to being a housewife, and it is not, at its heart, a degrading and embarrassing role. A woman is free to take on the role she chooses, whether it is to dominate in her career and household, or submit and yield to her husband (or wife). She should no more be condemned for choosing the role of mother and wife than she should for choosing to have a career. Welcome to feminism as it should be.

The entire scenario went over your head EliMae.

It certainly did. "Barefoot and pregnant" has nothing to do with being a housewife.

Correct, the whole issue EliMae is that the right wing wanted their women barefoot and pregnant, not in politics until just a few years back.

It's not the Republicans. . . It's how the VOTING PEOPLE view things in general.

Yeah, I'm well aware that a large portion of American knucklehead voters are against progress.

That's why we are buying wind turbines from China AT A PREMIUM, and why we will be importing other green technology and infrastructure from Europe, going forward. Meanwhile, I just saw an ad for US Coal. That's right coal, the energy of tomorrow (/sarc)!

Also, it took American auto-manufacturers 3 decades to realize that not all Americans want trucks and instead would like an economy car that is well-built and well-styled. Congrats to the proverbial tortoise.

Or it could be that the states noted have a large population of poor and under-educated people, and it's been that way for a looong time with few signs of improving. See #10 below.

hvymtl,

Or it could be that the states noted have a large population of poor and under-educated people, and it's been that way for a looong time with few signs of improving.

That's exactly the point of the article. Red states seem to base their society on family models that were appropriate for agrarian societies, and rights that were restricted to white male Christians. The Red states don't seem to have evolved this model to fit the 21st Century - hence the high rates of divorce, etc.

Blue states have evolved their model, and it fits better with the country today. Hence the lower rates of divorce, higher rates of education, marriage success, etc.

Is anyone supposed to believe this or care?

wow,

you're really working that angle hard. Has something cut a little too close to the bone for you?

That's exactly the point of the article. Red states seem to base their society on family models that were appropriate for agrarian societies, and rights that were restricted to white male Christians. The Red states don't seem to have evolved this model to fit the 21st Century - hence the high rates of divorce, etc.

I quite agree. However, I will point out that it has been that way since before the American Revolution. The northern states were always the location of industrial and economic activity as compared to the agrarian south. That was a bone of contention during the development of the US and the reason for the infamous "Three-Fifths Compromise".

All three of your points are well taken, however you seem to have forgotten that all three of those points have been directly and adversely effected by extreme right wing politics.

1) Teen marriage, this is due in large part because they have no other options, abortions are bad (right wing talking point), living at home off mom and dad is not acceptable (poor economy, low wages) etc.

2) Poor economy, you hit it right on the head, they keep electing people that are not working for their best interest. These are predominately the same states where their Governors and lawmakers are screaming bout not wanting fed money, although they usually take it, and screaming about the Fed staying out of their business while they ship every good paying job in the state overseas.

3) The education system, with the possible exception of GA, most of the southern states do not have a viable means for getting their High School grads to college. This, on top of some of the worst education systems in the nation, hamstring kids before they even have a out of High School. They are way more interested in making sure that evolution takes a back seat to Creation, or to eliminating Jefferson from the list of founding fathers than they are with giving their kids a well rounded, useful education.

50 percent above the national average of 4.2 per thousand people.

this is the CRUDE divorce rate which is based on the ratio of divorce to total population. it is a worthless statistic without knowing how many of those people were married, if just 4.2 people per 1000, that would be a 100% divorce rate (everymarried person getting a divorce. if all 1000 people were married that is .42% very small.

% househoulds married in 2008 /divorce rate/1000 in 2000/ divorce rate/1000 in 2005 actual %

usa 49.2% households married / 2000 4.2/1000 divorced 2005 3.6/1000 .85%div an .73%

Alabama 48.8%married 5.4/1000 divorce 4.9/1000 divorce 1.10%divorced in 2005 1.00%

Alaska 48.9% 4.4 5.8 .89% 1.18%

Arizona 48.7% 4.4 4.1 .90% .84%

Arkansas 49.6% 6.9 6.0 1.39% 1.20%

California 49.1% 4.3 n/a .87% naq

Colorado 49.9% 5.5 4.4 1.10% .88%

Nevada 47.2% 9.6 7.7 2.03% 1.63%

new york 45% 3.4 2.8 .75% .62%

ok you can see how the ranking change some. but it's a more accurate on how many of the married people are getting a divorce ( the half of all marriges end in divoice myth comes from the divorce/1000 is half the rate of the marriage/1000 imagine if the marriage and divorce rate were the same 4.2/1000 and the rate of losing a spouse to death were also 4.2/1000.. one could say ALL marriages end in divorce, AND all marriages end in death... you can see why this data is worthless without knowing how many people / 1000 are already married... ( my data is somewhat askew, as they are cross year/statistics but I think you get the point..) links to data sources below

http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/census/ACS2008/acs_2008_rank

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923080.html#axzz0zbyd7pMM

ok newsvine squeeshed everything and got rid of spaces, but the rankings hold the same ratio of high and low south to northeast, following the reasoning... just a more accurate idea, notice Nevada...

