"The culture of poverty and adoption: Adoptive parents views of birth families" (options, cost)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Working class? Her parents are both school employees. Dad is a college educated science teacher. Maybe you are unsure what the term "working class" means?
It is those in low SES with little skills and education.
Sarah Palin, and her unwed teenaged daughter are decidedly MIDDLE CLASS (and likely upper middle at that) NOT WORKING CLASS.
I beg to differ. Many school teachers are working class. They tend to marry blue collar men - skilled trades, civil service, police etc.
Teaching is a very typical first generation college attendee profession.
Do you teach social class in America at a university that offers that major? Are you a student of Working Class studies? A Sociologist?
If you are none of the above, then I suggest that I am more qualified to answer label people as to class. The Palin family, their interests, their religious affiliation, their social beliefs and their lack of stress on higher education put them smack in the middle to higher end of the working class.
No, you're incorrect. Excuses, excuses. Sounds like the "blame game." "I'm not successful because of my parents..." Sorry, this card has been played too often and there are PLENTY of folks who rise above their adversity in life and become successful. Luck has nothing to do with someone's success.
You appear to have an issue with those who are well-off or are highly educated and from your post it seems you believe that they did nothing to deserve their lot in life. You could not be further from the truth! Maybe a small percentage of people fall into this category...but the majority of people who are successful in life got that way because of ambition, motivation, hard work, and maybe, just maybe, a little bit of help. So please, cite your sources for the "luck" that causes all this success.
"Superior?" Are you kidding me? Who said anything about being superior? Need I point out the fallacy in your judgment? I am not superior to anyone, and no one is superior to me. This is the way I live my life. Were my parents decent, yes. Are they the reason for my motivation, no. Based on your ill-conceived assumptions, there should never be anyone to break the cycle of poverty.
What about Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, Robert Downey Jr., I use these celebrities because according to you, they should all be fault-free, lucky in life that they are upper-middle class (wealthy actually) and yet they all have made horrible decisions...why? Because their money doesn't make them. They have flaws as individuals and no amount of money can cover it up. Are their parents worthy of your criticism too? What about Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor or Oprah Winfrey (who has openly discussed being abused as a child)? These women were once poverty stricken. How do you explain their success? Oh, right, luck! Please, don't make me laugh.
There are millions of everyday people like the famous/popular ones I've mentioned whom none of us even know. One's social class and one's wealth are not synonymous. There may be a correlation between money and social class, but the two are not mutually exclusive.
The foster parents you stated who were wonderful to you, and as you put it, the opposite of and much better than the "upper class", "wealthier", "highly educated" foster family you lived with; why do they get a pass? If you aged out of the system unprepared for life, weren't they just as responsible to have instilled these skills in you? I know plenty of foster and adopted people and they have life skills. They don't blame their circumstances in life on not being born "lucky" enough to have a good family. Have you ever considered that your decision to run away from home (according to you, some pretty nice foster homes) and live on the streets and do drugs instead of going to school and learning, might be a reason why you are not upper-middle class? Or are you just unlucky? Seriously, taking personal responsibility really does help one see their role in the outcome of their life.
Sometimes, the most successful and brilliant people in the world come from unspeakable backgrounds. Wonder how that happens?
Yes, look at Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan and Robert Downey jr. Without their wealth, would they be where they are today? All have been convicted of drunk driving. Has not harmed them in the slightest. For a middle class or poor person in a similar situation it would be catastrophic. It would mean the very real threat of loss of all income and years of crippling fines and surcharges. Basically a non-issue for the examples you gave.
The wealthy have the luxury of making horrific choices and having literally zero effect on their incomes, the poor do not have that in anyway.
This flies in the face of the notion that the wealthy are wealthy BECAUSE they make good choices and the poor are poor because they do not. In reality, for many they are wealthy because they were born into and remained wealthy despite poor choices. For many poor people, they will remain poor despite making good choices. The difference is luck.
Someone like Oprah Winfrey was able to break the cycle of poverty due to not just her personal good fortune (and make no mistake winning the genetic intelligence lottery like she did IS good fortune) but also due to the greatest social equalizer of all time, public education and yes, through her own incredible work ethic. But by any measure she is EXCEPTIONAL.
