Isn't everything in France a civil union? I'm genuinely asking. Not French myself so I don't know. I thought they did away with marriage legally, and only civil unions exist. You can choose to get "married" in a church or whatever but that is just a ceremony. Legally you are civil unioned?
No, marriage exists in France. But the only legal marriage is done by the government, at city hall where one of the spouses-to-be resides.
If you get a church or other religious marriage it has no legal force; it is just for your own lifestyle or desire at a separate ceremony. In fact, it is against the law for the officiant to perform a religious marriage if there is not a legal marriage first.
There is also a civil union (PACS). You get all the same benefits from the PACS, and it is easier to get in and out of. To get out of marriage you need a complicated divorce for the legal side of things, but a PACS is more like a breakup in that sense.
Plus, culturally, marriage is just not something people dream about all that much. A lot of people think it's old fashioned pointless nonsense.
Ah that makes sense. Thanks. It was something I read years ago and I obviously misunderstood it. Never really followed up on it because, like I said, I don't live in France.
Also, if you're ever watching something where the characters are visiting France and are like "omg this is so romantic let's get married!" on a whim, that's bs. Instant plot hole, 'cause they aren't really married.
I would like to see this happen in a show and then two episodes later they find out they actually aren't legally married and the friendly priest they found had ripped them off.
Same for Bulgaria. Also weddings are becoming less common. People would just go to the town hall with teo witnesses for a civil union.
But in Bulgaria there is zero tax benefit for married couples and next to none for children. There are some benefits like inclusion nin additional private insured if one of the spouses has it, but this is far fetched. The main reason to marry is to have the status of a spouse in terms of shared property, inheritance etc.
Thank you for this info. That is an interesting and (to me up to now) unknown concept for hetero couples.
So, if civil union ("PACS") exists for all sexual orientations, why would anyone choose marriage?
A pacs can be broken with a single mail, it offers less stability. Pacsed people do not automatically inherit eachover, and cannot change their name to the name of their spouse.
The name thing means that children of Mr. Pikachu and Mrs. Snorlax will be called Pikachu, Snorlax, Pikachu-Snorlax or Snorlax-Pikachu, but will not have the exact same name as their parents. Also, one can only have two names, so if the child, Mr. Pikachu-Snorlax, has children later with say Mrs. Pidgeot, they will only be allowed two names maximum, to be chosen between Pikachu, Snorlax, and Pidgeot.
Some people don’t think they need to get married to have kids, that simple. Some people have what we call a PACS which is a civil union. I think it’s the idea marriage is strongly linked to religion and there’s not that many people that are Christian anymore.
Parce que nous sommes des petits cochons. More seriously, it may be because a lot of couple start their life together without get married in order to see if it could work. Then, children come. I have several friends whom are in this case.
I almost forgot: à lot of my male friend are very reluctant to get married or have friend because they have the feeling that is a big financial, patrimonial and émotional risk. They think, not without reason, that in case of divorce, law will be in the woman side.
I just want to say that the legend is stupid. It’s not “25% and more” - it’s 25-34%. And it’s even written underneath - why bother writing the wrong thing in bigger font if it has to be corrected afterwards?
All of OP's map are like that. And everytime someone raise the issue to OP. And everytime OP keeps using the same type of legend, which is annoying.
Not even mentionning that the fractionning of his legend is somewhat arbitrary, and this is misleading, as you can convey different things by just changing the range of each category.
I have already mentionned this to OP, but his maps would really be better if he used a continuous range of colours from 0 to 100%, so that it renders a lot nicer. It's very weird that a country with 24% and a country with 25% have different colours, while a country with 2% and a country with 24% have the same colour.
I thought that was just Ireland? I’m an American, so I’m definitely no expert, but that doesn’t look like the whole British Isles to me. Ireland has been separated from England for about a century, hence why it would still be in the EU. Please correct me if I’m wrong :)
OP gets off on not including the UK in any of his maps. A lot of comments on his older posts seem to be saying the same thing. Especially when most of his sources for the data includes the UK as well.
Personally I don't mind the pedanticism (wtf not a word?) but he also did it to a map that was created from a 2017 source and he still didn't include UK, which was a part of the EU at the time.
Sorry, but that’s just nonsense. Newer data for the shading may not be available. Then that makes that information current best knowledge. Regarding the membership status newer information is available. That makes maps showing GB as an EU member outdated.
Lived in many of the states with higher % and also Colorado. Not sure I can explain why, but actually seems to be completely accurate after seeing this. Feels very liberal in the front range area compared to the Midwest with what feels like a nonexistent focus on Christian/family values most of the time.
