NYT Article on "Rise of Single-Parent Families is Not a Good Thing"

[Anonymous]

Did I miss it or did the article totally fail to mention educated women adopting on their own or having sperm donors? It's taboo to talk about, but this is going on in my family and several of my friends' families and too many women are doing this without a village. They do it older, the parents may be elderly, there many be some estrangements and people burn out from helping so much knowing there will be no reciprocation. And. it's so taboo to say because we are supposed to think an well educated woman must be far superior as a mother to say a woman without a college degree or a teen who became pregnant and is raising the kid in a family system where the grandparents are willing to do a lot. And my friend's sister who likes to brag that she has it all as a single mom by choice who is a partner in a law firm leaves out the accolades for her amazing nannies and the family members who finally burned out helping her because she felt as a single mom everyone owed her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that the baseline for comparison is a household with two parents in a stable and healthy marriage.

I am 50 years old, and I've seen quite a bit in this life. The overwhelming majority of single parent families I know are single parent for a reason - that baseline healthy 2 parents family was not feasible due to the significant issues with at least one of the parents. If the kids end up troubled, it's not at all clear to me that this is due to being raised by single parent, as opposed to the issues that led to being raised by a single parent. This is the old correlation <> causation issue.

Completely agree with this.

I just posted, but this is a really good point. If there is abuse, addiction, etc do they really think the kid would have turned out better in a 2 parent home?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am sure this is true but less clear how the government can solve it. Much of the collapse in marriage seems to stem from “low quality jobs” for men, who then can’t contribute to a family.

It’s more than not contributing financially. It’s the requirements of some men to be “the head of the household” and have their wives be subservient. It should be a partnership, where no one is subservient. Why I would have zero problems with my DH making less than me, he can’t expect me to do all the traditional housework and be subservient. Nah.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course it’s true. I doubt any support from the government or any other institution is forthcoming. No one cares about families, kids, or even society anymore. It’s allllllll about the $$$$$$$$

+1. I admit I didn't read the article. Because articles like this do nothing to put policies in place that would encourage healthy two parent families. Things like universal access to birth control and maternity care. Paid family leave. Child care subsidies/universal preschool. Instead we get moralizing and calls for women to resume "traditional" roles. I don't doubt this piece is either a fantasy that Republicans will support social programs or shaming women and their choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it’s true. I doubt any support from the government or any other institution is forthcoming. No one cares about families, kids, or even society anymore. It’s allllllll about the $$$$$$$$

+1. I admit I didn't read the article. Because articles like this do nothing to put policies in place that would encourage healthy two parent families. Things like universal access to birth control and maternity care. Paid family leave. Child care subsidies/universal preschool. Instead we get moralizing and calls for women to resume "traditional" roles. I don't doubt this piece is either a fantasy that Republicans will support social programs or shaming women and their choices.

Not disagreeing with your conclusions (sadly) but I’m curious why you feel some of the social programs that benefit all families will create more two parent households? Or were you thinking maternity leave, public preK, etc would only be available to married couples so encouraging parents to get/stay married?

[Anonymous]

Two thoughts:
1) If my options were to raise my kids alone on a reasonable income or do it with a spouse who is abusive and causes instability in life, I 100% think that the kids would be better off in a stable one-parent family. The problem with this article’s argument is that it doesn’t account for these nuances and lumps a wide range of situations in together.

2) if our government puts in place policies that preference two-parent homes, there are some serious issues that could follow. There is actual dialogue on the far right about getting rid of “no-fault” divorce. This is incredibly dangerous as it would make it much, much harder for abused women to leave. This policy will cost lives (and make kids suffer)- but all in the name of “promoting what’s best for kids.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did I miss it or did the article totally fail to mention educated women adopting on their own or having sperm donors? It's taboo to talk about, but this is going on in my family and several of my friends' families and too many women are doing this without a village. They do it older, the parents may be elderly, there many be some estrangements and people burn out from helping so much knowing there will be no reciprocation. And. it's so taboo to say because we are supposed to think an well educated woman must be far superior as a mother to say a woman without a college degree or a teen who became pregnant and is raising the kid in a family system where the grandparents are willing to do a lot. And my friend's sister who likes to brag that she has it all as a single mom by choice who is a partner in a law firm leaves out the accolades for her amazing nannies and the family members who finally burned out helping her because she felt as a single mom everyone owed her.

Yes the research says educated women with resources have kids who just as well.

The opinion piece compares happily married couples (excluding unhappy/poor/abuse) and compare it to poor single women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An absent parent is better than an abusive parent.

True but it’s not a binary choice. People need to choose more carefully.

But then fertility rates go down.

Women must either choose bad husband or single parenting.

There are too few men that are “good choices” for everyone to choose well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Society already ioverwhelmingly favors two-parent families in literally everything. That’s why it’s so hard to be a single parent, duh.

If its so hard, why is there a rise in single parenthood? Seems like you agree with tge author that this isn’t a good thing.

NP. There's not really a rise in single parenting. The percentage of kids in single parent households has been stable since the '90s.

