One of the effects of single parenthood seems to be launching the offspring into the workforce at a younger age, earlier than offspring from a stable marriage. The reasons and motivations are easy to imagine. It would provide more spending money, it would give the offspring something to keep them occupied, it would help free them from a dysfunctional situation, and by age 18, it would replace child support payments. Studies also show that kids from divorced families drop out of school more and have children out of wedlock more, demanding entrance into the workforce.
When it comes time to find a dedicated career path, the person from a single parent has already accrued a healthy amount of resume credentials and work experience. He or she is an attractive prospect for employment considering the amount of experience on paper. Although the experience may not be in the career field he or she intends to pursue in the future, it is experience and credentials nonetheless which is an obvious value over an inexperienced applicant.
Although single parenthood is considered to be a generally bad situation, it creates an indirectly positive situation like this. People who mature early and work early are considered to be go-getters and opportunists. Even though the circumstance arises from divorce, he or she will still end up with the reputation of being a go-getter or opportunist simply by association.
We are stuck in a conundrum, a feedback loop. The job market fairly gives precedent to work experience, condoning the circumstances that led to work experience. While employers are making decisions in the best interest of the company, what is in the best interest of the company happens to be in bad interest for a pro-marriage stable society.
This is simply an irreconcilable situation. Why?
At the heart of the issue is the relationship between moral judgement and discrimination. No matter how hard it is to hear in today’s politically correct world, the United States was a thriving society because moral judgement led to discrimination in friendships, jobs, government benefits, credit, etc. Today, discrimination is illegal. Anecdotal evidence, symbolism, allegory, and parable are all discriminatory.
The conundrum: discrimination based on moral judgement is anathema to rational belief but absolutely necessary for rationality to exist.
Bloggers like Heartiste understand that anecdotal evidence, common sense, street smarts, and religion have been infected by politically correct thought. The only remaining influence is to back up anecdotal evidence with scientifically proven fact, thereby placing technological society in a catch 22. Science is the last bastion that can prove that we can and should discriminate, and that government must represent those scientific findings.