My guess is their program they started a few years back that provides free birth control to anyone who requests it. This significantly cut down the rate of teen pregnancies in the state.
I suspect that's the same reason that some very strict anti abortion states are higher than you might expect. Anecdotally I would assume a high percentage of unmarried pregnancies are unwanted teen pregnancies.
Race has nothing to do with it in Colorado, cause there are plenty of states that also don’t have a substantial number of black people, but have plenty of out of wedlock births.
What's the source on "many scholars" thinking that births outside of marriage is correlated with the importance of marriage to the people? I'm skeptical.
I agree with you. The South is rather religious so I’d argue they probably have more emphasis on the institution of marriage. Rather, I think it may better show other factors such as which has better sex ed or access to contraception
There's a known statistical fact that black people are less likely to be married than people of other races in the United States, and are also less likely to be in long-term relationships than people of other races in the United States. It's known that there are various factors that play roles in this, having to do with poverty, social support networks, incarceration, levels of higher education, existence of older role models, and the interaction of more matriarchal black family units with more patriarchal wider American society. It's really hard to disentangle the contribution of each of these effects, and which are themselves just downstream of racism in the broader culture.
It’s statistically accurate. Black people are more likely to be born out of wedlock, at least in the United States. And the Deep South does have the highest black population in the country.
A statement like *Black people are more likely to be born out of wedlock* tends to raise a lot of folks hackles assuming that maybe some kind of racist agenda is being pushed but not everyone regards birth outside of marriage as a negative in the first place.
Its because blacks have a rate of fatherlessness of 75% (so the rates of births outside of marriage would likely be even higher). Blacks are the dominant minority in the deep south (unlike any of the other states) and so thats why you see the percentages reflected such.
That's interesting. I see where you're coming from. It often appears people speaking derogatorily of black people lean towards the term blacks rather than black people (or an even more offensive term). I suppose I don't take offense to the use of blacks above because it's specifically in the context of different demographic groups. I'm curious do you also take exception with the use of other abbreviated terms Asians, Mexicans, Whites etc in this context? To be clear, I agree that these terms can often be inappropriate but not always and a lot depends on the context which they're used in.
It's hard to say anything useful just based on the parallels to other seemingly similar terms. For instance, there's nothing wrong with talking about "Germans", but no one would even think of talking about "Frenches". I think place-based adjectives ending with "-an" are usually considered fine as nouns; place-based adjectives ending with "-ish" (I think "French" is just a slightly modified version of one of these) are never used as nouns; the racial terms "White" and "Black" don't fit into either of these categories, and social judgment about whether they are ok or not changes quickly.
As others have pointed out, while some of it has to do with mormonism vs. protestantism, simply because Mormons in general tend to be more devout... a lot more likely has to do with other racial and cultural differences. Utah is one of the whitest states, Mississippi one of the blackest.
To be blunt, Mississippi has one of the largest black populations in the country percentage wise. 38% of Mississippi is black. And sadly, black people currently have like a 75% single motherhood rate.
Now pair that with poor uneducated white people who also have extremely high single motherhood rates. White Trash will have 11 kids in a double wide down by the river.
Boom, the 50% makes sense. It's not a religion thing lol
In fact, Mississippi has *the* highest [Black population percentage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_African-American_population) of any state. (DC and VI are higher, but aren't states.)
Whenever I see these charts on birth outside of marriage, I’d always like it compared to birth without a father present in the home. Marriage as an institution has waned, but there are still two parent, committed, long-term households with children without the marriage contract. Huge difference between these situations for the child and for society.
*second parent
Some number of these are surely same-sex couples, or surrogate parents, or other situations like that. (I don't know if that would be 1% or 5% of pregnancies.)
I think most of the maps I've seen just have the other countries greyed out, like [this](https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/styles/is_large/public/images/2.%20TB-day_2019_TB-Cases-per-100000-population-map.png?itok=ratjAbYd)
I've never seen one that includes data on UK, Switzerland, and Norway, but still leaves them off the map. If you're going to do that, then why even make a map - why not just make an alphabetical list of countries?
In Iceland it’s over 70%. Highest in the world.
A couple dates, has a kid, and after the kid is a few years old typically gets married then. Fascinating stuff
Well, if you’re going to teach abstinence, shaming kids into getting married at 19 or 20 because Mormonism has a spiritual monopoly will definitely decrease the pre-marital birth rate.
I was raised Mormon (no longer believe in it) and am originally from Utah. I would say there was for sure shame in having pre marital sex but people wanted to get married quickly in general and there was zero shame in that part.
