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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lived and worked in Boston up until recently. So many 40 plus, never married, educated and career focused women I knew just decided to forgo getting married or quit looking for a man and opted for a sperm donor instead. They have a nanny or 2 and see their kids on the weekend. I wonder if one were to compare their kids outcomes to a comparable heterosexual couple (upper middle class or higher, educated with careers) what the main difference would be if any.

the main difference is they have more emotional resources because they don’t have to deal with a DH! only sort of kidding …

anyway, my neighbor just had a baby on her own and I’m pretty sure she’s going to be just fine.

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.

Kind of like a SAHM who lives away from family for her H’s job and he is hardly home, works late and when he’s home isn’t engaged?

They could find a person to build a life with just not a man child who isn’t equal. Raise better men if you want more marriages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lived and worked in Boston up until recently. So many 40 plus, never married, educated and career focused women I knew just decided to forgo getting married or quit looking for a man and opted for a sperm donor instead. They have a nanny or 2 and see their kids on the weekend. I wonder if one were to compare their kids outcomes to a comparable heterosexual couple (upper middle class or higher, educated with careers) what the main difference would be if any.

The study shows the children have the same outcome.

…in terms of what can be objectively measured.

But you can’t easily measure whether someone has Daddy issues, trust issues, attachment issues, etc.

Kids raised by happily married parents tend to have the best relationships.

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.

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.

No research supports kids do best in families with resources having 1 vs 2 parents is irrelevant.

Is that a fact or opinion that 2 parents are irrelevant? Are you arguing that more than 1 is redundant?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lived and worked in Boston up until recently. So many 40 plus, never married, educated and career focused women I knew just decided to forgo getting married or quit looking for a man and opted for a sperm donor instead. They have a nanny or 2 and see their kids on the weekend. I wonder if one were to compare their kids outcomes to a comparable heterosexual couple (upper middle class or higher, educated with careers) what the main difference would be if any.

the main difference is they have more emotional resources because they don’t have to deal with a DH! only sort of kidding …

anyway, my neighbor just had a baby on her own and I’m pretty sure she’s going to be just fine.

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.

Kind of like a SAHM who lives away from family for her H’s job and he is hardly home, works late and when he’s home isn’t engaged?

They could find a person to build a life with just not a man child who isn’t equal. Raise better men if you want more marriages.

Why does it matter if she's a SAHM? Is this a better situation with 2 working parents where the kids are with a nanny or at after care the rest of the time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This came up many years ago at a policy event at the Reagan building decades ago. Hosted by the Atlantic, a highly regarded policy wonk (from Brookings IIRC) presented all the data supporting two parents are better than one through the lens of lifting kids out of poverty and leading to better outcomes on multiple levels.

All backed up by data, including longitudinal studies.

The upper class policy wonks, advocates, etc went nuts.

“Racist!”

“Not true! I’m a single mom with a big six figure salary and my kids go to (insert big 3 dc school)! You are wrong!”

Um…the poor guy with the data wasn’t wrong. The audience just centered themselves instead of realizing they are the outliers instead of the norm. And more importantly, socioeconomics plays a big role in all outcomes…because money can fix a lot of issues.

LOL, but the data literally says a single mom with resources has the same outcome as a 2 parent family with resources and does better than a 2 parent family without resources.

Let me tell you as a kid that never knew my father I am not ok even if I have a career, house, spouse and kids.

[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 $$$$$$$$

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

And not just parents, women especially. It’s women who took the brunt of home schooling and closed daycares.

Men did too even of the majority were women. Don’t erase fathers that struggled as well please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lived and worked in Boston up until recently. So many 40 plus, never married, educated and career focused women I knew just decided to forgo getting married or quit looking for a man and opted for a sperm donor instead. They have a nanny or 2 and see their kids on the weekend. I wonder if one were to compare their kids outcomes to a comparable heterosexual couple (upper middle class or higher, educated with careers) what the main difference would be if any.

The study shows the children have the same outcome.

…in terms of what can be objectively measured.

But you can’t easily measure whether someone has Daddy issues, trust issues, attachment issues, etc.

Kids raised by happily married parents tend to have the best relationships.

kids raised by two parents tend to be in home with arguing, abuse and absent fathers even if they live in the home.