That is the point, not that it is impossible for the poor to break the poverty cycle but that only the exceptional are going to doing so. For the wealthy, the majority of their children are going to remain wealthy regardless of their personal choices.
I beg to differ. Many school teachers are working class. They tend to marry blue collar men - skilled trades, civil service, police etc.
Teaching is a very typical first generation college attendee profession.
Do you teach social class in America at a university that offers that major? Are you a student of Working Class studies? A Sociologist?
If you are none of the above, then I suggest that I am more qualified to answer label people as to class. The Palin family, their interests, their religious affiliation, their social beliefs and their lack of stress on higher education put them smack in the middle to higher end of the working class.
No I am a researcher with a graduate degree and the ability to read.
Working class has a specific definition. I can cut and paste if you like.
As for teachers, you can make up things all you like but no evidence speaks for itself. Evidence that teachers marry "working class" men/women? Please post.
Because in the sample of my entire high school (27 teachers) not ONE is married to someone who is blue collar. Every single one of them who is married, is married to another professional.
The majority of teachers have graduate degrees, again doesn't jive with the idea that teachers are "working class"
Working class (or lower class, labouring class, sometimes proletariat) is a term used in the social sciences and in ordinary conversation to describe those employed in lower tier jobs (as measured by skill, education and lower incomes), often extending to those in unemployment or otherwise possessing below-average incomes.
Average teacher salary, even in Idaho when Palin was growing up was well above the average salary of the typical "working class" employee.
Sarah Palins family is a classic example of the MIDDLE CLASS-ness of teenage pregnancy.
Yes, look at Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan and Robert Downey jr. Without their wealth, would they be where they are today? All have been convicted of drunk driving. Has not harmed them in the slightest. For a middle class or poor person in a similar situation it would be catastrophic. It would mean the very real threat of loss of all income and years of crippling fines and surcharges. Basically a non-issue for the examples you gave.
The wealthy have the luxury of making horrific choices and having literally zero effect on their incomes, the poor do not have that in anyway.
This flies in the face of the notion that the wealthy are wealthy BECAUSE they make good choices and the poor are poor because they do not. In reality, for many they are wealthy because they were born into and remained wealthy despite poor choices. For many poor people, they will remain poor despite making good choices. The difference is luck.
Someone like Oprah Winfrey was able to break the cycle of poverty due to not just her personal good fortune (and make no mistake winning the genetic intelligence lottery like she did IS good fortune) but also due to the greatest social equalizer of all time, public education and yes, through her own incredible work ethic. But by any measure she is EXCEPTIONAL.
That is the point, not that it is impossible for the poor to break the poverty cycle but that only the exceptional are going to doing so. For the wealthy, the majority of their children are going to remain wealthy regardless of their personal choices.
If you actually read my post you would know that I'm not in disagreement that no one class is exempt from making poor choices. Again, I don't buy-in to the excuse mentality that is becoming prevalent in our society. In order for our society to begin to effectively deal with the consequences of unplanned and teen pregnancy, we need to first start by removing excuses for those making poor decisions and not condone irresponsible behavior.
I'm a fan of the Myers-Briggs (aka "Astrology for people with college degrees"), and I find some of its categories can actually be helpful in understanding the observable preferences of others. Yet I've never seen a study on the high prevalence of Sensing Perceivers (SPs) among the poor, and how that temperament might inhibit success in life.
SPs, who make up about 38% of the US population, can be described as action-oriented risk-takers, among other things. As the Myers Briggs doesn't make any moral judgments about type, it rightly suggests that such personality traits serve(d) an adaptive purpose, and it's evident that people with such temperaments excel in hands-on, fast-paced work environments.
Unfortunately, SPs tend to get bored very easily with routine, and so might tend to perform more poorly in situations (school, office jobs) where patience and order are valued over spontaneity. I suspect biology would describe them as people who have a high need for novelty and risk due to serotonin and dopamine absorption.