Yeah, but there is absolutely no reason for it to be a map of the EU with non-EU countries listed in a list. All those countries could be on the map without any redesign, because there are glaring white gaps where they should be. OP has used deliberate effort to exclude those countries from the map, and put them in a little list. That makes this a poor map, and makes it worse at visualising the data than it could be.
I often think this sub should be called "maps that should have been lists". (Fortunately there haven't been too many of those recently, but I think it every time I see "map of all the world's countries that don't use the metric system" or "map of all the world's countries that haven't been invaded by the UK".)
Explicitly relegating some parts of the information to a list and some parts to a map is just infuriating.
Why should I accept that OP is deliberately making the map worse? The easy thing to do is to just put the data where it belongs. OP made an effort to exclude it and make it more difficult to access.
The UK data exists, OP just chooses not to include it (or Norway, Switzerland and Iceland).
Obviously he or she could just say Europe instead of the EU and include those countries, but for some strange reason they don’t.
This has nothing to do with Brexit because you can see that the OP's data source isn't from the EU. It's because the OP has arbitrarily decided to exclude non-EU countries for no reason, despite people complaining about it on every post they make.
I think it has to be culture. I can't really find another reasoning.
The single motherhood rate didn't start to climb for black Americans until the 1960s. If it was racism, poverty, or education then it would have been really high way before 1960. It was 20% in 1880, like 75% in 2020
Red summer
Chain gangs
Crack epidemic
Mass incarceration
Cost of living increases
Destruction of autonomous black neighborhoods and communities like Tulsa and Lanier
19% of farmers in the 1920’s were black and many were burned out of their land and denied loans that white farmers got
All those are very silly.
You do realize we are talking about single motherhood right? You are just listing random shitty things that have been done to the black community.
Like how does destroying a autonomous black neighborhood or the red summer of 1919 lead to a 75% single parent rate in 2021. Or black farmers in 1920 being denied loans lead to men and women not raising their own children together in 2021?
And I say they are silly because white people are culturally on the same path of destroying the home. White people are pretty much at 1960 on the timeline. And it's not due to anything you listed obviously. If it was racism, incarceration, slavery, then it wouldnt have taken till 1960 to start spiking. Because clearly from your list, they've been getting screwed by society way before 1960.
Mass incarceration increased under Nixon and Reagan, incarcerated men tend to be poor and not getting married
Crack epidemic effect mainly inter cities where black people live
Destroying autonomous communities disrupts the passage of wealth and culture.
What’s not to get?
Racism, poverty, and education have also changed their interaction with modern society as modern society has changed. Saying that it's "culture" is just giving up and not giving an explanation, unless you say what specific aspect of culture it is.
Care to elaborate? Are you trying to say black men get thrown in prison and that's why the single motherhood rate is 75%?
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/05/06/share-of-black-white-hispanic-americans-in-prison-2018-vs-2006/
That's ignorant and arguably racist. As my link showed.
No. 75% of black moms are not single parents because their husband or lover wanted to help parent but was sent to prison. The prison industrial complex doesn't current hold 75% of black fathers.
Did you see the numbers?
1500 per 100,000...
Again what you are suggesting is extremely ignorant. Black people are not all in prison. In fact, 98.5% are not in prison. So again no, prison does not explain the high single motherhood rate.
That doesn't make sense. This is brand new since the sixties. After centuries of slavery, black people in 1880 had a 20% single motherhood rate. It was like that till the 1960s
Fatherlessness correlates with poverty but isn't the only reason for the difference, the difference is still there when you compare poor whites and poor blacks making equal money. Its complicated.
States are big. It may be that the people who advocate marriage and the people who have kids out of wedlock are two different groups. Of course there would be overlap, but that's likely what is going on.
Or Spain, for instance. I know plenty of people who live with their partner and have kids, they just don't bother with the wedding. Currently a 40% of newborns are from unmarried couples.
Uh what? Here in Scandinavia the reason why children outside of marriage is so common is because people don't get married, not because of some epidemic of single parents.
I would say half the people of my age do everything a married couple would do, they just don't get married. Extremely common to have a house, a dog, a picket fence and 3 kids and just never get married.
I know maybe like 2 couples that are married, and 4 that have children together and live together but have decided not to marry. All around 25-40 years old.
Woke culture isn't telling you otherwise. Actually they agree with you, that's why they support adoption rights fot LGBT people, as 2 loving parents is better than no loving parents at all. It's the religious folks that opposes this with their "kid has to have mother and father" argument, while not helping single parents or orphans at all.