The opinion piece is comparing 2 parents with money to poor single women. It's a silly comparison. A mom with resources does not raise somebody with "daddy issues" because there was never a daddy to abandon them.

Wow. You are flat out wrong. Kids that don’t know their fathers struggle for life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand the framing here. Divorce rates are sky high. But is a kid with two parents sharing custody in a “two parent home?” What if one parent remarries or cohabitates?

No- divorced parents sharing custody isn't a two parent home. Cohabitating is also single parent and it's also the least stable.

So two parents who live together for years and raise kids together are considered single parents? Why the least stable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This came up many years ago at a policy event at the Reagan building decades ago. Hosted by the Atlantic, a highly regarded policy wonk (from Brookings IIRC) presented all the data supporting two parents are better than one through the lens of lifting kids out of poverty and leading to better outcomes on multiple levels.

All backed up by data, including longitudinal studies.

The upper class policy wonks, advocates, etc went nuts.

“Racist!”

“Not true! I’m a single mom with a big six figure salary and my kids go to (insert big 3 dc school)! You are wrong!”

Um…the poor guy with the data wasn’t wrong. The audience just centered themselves instead of realizing they are the outliers instead of the norm. And more importantly, socioeconomics plays a big role in all outcomes…because money can fix a lot of issues.

LOL, but the data literally says a single mom with resources has the same outcome as a 2 parent family with resources and does better than a 2 parent family without resources.

Let me tell you as a kid that never knew my father I am not ok even if I have a career, house, spouse and kids.

I'm sorry, PP. It's typical for DCUM to view everything in terms of socio-economic status and ignore kids's need to know that they are loved and wanted by both parents. Money and status don't fill all emotional needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This came up many years ago at a policy event at the Reagan building decades ago. Hosted by the Atlantic, a highly regarded policy wonk (from Brookings IIRC) presented all the data supporting two parents are better than one through the lens of lifting kids out of poverty and leading to better outcomes on multiple levels.

All backed up by data, including longitudinal studies.

The upper class policy wonks, advocates, etc went nuts.

“Racist!”

“Not true! I’m a single mom with a big six figure salary and my kids go to (insert big 3 dc school)! You are wrong!”

Um…the poor guy with the data wasn’t wrong. The audience just centered themselves instead of realizing they are the outliers instead of the norm. And more importantly, socioeconomics plays a big role in all outcomes…because money can fix a lot of issues.

LOL, but the data literally says a single mom with resources has the same outcome as a 2 parent family with resources and does better than a 2 parent family without resources.

Let me tell you as a kid that never knew my father I am not ok even if I have a career, house, spouse and kids.

I'm sorry, PP. It's typical for DCUM to view everything in terms of socio-economic status and ignore kids's need to know that they are loved and wanted by both parents. Money and status don't fill all emotional needs.

+1 million

[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?

Kids born in the 70s were so neglected they were practically feral.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lived and worked in Boston up until recently. So many 40 plus, never married, educated and career focused women I knew just decided to forgo getting married or quit looking for a man and opted for a sperm donor instead. They have a nanny or 2 and see their kids on the weekend. I wonder if one were to compare their kids outcomes to a comparable heterosexual couple (upper middle class or higher, educated with careers) what the main difference would be if any.

The study shows the children have the same outcome.

…in terms of what can be objectively measured.

But you can’t easily measure whether someone has Daddy issues, trust issues, attachment issues, etc.

Kids raised by happily married parents tend to have the best relationships.

kids raised by two parents tend to be in home with arguing, abuse and absent fathers even if they live in the home.

The opinion piece is comparing 2 parents with money to poor single women. It's a silly comparison. A mom with resources does not raise somebody with "daddy issues" because there was never a daddy to abandon them.

Wow. You are flat out wrong. Kids that don’t know their fathers struggle for life.

It’s not either or.

People who live with a father who they could never bond with because he was angry and judgemental and worked too much do not turn out better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This came up many years ago at a policy event at the Reagan building decades ago. Hosted by the Atlantic, a highly regarded policy wonk (from Brookings IIRC) presented all the data supporting two parents are better than one through the lens of lifting kids out of poverty and leading to better outcomes on multiple levels.

All backed up by data, including longitudinal studies.

The upper class policy wonks, advocates, etc went nuts.

“Racist!”

“Not true! I’m a single mom with a big six figure salary and my kids go to (insert big 3 dc school)! You are wrong!”

