NYT Article on "Rise of Single-Parent Families is Not a Good Thing"
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
This. |
Anonymous
You would the think that social pressure was enough to encourage families to stay together, but it’s not. People still choose divorce instead. Look at the advice on the relationship forum. One spouse doesn’t help with chores as much? Divorce. Not as attracted to spouse as you used to be? Divorce. Why are people voluntarily taking the hard road here if it’s so hard? |
Anonymous
|
The Independent Women’s Forum has weighed in here:
https://www.iwf.org/2020/09/22/a-blm-vanishing-act-its-webpage-about-disrupting-the-black-nuclear-family-is-gone/ |
Anonymous
A couple of things: 1) The data shows no statistically significant difference between two-parent families with means and single-parent families with means. 2) Yes, money solves a lot of issues, but poverty also causes a lot of issues. So, the real factor here isn't one-parent versus two-parent households. It's money. |
Anonymous
LOL. You are ignoring the actual data in favor of your priors. The truth is there are lots of ways that kids can get messed up, within lots of types of families. |
Anonymous
Speaking as a white mother/ cohead of traditional dual parent family, I think this is harsh and misreading the challenges that face many black families led by single mothers (whom I have frequently worked with in DC in the past). I would frame it as dealing with reality as it is rather than as disrupting the black nuclear family model. Many black single mothers have no choice but to support each other as there are extremely high rates of black men being incarcerated. Black fathers are often absent, probably in part, because their own fathers were absent. There are many efforts within black communities to change that and to encourage biological black fathers to be more involved with their children and taking leadership roles within society. There is an Episcopal school in SE DC devoted to empowering black boys from disadvantaged circumstances so that they do eventually become positive male role models within both families and communities. My understanding is that the main idea is to disrupt cycles of poverty and male absence from many black families. However that takes time to achieve. BLM movement addresses wide spread systemic racism. I am sure there was disagreement on some of the wording of their objectives. Some of the banter sounded a bit off but that does not mean the cause is not worthy. I am grateful that my faith community is trying hard to be anti racist and to be part of healing deep divisions in our society based on superficial differences in skin pigmentations. We all have a role to play in healing race based divisions in our society. Peace. |
Anonymous
We're talking about two parents, not married couples. Big difference. |
Anonymous
Right. Isn’t that what I said? The well known dc policy wonk advocate in the audience who said the data was both racist and wrong was (1) a divorced woman (2) with a wealthy ex (3) a fancy degree and big job (4) living in a great neighborhood (5) and sending her kids to one of the best private schools. Of course her kids should have terrific outcomes!!! But the bulk of the data (and all of the data being presented that day) was focused on single parents and poverty. We all know that two incomes are better than one. We also know that having two loving parents makes an impact…particularly on boys of color. Research tends to focus on low income or middle class families, not dcum rich people. |
Anonymous
Plus most tax advantaged go to married couples. |
Anonymous
Obviously. But generally speaking research supports and commonsense dictates that kids tend to fare better when raised in a loving two-parent household. Money helps. |
Anonymous
I disagree 2 incomes is always better than 1. Marriages rarely have 2 loving parents, so who knows. Most surgeons are absent parents even if they live in the same house. |
Anonymous
No research supports kids do best in families with resources having 1 vs 2 parents is irrelevant. |
Anonymous
The author makes this statement:
I look at this differently. We don't need to promote and support the institution of marriage to achieve the author's goals. We should be concerned about how to reform policy and society so that as many people as possible grow up in healthy home environments with access to quality education and parents (and a supportive community) who have adequate resources and energy to raise them. If we achieve these goals, there will be more healthy, stable children and adults, increasing the likelihood that they will form healthy, stable relationships. When discussing reforms, I would ask why we have a public school system that asks so much of families that kids from single-parent homes and even two-parent homes without sufficient income to have a parent stay a home have trouble succeeding without significant outside support (either family or paid) or extremely flexible work arrangements. Schools have not changed since the days when most women were SAH parents. I take that back, they actually have changed to impose greater demands and expectations on parents, ignoring the fact that most of them work outside of the home. These demands have the greatest impact on parents with less education, less income, and less time and less control over how their time is spent, to the detriment of their children, and often, through no fault of their own. |
Anonymous
Those poor kids. Growing up with one older parent who couldn't manage to find one other person on the planet to build a life with. Let's hope there are a lot of cousins/extended family so that child is not isolated and completely dependent on that one adult. |
Anonymous
Why would you say something like that? So sad. |