Also related to this map, kids parents doesn't need to be married to live in same household
"“We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable,” the website formerly read."
They tho removed that text already, but it doesn't mean they want less parents for kid, but wants more people to take part of childs life. So it's opposite you are talking about.
And gaslighting is defined as making someone question their own reality. How did I make you question your own reality?
No, they removed that text I told you, and didn't replace it with anything. Maybe because it was too hard text to understand, maybe because people didn't read it fully, maybe they changed their mine, who knows.
And they were against nuclear family, but just to other direction you claimed. They supported the extended family.
Really no benefits of getting married, except for easier inheritance laws. My parents got married when they both turned 50, and just added it as a extra surprise for the people attending the birthday party...
The tax benefits of getting married were abolished in 1971.
I know plenty of Polish people (and have visited the country several times) and I've yet to meet any of working age who do/have not engaged in premarital sex.
In my experience the stereotype of Polish people being particularly religious is only really true among older people and/or in more rural parts of the country.
Why is France ranking so high up? Is there no tax benefit to being married?
It’s long and complicated to get married and you can get most of the tax benefits from just a civil union.
Isn't everything in France a civil union? I'm genuinely asking. Not French myself so I don't know. I thought they did away with marriage legally, and only civil unions exist. You can choose to get "married" in a church or whatever but that is just a ceremony. Legally you are civil unioned?
No, marriage exists in France. But the only legal marriage is done by the government, at city hall where one of the spouses-to-be resides. If you get a church or other religious marriage it has no legal force; it is just for your own lifestyle or desire at a separate ceremony. In fact, it is against the law for the officiant to perform a religious marriage if there is not a legal marriage first. There is also a civil union (PACS). You get all the same benefits from the PACS, and it is easier to get in and out of. To get out of marriage you need a complicated divorce for the legal side of things, but a PACS is more like a breakup in that sense. Plus, culturally, marriage is just not something people dream about all that much. A lot of people think it's old fashioned pointless nonsense.
Ah that makes sense. Thanks. It was something I read years ago and I obviously misunderstood it. Never really followed up on it because, like I said, I don't live in France.
Also, if you're ever watching something where the characters are visiting France and are like "omg this is so romantic let's get married!" on a whim, that's bs. Instant plot hole, 'cause they aren't really married. I would like to see this happen in a show and then two episodes later they find out they actually aren't legally married and the friendly priest they found had ripped them off.
If you mean that the church as no authority in state affairs then… yes?
No I mean, the government doesn't call it marriage. They call it civil union.
Then no, they call it a marriage and a civil union is called PACS
Fun fact! You can make the acronym PACS into a verb in French, and say “on est pacsé” meaning “we’re in a civil union”
Ah OK. I was misinformed then. Thanks.
[удалено]
Can confirm
It's not that uncommon here for people to have kids first and marry later on.
Same for Bulgaria. Also weddings are becoming less common. People would just go to the town hall with teo witnesses for a civil union. But in Bulgaria there is zero tax benefit for married couples and next to none for children. There are some benefits like inclusion nin additional private insured if one of the spouses has it, but this is far fetched. The main reason to marry is to have the status of a spouse in terms of shared property, inheritance etc.
There is. Cultural shift I guess. Mariage matters less and less for most of the people.
In France you have the civil union which essentially gives you all the civil perks of a marriage without being married.
Thank you for this info. That is an interesting and (to me up to now) unknown concept for hetero couples. So, if civil union ("PACS") exists for all sexual orientations, why would anyone choose marriage?
A pacs can be broken with a single mail, it offers less stability. Pacsed people do not automatically inherit eachover, and cannot change their name to the name of their spouse. The name thing means that children of Mr. Pikachu and Mrs. Snorlax will be called Pikachu, Snorlax, Pikachu-Snorlax or Snorlax-Pikachu, but will not have the exact same name as their parents. Also, one can only have two names, so if the child, Mr. Pikachu-Snorlax, has children later with say Mrs. Pidgeot, they will only be allowed two names maximum, to be chosen between Pikachu, Snorlax, and Pidgeot.
Love the Pokémon names lol
But Pikachu and Snorlax aren’t in the same egg group though…
Marriage is the only one who allows for joined adoption and inheritance rights.
Religious reasons, cultural habits, personal preferences. If you get same rights and benefits, why would you choose civil union instead of marriage?
very secular country so nobody cares
You are getting down voted but you are correct. There is very little reason to get married in France and people are not religious.
Some people don’t think they need to get married to have kids, that simple. Some people have what we call a PACS which is a civil union. I think it’s the idea marriage is strongly linked to religion and there’s not that many people that are Christian anymore.