This is purely anecdotal, I know, but I've observed that my SP friends often have children at fairly young ages (due in part, I suspect, to lack of planning, as they tend to live in the moment.) Of course there are SPs represented across the class spectrum, but, as others have suggested, middle-class or wealthier SPs tend to have far more resources to fall back on when they "screw up."
However, the fastest growing demographic group that is contributing to the enormous problem of of teen pregnancy is the white working class.
Of the "luminaries" that you mentioned, Paris Hilton obviously comes from an elite background, but has done little with her life. I don't know anything about Robert Downey Jr.
Lindsey Lohan grew up not far from me, but in a decidedly white, working class, ethnic town. The family's money came from the fact that Dina's put all of her children to work as models at an early age, and took much of the money for herself. I actually feel sorry for her.
If you actually read my post you would know that I'm not in disagreement that no one class is exempt from making poor choices. Again, I don't buy-in to the excuse mentality that is becoming prevalent in our society. In order for our society to begin to effectively deal with the consequences of unplanned and teen pregnancy, we need to first start by removing excuses for those making poor decisions and not condone irresponsible behavior.
Except that we are dealing with it.
Teenage pregnancy is lower than it has been in 20 some odd years.
We don't need to fix "teenage pregnancy" because we are already winning that war.
And while children of teen mothers (or really any single mother) are likely to be in a lower SES that does not remotely account for the majority of poverty.
Are back to the "all/most birth moms are teen moms" myth?
They are not.
We have to stop dealing in these myths about adoption. The majority of birth mothers who put children up for adoption ARE NOT TEENAGERS. The same for the idea that spawned this thread. There seem to be a lot of people very invested in dealing with these adoption archetypes rather than the reality of what adoption and birth parents actually are. So new myth "birth parents are poor because they made bad choices" I suppose it feeds into the rest of hte adoption mythology fairly well.
Teenage pregnancy is lower than it has been in 20 some odd years.
We don't need to fix "teenage pregnancy" because we are already winning that war.
And while children of teen mothers (or really any single mother) are likely to be in a lower SES that does not remotely account for the majority of poverty.
You're correct. Here's a table from the US Census Department (.pdf document) showing the rates of birth to unmarried women by educational attainment, household income, and age:
As you can see, a total of 35.7% of births (in 2011) were to unmarried women aged 15-50. Although women without a high school diploma had the highest percentage of births, in absolute numbers many more babies were born to women with a diploma and/or at least some college.
Looking at income, again, the highest percentages of out-of-wedlock births occur in the lower ranges, but nearly 40% of births in households earning $35k-$50k were to unmarried women. Almost 20% of births in household with incomes of $100k-$150k were to unmarried women.
Finally, with respect to age -- women between 15-19 have the highest percentage of births, but in absolute numbers, that age group has far fewer children than women aged 20-24 and 25-29, and marginally more than women aged 30-34.
Obviously, the issue of teen pregnancy (especially to unmarried teens) still needs to be addressed, but it's not as bad as I think many people perceive it to be.
No, you're incorrect. Excuses, excuses. Sounds like the "blame game." "I'm not successful because of my parents..." Sorry, this card has been played too often and there are PLENTY of folks who rise above their adversity in life and become successful. Luck has nothing to do with someone's success.
You appear to have an issue with those who are well-off or are highly educated and from your post it seems you believe that they did nothing to deserve their lot in life. You could not be further from the truth! Maybe a small percentage of people fall into this category...but the majority of people who are successful in life got that way because of ambition, motivation, hard work, and maybe, just maybe, a little bit of help. So please, cite your sources for the "luck" that causes all this success.
"Superior?" Are you kidding me? Who said anything about being superior? Need I point out the fallacy in your judgment? I am not superior to anyone, and no one is superior to me. This is the way I live my life. Were my parents decent, yes. Are they the reason for my motivation, no. Based on your ill-conceived assumptions, there should never be anyone to break the cycle of poverty.