But much higher than the 70s. Is this good or bad?

It’s good because women can leave abusive marriages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it’s true. I doubt any support from the government or any other institution is forthcoming. No one cares about families, kids, or even society anymore. It’s allllllll about the $$$$$$$$

+1. I admit I didn't read the article. Because articles like this do nothing to put policies in place that would encourage healthy two parent families. Things like universal access to birth control and maternity care. Paid family leave. Child care subsidies/universal preschool. Instead we get moralizing and calls for women to resume "traditional" roles. I don't doubt this piece is either a fantasy that Republicans will support social programs or shaming women and their choices.

Not disagreeing with your conclusions (sadly) but I’m curious why you feel some of the social programs that benefit all families will create more two parent households? Or were you thinking maternity leave, public preK, etc would only be available to married couples so encouraging parents to get/stay married?

I think it all builds upon itself. One thing we know is that wealthier people are more able to remain in marriages/two parent families. Universal access to birth control allows women to have more choice when it comes to getting pregnant. We think of wealth as money in the bank, but in the US it's also access to things that allow you to work, be healthy, take breaks from work, etc. I think it follows that that leads to more well adjusted people who can stay in relationships.

But let's say the premise that these social benefits will lead to more well adjusted people who can stay in relationships is wrong. It still follows that a child who benefits from prenatal care, parental care during infancy, quality (or heck, available) child care, universal pre-k, etc. will fare better even if they are being raised in a single parent household. In short, it's better for society either way so we shouldn't get too hung up on the two parent part of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it’s true. I doubt any support from the government or any other institution is forthcoming. No one cares about families, kids, or even society anymore. It’s allllllll about the $$$$$$$$

+1. I admit I didn't read the article. Because articles like this do nothing to put policies in place that would encourage healthy two parent families. Things like universal access to birth control and maternity care. Paid family leave. Child care subsidies/universal preschool. Instead we get moralizing and calls for women to resume "traditional" roles. I don't doubt this piece is either a fantasy that Republicans will support social programs or shaming women and their choices.

Not disagreeing with your conclusions (sadly) but I’m curious why you feel some of the social programs that benefit all families will create more two parent households? Or were you thinking maternity leave, public preK, etc would only be available to married couples so encouraging parents to get/stay married?

I think it all builds upon itself. One thing we know is that wealthier people are more able to remain in marriages/two parent families. Universal access to birth control allows women to have more choice when it comes to getting pregnant. We think of wealth as money in the bank, but in the US it's also access to things that allow you to work, be healthy, take breaks from work, etc. I think it follows that that leads to more well adjusted people who can stay in relationships.

But let's say the premise that these social benefits will lead to more well adjusted people who can stay in relationships is wrong. It still follows that a child who benefits from prenatal care, parental care during infancy, quality (or heck, available) child care, universal pre-k, etc. will fare better even if they are being raised in a single parent household. In short, it's better for society either way so we shouldn't get too hung up on the two parent part of it.

This I agree with entirely! The key is putting the programs in place that will benefit children regardless and this might also result in more two parent households which would also benefit children. Unfortunately there didn’t seem to be the political will to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it’s true. I doubt any support from the government or any other institution is forthcoming. No one cares about families, kids, or even society anymore. It’s allllllll about the $$$$$$$$

COVID basically cemented this for me. We came to rescue so many industries because the economic effects, but told parents to basically pound sand and figure it out when schools and parks and supportive services closed. I have a special needs kid and that was a really sobering time for me.

I never thought of it this way (contrast to propping up other industries) but this is so true

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it’s true. I doubt any support from the government or any other institution is forthcoming. No one cares about families, kids, or even society anymore. It’s allllllll about the $$$$$$$$

COVID basically cemented this for me. We came to rescue so many industries because the economic effects, but told parents to basically pound sand and figure it out when schools and parks and supportive services closed. I have a special needs kid and that was a really sobering time for me.

I never thought of it this way (contrast to propping up other industries) but this is so true

https://annehelen.substack.com/p/other-countries-have-social-safety - "Other countries have social safety nets. The U.S. has women."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Society already ioverwhelmingly favors two-parent families in literally everything. That’s why it’s so hard to be a single parent, duh.

If its so hard, why is there a rise in single parenthood? Seems like you agree with tge author that this isn’t a good thing.

NP. There's not really a rise in single parenting. The percentage of kids in single parent households has been stable since the '90s.

But much higher than the 70s. Is this good or bad?

It’s good because women can leave abusive marriages.

What if they were never even married? Still good?

[Anonymous]

I haven't taken the time to read this whole thread, so if this has been mentioned, sorry, but if not I think it should be noted - Dan Quayle. Thirty years ago he was excoriated by the media because he used a fictional single mother in a TV show to highlight the glorification of single-parenthood. Turns out he was right. And we also owe Quayle a collective thanks because he was one of the people who was on the phone with Pence on Jan 6 telling him that he MUST certify the votes and that he had no discretion. Turns out Quayle helped save democracy too.