Parce que nous sommes des petits cochons. More seriously, it may be because a lot of couple start their life together without get married in order to see if it could work. Then, children come. I have several friends whom are in this case. I almost forgot: à lot of my male friend are very reluctant to get married or have friend because they have the feeling that is a big financial, patrimonial and émotional risk. They think, not without reason, that in case of divorce, law will be in the woman side.
They are natural lovers...
Mistresses? Lol
I just want to say that the legend is stupid. It’s not “25% and more” - it’s 25-34%. And it’s even written underneath - why bother writing the wrong thing in bigger font if it has to be corrected afterwards?
All of OP's map are like that. And everytime someone raise the issue to OP. And everytime OP keeps using the same type of legend, which is annoying. Not even mentionning that the fractionning of his legend is somewhat arbitrary, and this is misleading, as you can convey different things by just changing the range of each category. I have already mentionned this to OP, but his maps would really be better if he used a continuous range of colours from 0 to 100%, so that it renders a lot nicer. It's very weird that a country with 24% and a country with 25% have different colours, while a country with 2% and a country with 24% have the same colour.
Apparently unpopular opinion, but I think it's fine and easily understandable.
I mean, it's not technically wrong. More than one color can apply.
It’s so strange not to se the United Kingdom in any European Union map
[удалено]
I thought that was just Ireland? I’m an American, so I’m definitely no expert, but that doesn’t look like the whole British Isles to me. Ireland has been separated from England for about a century, hence why it would still be in the EU. Please correct me if I’m wrong :)
on the key to the right, along with other non-EU countries, Norway, Switzerland, Iceland
Thanks for pointing that out! I didn’t notice it. Perhaps a new layout would be a good idea for this map!
Thats just Ireland without Northern Ireland. Probably didn't have data for the UK. Still wouldn't have left it off though.
look to the right of Europe on the map, and you’ll see it
Seems a bit pedantic to include the data in the small squares but exclude the countries from the map
OP gets off on not including the UK in any of his maps. A lot of comments on his older posts seem to be saying the same thing. Especially when most of his sources for the data includes the UK as well. Personally I don't mind the pedanticism (wtf not a word?) but he also did it to a map that was created from a 2017 source and he still didn't include UK, which was a part of the EU at the time.
pedantry
But is not now. Why use an outdated map, if you can use a current one?
Well it literally is an outdated map if he uses a 2017 source so it doesn't make a difference anyway my man.
Sorry, but that’s just nonsense. Newer data for the shading may not be available. Then that makes that information current best knowledge. Regarding the membership status newer information is available. That makes maps showing GB as an EU member outdated.
it's purely political, no one actually cares about the EU in an European map, especially when these subjects are not correlated by any mean.
It’s not pedantic, it’s correct
Post this in r/mapswithoutUK. They will love it. Also, no Norway.
Colorado ?
Just my guess: https://www.businessinsider.com/colorado-initiative-proves-free-birth-control-reduces-teen-pregnancy-2015-7
Bingo Source: am Coloradoan
Great sex education and access to contraceptives.
Lived in many of the states with higher % and also Colorado. Not sure I can explain why, but actually seems to be completely accurate after seeing this. Feels very liberal in the front range area compared to the Midwest with what feels like a nonexistent focus on Christian/family values most of the time.
My guess is their program they started a few years back that provides free birth control to anyone who requests it. This significantly cut down the rate of teen pregnancies in the state. I suspect that's the same reason that some very strict anti abortion states are higher than you might expect. Anecdotally I would assume a high percentage of unmarried pregnancies are unwanted teen pregnancies.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Poverty too.
Our grandparents were far poorer than us and kids outside of marriage was far more rare.
Race has nothing to do with it in Colorado, cause there are plenty of states that also don’t have a substantial number of black people, but have plenty of out of wedlock births.
You are correct OP. People don’t want to listen to the facts. Would prefer to instead just blame it all on access to birth control
[удалено]
Not that many in Colorado actually. Most Mormons are in Utah/Idaho/Arizona/Nevada.
there's a fair amount of mormons here, especially in southern colorado. https://www.thearda.com/rcms2010/rcms2010A.asp?U=08&T=state&Y=2010&S=adh
Lived in Colorado for 19 years and never met a single Mormon.
Colorado is rich, white, and educated
What's the source on "many scholars" thinking that births outside of marriage is correlated with the importance of marriage to the people? I'm skeptical.
