Building Strong Families, But Only Certain Kinds

Let's play see if you can spot the entrenched singlism and matrimania:

Mathematics Policy Research (MPR) reviewed the government-sponsored Building Strong Families initiative, which supported "eight voluntary programs that offer relationship skills education and other support services to unwed couples who are expecting a baby or have just had one."  MPR conducted their review because "studies have shown children fare best when raised by both their biological parents — particularly when their parents have a positive and healthy relationship.

Building Strong Families (BSF), the initiative being reviewed by MPR, is an effort to "develop and evaluate programs designed to help interested unwed parents" by teaching skills like "communication, conflict management, and building intimacy and trust," and providing, among other things, "individual support from a family support worker."

First, why do unwed couples need to be singled out for relationship skills education? I know several married couples with horrid interpersonal skills and several unmarried couples who appear to have wonderful techniques for making their relationships work.  Second, why limit services to couples with (or expecting) children? This perpetuates a narrow view of "family" that denigrates extended family relationships and implies that childfree couples somehow either don't need, deserve, or want to learn to strengthen their relationship.

MPR's main reason for studying BSF, that "studies have shown children fare best when raised by both their biological parents," is not accurate. Children raised by one, two, or more supportive adults do better than children raised in a strife-filled environment, regardless of whose parents are married or not. So children's welfare should not be used as an excuse to perpetuate the culture of marriage.

And the biggest problem so far: Why must couples be romantically involved to be eligible? This requirement implies that it's more important to "strengthen" your relationships with the people you are having sex with, as opposed to the people you aren't.  These programs should also support estranged couples who know they don't want to be together anymore but who could use guidance on how to communicate so they can work together to support their children. As it is, BSF compartmentalizes relationships too much, even, according to RH Reality Check, requiring that their romantically involved couples be heterosexual as well.

This would all be slightly less disturbing if MPR's study had discovered that the BSF initiative actually benefited all these supposedly inadequate, woebegone unmarried couples. But overall, it didn't. Most BSF programs had no net effect on relationships; one had negative effects; and one had positive effects.

Of interest, 50% of African-Americans studied showed improved relationships — which indicates that some aspects of the initiative are indeed beneficial. However, instead of celebrating this, MPR laments the fact that the African-Americans didn't actually get married as a failure in the program — even though the relationships themselves improved.

I don't ask everyone to agree with every gripe above, but I do hope readers will think about whether these and similar programs can be restructured in a less discriminatory way.

Photo credit: Annette, Hall Family