What about Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, Robert Downey Jr., I use these celebrities because according to you, they should all be fault-free, lucky in life that they are upper-middle class (wealthy actually) and yet they all have made horrible decisions...why? Because their money doesn't make them. They have flaws as individuals and no amount of money can cover it up. Are their parents worthy of your criticism too? What about Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor or Oprah Winfrey (who has openly discussed being abused as a child)? These women were once poverty stricken. How do you explain their success? Oh, right, luck! Please, don't make me laugh.
There are millions of everyday people like the famous/popular ones I've mentioned whom none of us even know. One's social class and one's wealth are not synonymous. There may be a correlation between money and social class, but the two are not mutually exclusive.
The foster parents you stated who were wonderful to you, and as you put it, the opposite of and much better than the "upper class", "wealthier", "highly educated" foster family you lived with; why do they get a pass? If you aged out of the system unprepared for life, weren't they just as responsible to have instilled these skills in you? I know plenty of foster and adopted people and they have life skills. They don't blame their circumstances in life on not being born "lucky" enough to have a good family. Have you ever considered that your decision to run away from home (according to you, some pretty nice foster homes) and live on the streets and do drugs instead of going to school and learning, might be a reason why you are not upper-middle class? Or are you just unlucky? Seriously, taking personal responsibility really does help one see their role in the outcome of their life.
Sometimes, the most successful and brilliant people in the world come from unspeakable backgrounds. Wonder how that happens?
I'm going to ignore the extreme rudeness, unfounded assumptions (since you know nothing about my life) and personal attacks.
You either didn't read my post or you didn't understand it. I never said a word about wealth or poverty. I talked about having parents who raised you well and taught you what you need to know to be successful. You were taught manners, social skills and hard work. You were brought up with goals. You learned how to reach and take advantage of the societal resources that are indeed available to most but many have no clue how to take advantage of or even think they should. It has nothing to do with wealth at all.
Kids who were parented, as opposed to just cared for, tend to do okay regardless of where they are from. They may not become wealthy but they live decent, well functional lives. Lindsey Lohan is a great example of someone who was not parented. Her parents are clearly dysfunctional and so is she. Had she been brought up by a family who taught her differently she would likely have been a different person.
Linmora's example of herself and her High School friends is a great one. She was poor but raised well and despite her lack of material resources she had the personal resources and skills to do well for herself while her classmates who didn't have parents to raise them well didn't. I don't believe that it's a coincidence that that most people grow up to be much like their parents. Adopted kids who were raised well but whose bio family is dysfunctional generally do well too which proves that it's due to their parents' work with them and that people aren't just unfocused and bad decision makers genetically.
All the things people here argue are characteristics and skills that lead to success are things that are taught throughout childhood. Someone who isn't taught these things, who isn't raised/parented and often is never taught anything at all, isn't going to gain those skills automatically. If that was the case, as I mentioned earlier, there would be no reason for parents to spend 18 years+ to ingrain values, manners and life skills into their kids. Good parents do that because they know that these things are necessary to do well in life. Without those skills their kids would not do as well and that is exactly what we see in adults who don't manage life well. It's not an excuse to say that success, which does not mean becoming wealthy, 9 times out of 10 is due to certain skills, attitudes and characteristics which are taught and that lack of success and dysfunction is 9 times out of 10 due to not having these skills, attitudes and characteristics because they weren't taught to them.
I never claimed that success in life is pure luck. Of course a lot of effort is required and that's accomplished by the individual. But you are lucky to have received a good upbringing that taught you work ethic, good manners, graciousness, ambition, the value of education, etc. Had you not been taught that you most likely wouldn't have those necessary characteristics so the fact that you were brought up with parents who did teach you that shows that you were lucky. Had you been raised in a family where your parents sat on the stoop and drank all day, let you run wild and never cared if you even went to school you would most likely have turned out similar to them. Yes, there are people who have done well despite their upbringing just like there are those who have screwed up despite being raised well but those are exceptions and exceptions don't disprove a rule.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), and I find some of its categories can actually be helpful in understanding the observable preferences of others. Yet I've never seen a study on the high prevalence of Sensing Perceivers (SPs) among the poor, and how that temperament might inhibit success in life. 