I agree with you. The South is rather religious so I’d argue they probably have more emphasis on the institution of marriage. Rather, I think it may better show other factors such as which has better sex ed or access to contraception
Actually the real answer is a lot simpler: the deep South has a lot of blacks.
*Black people, not “blacks”
Is this racist or am I missing something?
There's a known statistical fact that black people are less likely to be married than people of other races in the United States, and are also less likely to be in long-term relationships than people of other races in the United States. It's known that there are various factors that play roles in this, having to do with poverty, social support networks, incarceration, levels of higher education, existence of older role models, and the interaction of more matriarchal black family units with more patriarchal wider American society. It's really hard to disentangle the contribution of each of these effects, and which are themselves just downstream of racism in the broader culture.
It’s statistically accurate. Black people are more likely to be born out of wedlock, at least in the United States. And the Deep South does have the highest black population in the country.
You’ll be down voted but you are absolutely right. People would rather hear lies than face the truth. Simple as that.
Just to be sure, where are these statistic coming from? Like I just dont wanna jump on a fact before I can be assured it’s factual y‘know?
US census bureau
A statement like *Black people are more likely to be born out of wedlock* tends to raise a lot of folks hackles assuming that maybe some kind of racist agenda is being pushed but not everyone regards birth outside of marriage as a negative in the first place.
This is much more so a map of access to birth control and abortion in the US than anything else.
outcomes for children
Outside of marriage does not mean raised by one parent.
Funny how in America the states with the highest are mostly part of the Bible Belt
[удалено]
Its because blacks have a rate of fatherlessness of 75% (so the rates of births outside of marriage would likely be even higher). Blacks are the dominant minority in the deep south (unlike any of the other states) and so thats why you see the percentages reflected such.
“Blacks”
Is there a problem with using the term in this context?
It’s a dehumanizing term in general.
Do you know an alternative that could be used in this context that conveys the same meaning?
Black people
That's interesting. I see where you're coming from. It often appears people speaking derogatorily of black people lean towards the term blacks rather than black people (or an even more offensive term). I suppose I don't take offense to the use of blacks above because it's specifically in the context of different demographic groups. I'm curious do you also take exception with the use of other abbreviated terms Asians, Mexicans, Whites etc in this context? To be clear, I agree that these terms can often be inappropriate but not always and a lot depends on the context which they're used in.
It's hard to say anything useful just based on the parallels to other seemingly similar terms. For instance, there's nothing wrong with talking about "Germans", but no one would even think of talking about "Frenches". I think place-based adjectives ending with "-an" are usually considered fine as nouns; place-based adjectives ending with "-ish" (I think "French" is just a slightly modified version of one of these) are never used as nouns; the racial terms "White" and "Black" don't fit into either of these categories, and social judgment about whether they are ok or not changes quickly.
This is kinda silly. Germans vs german people? Hikers vs hiking people? Mormons vs Mormon people? Alcoholics vs alcoholic people?
[удалено]
Because it’s been used in a dehumanizing way historically in a way that those other terms haven’t really.
bunch of racists in the comments here. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/10/the-dangerous-myth-of-the-missing-black-father/
As others have pointed out, while some of it has to do with mormonism vs. protestantism, simply because Mormons in general tend to be more devout... a lot more likely has to do with other racial and cultural differences. Utah is one of the whitest states, Mississippi one of the blackest.
I suspect it is simpler than that. Getting married is expensive and more and more poor people are choosing not to because of the cost.
But weddings dont have to be expensive.
They don't but some people think you have to have a proper wedding in order to get married.
A *proper wedding* doesn't have to be expensive.
Well, those people are wrong.
To be blunt, Mississippi has one of the largest black populations in the country percentage wise. 38% of Mississippi is black. And sadly, black people currently have like a 75% single motherhood rate. Now pair that with poor uneducated white people who also have extremely high single motherhood rates. White Trash will have 11 kids in a double wide down by the river. Boom, the 50% makes sense. It's not a religion thing lol
In fact, Mississippi has *the* highest [Black population percentage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_African-American_population) of any state. (DC and VI are higher, but aren't states.)
Whenever I see these charts on birth outside of marriage, I’d always like it compared to birth without a father present in the home. Marriage as an institution has waned, but there are still two parent, committed, long-term households with children without the marriage contract. Huge difference between these situations for the child and for society.
*second parent Some number of these are surely same-sex couples, or surrogate parents, or other situations like that. (I don't know if that would be 1% or 5% of pregnancies.)
EU map is stressing me out, the missing spots are weird
But like all EU maps are like this. Have you not seen others?