Um…the poor guy with the data wasn’t wrong. The audience just centered themselves instead of realizing they are the outliers instead of the norm. And more importantly, socioeconomics plays a big role in all outcomes…because money can fix a lot of issues.

LOL, but the data literally says a single mom with resources has the same outcome as a 2 parent family with resources and does better than a 2 parent family without resources.

Let me tell you as a kid that never knew my father I am not ok even if I have a career, house, spouse and kids.

I'm sorry, PP. It's typical for DCUM to view everything in terms of socio-economic status and ignore kids's need to know that they are loved and wanted by both parents. Money and status don't fill all emotional needs.

DCUM might but that is off topic.

The research we are discussing specifically states that children in homes with 2 parents but lack resources do not fair better than children in single parent homes with resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This came up many years ago at a policy event at the Reagan building decades ago. Hosted by the Atlantic, a highly regarded policy wonk (from Brookings IIRC) presented all the data supporting two parents are better than one through the lens of lifting kids out of poverty and leading to better outcomes on multiple levels.

All backed up by data, including longitudinal studies.

The upper class policy wonks, advocates, etc went nuts.

“Racist!”

“Not true! I’m a single mom with a big six figure salary and my kids go to (insert big 3 dc school)! You are wrong!”

Um…the poor guy with the data wasn’t wrong. The audience just centered themselves instead of realizing they are the outliers instead of the norm. And more importantly, socioeconomics plays a big role in all outcomes…because money can fix a lot of issues.

LOL, but the data literally says a single mom with resources has the same outcome as a 2 parent family with resources and does better than a 2 parent family without resources.

Let me tell you as a kid that never knew my father I am not ok even if I have a career, house, spouse and kids.

I'm sorry, PP. It's typical for DCUM to view everything in terms of socio-economic status and ignore kids's need to know that they are loved and wanted by both parents. Money and status don't fill all emotional needs.

DCUM might but that is off topic.

The research we are discussing specifically states that children in homes with 2 parents but lack resources do not fair better than children in single parent homes with resources.

I'm so sorry I veered off topic by offering a few words of support for a poster who expressed pain about not knowing their father.

Also, I thought that we were discussing an opinion piece. Have you posted a link to the research that you believe is the topic of this thread?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This came up many years ago at a policy event at the Reagan building decades ago. Hosted by the Atlantic, a highly regarded policy wonk (from Brookings IIRC) presented all the data supporting two parents are better than one through the lens of lifting kids out of poverty and leading to better outcomes on multiple levels.

All backed up by data, including longitudinal studies.

The upper class policy wonks, advocates, etc went nuts.

“Racist!”

“Not true! I’m a single mom with a big six figure salary and my kids go to (insert big 3 dc school)! You are wrong!”

Um…the poor guy with the data wasn’t wrong. The audience just centered themselves instead of realizing they are the outliers instead of the norm. And more importantly, socioeconomics plays a big role in all outcomes…because money can fix a lot of issues.

LOL, but the data literally says a single mom with resources has the same outcome as a 2 parent family with resources and does better than a 2 parent family without resources.

Let me tell you as a kid that never knew my father I am not ok even if I have a career, house, spouse and kids.

I'm sorry, PP. It's typical for DCUM to view everything in terms of socio-economic status and ignore kids's need to know that they are loved and wanted by both parents. Money and status don't fill all emotional needs.

DCUM might but that is off topic.

The research we are discussing specifically states that children in homes with 2 parents but lack resources do not fair better than children in single parent homes with resources.

I'm so sorry I veered off topic by offering a few words of support for a poster who expressed pain about not knowing their father.

Also, I thought that we were discussing an opinion piece. Have you posted a link to the research that you believe is the topic of this thread?

The research is on the authors info page.

And while it’s nice to empathize, the reality is the PP might be better off not knowing the father. It depends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The author makes this statement:

The issue is complicated, and solutions will necessarily be multifaceted. Just as scholars, journalists and policymakers acknowledge the need to improve schools and debate various reform ideas, those of us who discuss and debate questions of society and policy should be frank about the advantages of a healthy two-parent home for children and challenge ourselves to come up with ways to promote and support that institution.

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.

This is unfortunately so true. The schools have an obligation to educate children, yet they continually push more and more of the teacher's job onto parents. Nothing will change if parents keep taking it.