The Marriage rate in the US is 9.6 per/1000 or 1.9% of single 19per1000 ,85% of 19 people is .16 people or about 1 divorce for every 118 new marriages

there's a mistake there.. should be way less... umm 1 divoice for every 1180 newleyweds.

Head Redneck,

Another person who didn't read the article. The authors acknowledge the high rate of black teen pregnancy, correct for it in their analysis, and plan to address it in an upcoming book.

When was the last time you visited the "old south"?

I live and was born in the old south and I am a 10th generation southerner. So I know wherefore I speak.

The teen pregnancy rates among blacks is through the roof, because black men just impregnate teen age girls and leave the kid for the state to raise.

And they're always asking why liberals have to bring race into everything. Considering that there are more whites on welfare (higher population) then blacks, I always have trouble believing that blacks cause all of the welfare problems. But you keep believing that if it makes you feel better.

I lived in the south for 20 years, unfortunately, most of the population is exactly like that, backward and extreme right. There are pockets of progress, mostly in areas that have been populated by those from elsewhere, but for the most part, there hasn't been much social growth in the south.

I lived in the south for 20 years, unfortunately, most of the population is exactly like that, backward and extreme right. There are pockets of progress, mostly in areas that have been populated by those from elsewhere, but for the most part, there hasn't been much social growth in the south.

Thank you for this validation.

One need only come to Texas to see this. Austin itself is pretty progressive, and by nature, the suburbs around it are moderate, but step 20 miles outside of the city and it's like you're back in 1864, or 1955, take your pick. I experienced the same thing when I lived in Florida - the areas outside of Tallahassee are truly Deliverance country.

One need only come to Texas to see this. Austin itself is pretty progressive, and by nature, the suburbs around it are moderate, but step 20 miles outside of the city and it's like you're back in 1864, or 1955, take your pick. I experienced the same thing when I lived in Florida - the areas outside of Tallahassee are truly Deliverance country.

Oh, yes, Texas, that wants to take Thomas Jefferson out of the history books. As for Florida, Miami is mostly Hispanic and South Florida is mostly Canadian. And you are right about North Florida.

Skye,

I assume you mean "South Florida" as Tampa...because if you are talking about SouthEAST Florida, it is ALL Multi-cultural....I was born and raised in Ft. Lauderdale and lived in Palm Beach County for a few years. In the time since I moved away, every country in South America nation has come to South Florida for business and now many Latinos (from ALL countries) live in that area - Cubans actually are not the largest group anymore...Plus, many Asians/Indians and Europeans have made the Tri-County area home. I can't speak about Tampa however as I have only been a visitor to that side of the state a few times.

Hopefully, this piece of crap wasn't funded by tax payer money.

Interesting.

I'd love to hear your critique of the study methodology and how you found it flawed. I'd also love to hear your analysis leading to the conclusion that better understanding trends and causes of divorce and teen pregnancy is a bad thing.

or do you just hate it because it's not flattering toward people you like?

Any study showing political "superiority" to one party over the other is crap. Why bring up red versus blue states, why bring up liberal versus conservative? Because they wanted the result to say what they wanted it to politically. Unflattering toward me? Does that mean this kind of crap is flattering to you? LOL

Any study showing political "superiority" to one party over the other is crap

please point out where the authors concluded that lower divorce and teen pregnancy rates mean "superiority"

Why bring up red versus blue states, why bring up liberal versus conservative?

Because "family values" so often tend to be a part of political campaign platforms and rhetoric. But don't blame the dems for that.

Because they wanted the result to say what they wanted it to politically.

yeah, well, if that's the case, you should be able to pick apart their methodology pretty easily (since it's so obvious to you) and display exactly how that was done.

I notice, of course, you haven't done so.

Unflattering toward me? Does that mean this kind of crap is flattering to you?

no, you wear an ugly green dress, it has no effect on how I look at all. It just means you thought that dress was a good idea. I am, however, likely to question your judgment in picking out said dress.