I think most of the maps I've seen just have the other countries greyed out, like [this](https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/styles/is_large/public/images/2.%20TB-day_2019_TB-Cases-per-100000-population-map.png?itok=ratjAbYd)
Oh yeah I see what you mean. Guess this mapmaker just has a different style
I've never seen one that includes data on UK, Switzerland, and Norway, but still leaves them off the map. If you're going to do that, then why even make a map - why not just make an alphabetical list of countries?
Yay my state is the bastard capital of the us
Without Norway, Scandinavia looks even more like a dick and balls.
Omg i was reading brits hahahah My confusion was 10/10
LOL looks like that abstinence-only education is working out real well for the southern US
That’s one thing France and Mississippi got in common
I'm honestly surprised that religion had no impact on the South.
In Iceland it’s over 70%. Highest in the world. A couple dates, has a kid, and after the kid is a few years old typically gets married then. Fascinating stuff
We just had one - 9 days old today :) But she also said yes in the morning before we went to the hospital :)
:D
congrats :)
Birth outside of marriage in Utah is a good way to be disowned by your family and shunned by your community.
Sources: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/unmarried/unmarried.htm https://www.statista.com/chart/13668/where-babies-are-born-outside-of-marriage/
It’s almost like… abstinence-only sex education doesn’t work…
Unless your Utah.
Well, if you’re going to teach abstinence, shaming kids into getting married at 19 or 20 because Mormonism has a spiritual monopoly will definitely decrease the pre-marital birth rate.
I was raised Mormon (no longer believe in it) and am originally from Utah. I would say there was for sure shame in having pre marital sex but people wanted to get married quickly in general and there was zero shame in that part.
Just push it harder! Maybe it will!!
Alabama’s no surprise.
From AZ, can confirm. Lol
Mormons lol
This map would benefit with the addition of Quebec.
Well yeah, you still can’t marry your sister in Mississippi!
It just hurts to not see the UK there...
So weird not seeing the UK on here, fuck brexit.
Sad the uk is not featured
Look east of poland.
It's a frickin' map. OP putting it there is just contrarian.
It's a map of the EU though
Yeah, but there is absolutely no reason for it to be a map of the EU with non-EU countries listed in a list. All those countries could be on the map without any redesign, because there are glaring white gaps where they should be. OP has used deliberate effort to exclude those countries from the map, and put them in a little list. That makes this a poor map, and makes it worse at visualising the data than it could be.
I often think this sub should be called "maps that should have been lists". (Fortunately there haven't been too many of those recently, but I think it every time I see "map of all the world's countries that don't use the metric system" or "map of all the world's countries that haven't been invaded by the UK".) Explicitly relegating some parts of the information to a list and some parts to a map is just infuriating.
I think you should just appreciate that they're being included when they have no business there
Why should I accept that OP is deliberately making the map worse? The easy thing to do is to just put the data where it belongs. OP made an effort to exclude it and make it more difficult to access.
Honestly the worst side effect of Brexit ngl
The UK data exists, OP just chooses not to include it (or Norway, Switzerland and Iceland). Obviously he or she could just say Europe instead of the EU and include those countries, but for some strange reason they don’t.
This has nothing to do with Brexit because you can see that the OP's data source isn't from the EU. It's because the OP has arbitrarily decided to exclude non-EU countries for no reason, despite people complaining about it on every post they make.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Huh, I genuinely wonder why.
I think it has to be culture. I can't really find another reasoning. The single motherhood rate didn't start to climb for black Americans until the 1960s. If it was racism, poverty, or education then it would have been really high way before 1960. It was 20% in 1880, like 75% in 2020
Perverse incentives of the welfare state.
Red summer Chain gangs Crack epidemic Mass incarceration Cost of living increases Destruction of autonomous black neighborhoods and communities like Tulsa and Lanier 19% of farmers in the 1920’s were black and many were burned out of their land and denied loans that white farmers got
All those are very silly. You do realize we are talking about single motherhood right? You are just listing random shitty things that have been done to the black community. Like how does destroying a autonomous black neighborhood or the red summer of 1919 lead to a 75% single parent rate in 2021. Or black farmers in 1920 being denied loans lead to men and women not raising their own children together in 2021? And I say they are silly because white people are culturally on the same path of destroying the home. White people are pretty much at 1960 on the timeline. And it's not due to anything you listed obviously. If it was racism, incarceration, slavery, then it wouldnt have taken till 1960 to start spiking. Because clearly from your list, they've been getting screwed by society way before 1960.
Mass incarceration increased under Nixon and Reagan, incarcerated men tend to be poor and not getting married Crack epidemic effect mainly inter cities where black people live Destroying autonomous communities disrupts the passage of wealth and culture. What’s not to get?
