Nicole Sussner Rodgers, in an op-ed for The Washington Post, claims that the traditional two-parent marriage -- one male, one female -- is no longer a necessity for a strong, happy family. What "really matters," she states, is accepting "a wider range of family permutations."
"Redefining what it means to be a good family may be the social justice fight of my generation," Rodgers writes.
According to the author, traditional family is an idea that is "irresistible as ever" to conservatives. But pointing to a set of data showing financial stability as the most important factor for a strong family, Rodgers makes her case against traditional families as America's cure-all.
"Marriage is not a panacea for poverty: There are almost as many poor or near-poor children in two-parent families as there are in single-parent ones," Rodgers writes.
The title of Rodgers's piece is, "Marriage Is No Safeguard Against Poverty." She is trying to appeal to those who feel the traditional heterosexual, two-parent family is the healthiest of arrangements.
"We need a better, broader vision," Rodgers states.
The idyllic “traditional family” represents an increasingly small minority of families today. This vision, more imagined than real, is elevated by a constellation of well-funded conservative organizations and Christian ministries. The fact that this image looms so large in the public imagination just accentuates the need for investment in good alternative models the rest of us can aspire to.
Rodgers acknowledges that when traditional marriage works, it provides "great benefit to its participants," adding, "especially already advantaged ones." However, for those in "poor communities," traditional two-parent households do not appear to be on track for a "comeback."
"It’s time to take structure out of the conversation about strong families," the piece continues. "We know intuitively that children raised by unhappily married parents, or abusive ones, aren’t any better off than those raised in less traditional, but more stable and loving, single-parent homes."
Raised in the 1990s, Rodgers proudly admits to having "already rejected the rigid prescribed gender roles and family expectations" of older generations. But she is attempting to help guide the next generation reach their own versions of the American dream: "clear alternative paths."
In conclusion, Rodgers writes:
Marriage may be on the decline, but that is not catastrophic by itself. Love and companionship are alive and well. We just need powerful positive visions of thriving families that don’t depend on any one family structure but rather are guided by values such as compassion, acceptance and evidence about what really matters for children. This requires fully embracing and accepting the dignity and value of a wider range of family permutations and then determining how the well-being of individuals within each can be improved.
Redefining what it means to be a good family may be the social justice fight of my generation. It will never be realistic or reasonable to expect people to marry themselves out of poverty. More important, no one should have to.