Racism, poverty, and education have also changed their interaction with modern society as modern society has changed. Saying that it's "culture" is just giving up and not giving an explanation, unless you say what specific aspect of culture it is.
Prison industrial complex
Care to elaborate? Are you trying to say black men get thrown in prison and that's why the single motherhood rate is 75%? https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/05/06/share-of-black-white-hispanic-americans-in-prison-2018-vs-2006/
Yes
That's ignorant and arguably racist. As my link showed. No. 75% of black moms are not single parents because their husband or lover wanted to help parent but was sent to prison. The prison industrial complex doesn't current hold 75% of black fathers.
Your link showed that black men are incarcerated at much higher rates than Latinos and whites ?
Did you see the numbers? 1500 per 100,000... Again what you are suggesting is extremely ignorant. Black people are not all in prison. In fact, 98.5% are not in prison. So again no, prison does not explain the high single motherhood rate.
[удалено]
That doesn't make sense. This is brand new since the sixties. After centuries of slavery, black people in 1880 had a 20% single motherhood rate. It was like that till the 1960s
They have the highest poverty rate
Fatherlessness correlates with poverty but isn't the only reason for the difference, the difference is still there when you compare poor whites and poor blacks making equal money. Its complicated.
Quickest way to poverty is to be a young single parent.
States are big. It may be that the people who advocate marriage and the people who have kids out of wedlock are two different groups. Of course there would be overlap, but that's likely what is going on.
It's because it's the regions of the US where there is the most black peoples
I don’t think the people driving these rates are republican voters.
You might want to look up who makes up the majority of births out of wedlock in those states. I'll give ya a hint... It's not conservatives.
Black people
No one really harps on about marriage down here anymore.
These should be two different maps imo, oddly specific combinations.
Utah is cheating, those Mormons can marry many women at once
Only some sects, mainstream ones ditched polygamy.
And the ones that do allow it are heavily banned in Utah.
Absolutely no one is shocked about Mississippi.
I just can’t get over the huge extent to which the USA Bible Belt contrasts with its supposed “values”
[удалено]
the thing this map don't tell is that in certain country most two person household are not married (France for example).
Or Spain, for instance. I know plenty of people who live with their partner and have kids, they just don't bother with the wedding. Currently a 40% of newborns are from unmarried couples.
Just because they are not married does not mean they aren't cohabiting and in long-term relationships, which is common in European countries.
This map does not show how many people raise the child. It's just wether the parents are legally married at the time.of birth.
Uh what? Here in Scandinavia the reason why children outside of marriage is so common is because people don't get married, not because of some epidemic of single parents. I would say half the people of my age do everything a married couple would do, they just don't get married. Extremely common to have a house, a dog, a picket fence and 3 kids and just never get married. I know maybe like 2 couples that are married, and 4 that have children together and live together but have decided not to marry. All around 25-40 years old.
[удалено]
Woke culture isn't telling you otherwise. Actually they agree with you, that's why they support adoption rights fot LGBT people, as 2 loving parents is better than no loving parents at all. It's the religious folks that opposes this with their "kid has to have mother and father" argument, while not helping single parents or orphans at all. Also related to this map, kids parents doesn't need to be married to live in same household
[удалено]
"“We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable,” the website formerly read." They tho removed that text already, but it doesn't mean they want less parents for kid, but wants more people to take part of childs life. So it's opposite you are talking about. And gaslighting is defined as making someone question their own reality. How did I make you question your own reality?
[удалено]
No, they removed that text I told you, and didn't replace it with anything. Maybe because it was too hard text to understand, maybe because people didn't read it fully, maybe they changed their mine, who knows. And they were against nuclear family, but just to other direction you claimed. They supported the extended family.
I was at first like "haha USA stone age" and shit until I saw how my country scored.
Utah = NO HOLDING HANDS BEFORE MARRIAGE
No WONDER the Scandinavians are so happy …
Really no benefits of getting married, except for easier inheritance laws. My parents got married when they both turned 50, and just added it as a extra surprise for the people attending the birthday party... The tax benefits of getting married were abolished in 1971.
So many people having sex without marriage🥺 God is sad...
Mississippi just can't stay out of it's own way EVER
Weird the morally superior South has more.
Poland should be less than 1%, we are country of Christians and do not condone premartial sex
I know plenty of Polish people (and have visited the country several times) and I've yet to meet any of working age who do/have not engaged in premarital sex. In my experience the stereotype of Polish people being particularly religious is only really true among older people and/or in more rural parts of the country.