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

[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?

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

Do you always try to argue without facts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

Do you always try to argue without facts?

I lived through it and she’s not wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

This.

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?

I can’t speak for everyone but in my case it was because my spouse was so verbally, emotionally and physically abusive I could not live in the same house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, boys in particular who grow up without a father figure tend to replicate that in their own lives. It's a cycle.

I'm not sure how we can support marriage as a society. It seems that all tax advantages go to single moms, but if you cut that off, then you're hurting single moms.

We're talking about two parents, not married couples. Big difference.

What tax advantages? -Single mom

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I am 100% pro women's reproductive rights, I think this argument is a bit of a strawman here.

This lessening emphasis for two parent households and the rise in support of single parent families has been happening long before the striking down of Roe v Wade.

How do you think babies are accidentally made by unmarried people? Not because of “lessening emphasis for two parent households. It’s because people have s*x without birth control and no, there was not sufficient access pre-Dobbs.

There has been plenty of access for decades. Condoms are given out for free at my health department.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I am 100% pro women's reproductive rights, I think this argument is a bit of a strawman here.

This lessening emphasis for two parent households and the rise in support of single parent families has been happening long before the striking down of Roe v Wade.

At the end of the day, the rise of single parent households is due to systemic economic factors: decline of real wages, unaffordability of housing, men opting out of education, rise of welfare state to fill the gap that has some perverse incentives for mothers to remain legally "single," rise of carceral state that removes men from families/work force, lack of universal healthcare, lack of mental health care/inpatient services, etc. So many of these factors are inter-related - e.g., rise of carceral state stems from the dismantlement of mental health services, which itself stems from employer-based health care framework.

At the very least, Roe gave women some semblance of control of their circumstances in the face of these glacial economic challenges. But if you un-do Roe the main effect will be the increase in single parent households, which leads to suboptimal social consequences.

Rise of single parent households has been happening for decades and has nothing to do with Roe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But let's continue to act like abortion services is about evil slutty women... Our society makes no sense. Two parent households are better, but we're going to force you have this baby and become a single mother (leaving the father off the hook entirely as we continue to deride single mothers as the problem) and then we're going to shame you for it by conducting a study that says you've done parenthood all wrong, when you may not have wanted to do it at all.

First of all, no women are "being forced to have a baby." Free and subsidized birth control is available, abstinence is available, the abortion pill is available and yes, there are very few women who do not have the means to take a Greyhound bus to the next state. For the few who can't, you can donate to a non profit to pay for it.

People need to be taught that there are consequences to their actions. When 70% of black children are born out-of-wedlock, there is something wrong. Women are not victims; they are making choices. And the choices that they are making are keeping themselves and their children in reduced circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But let's continue to act like abortion services is about evil slutty women... Our society makes no sense. Two parent households are better, but we're going to force you have this baby and become a single mother (leaving the father off the hook entirely as we continue to deride single mothers as the problem) and then we're going to shame you for it by conducting a study that says you've done parenthood all wrong, when you may not have wanted to do it at all.

First of all, no women are "being forced to have a baby." Free and subsidized birth control is available, abstinence is available, the abortion pill is available and yes, there are very few women who do not have the means to take a Greyhound bus to the next state. For the few who can't, you can donate to a non profit to pay for it.

People need to be taught that there are consequences to their actions. When 70% of black children are born out-of-wedlock, there is something wrong. Women are not victims; they are making choices. And the choices that they are making are keeping themselves and their children in reduced circumstances.

Agreed; however I hate when people ignore the role and responsibilities of men and fatherhood. I wonder how many women who give birth out of wedlock would prefer to be married to their child’s father.

[Anonymous]

Subcultural norms where “men” feel like it’s totally fine to impregnate women without taking any parental responsibility fuel the plight of single moms and their poor kids.

And bad decisions on the part of women who sleep with subpar men play a role as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

This isn't surprising. Couples who choose to have children together out of wedlock are generally unstable. The men are lying wimps and the women have very low self esteem. In every case I've ever seen, the man isn't willing to commit and comes up with all sorts of crazy reasons like not believing in marriage, hung up on delaying the wedding for obscure reasons, etc. Until he meets a woman who he falls in love with then immediately marries her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But let's continue to act like abortion services is about evil slutty women... Our society makes no sense. Two parent households are better, but we're going to force you have this baby and become a single mother (leaving the father off the hook entirely as we continue to deride single mothers as the problem) and then we're going to shame you for it by conducting a study that says you've done parenthood all wrong, when you may not have wanted to do it at all.

First of all, no women are "being forced to have a baby." Free and subsidized birth control is available, abstinence is available, the abortion pill is available and yes, there are very few women who do not have the means to take a Greyhound bus to the next state. For the few who can't, you can donate to a non profit to pay for it.

People need to be taught that there are consequences to their actions. When 70% of black children are born out-of-wedlock, there is something wrong. Women are not victims; they are making choices. And the choices that they are making are keeping themselves and their children in reduced circumstances.

Abstinence doesn’t help you if you are raped. Republicans want to ban the abortion pill too. The cost of going to another state is not just a bus ticket, it is multiple days lost at work and potentially a hotel stay because many states have multi day waiting periods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But let's continue to act like abortion services is about evil slutty women... Our society makes no sense. Two parent households are better, but we're going to force you have this baby and become a single mother (leaving the father off the hook entirely as we continue to deride single mothers as the problem) and then we're going to shame you for it by conducting a study that says you've done parenthood all wrong, when you may not have wanted to do it at all.

First of all, no women are "being forced to have a baby." Free and subsidized birth control is available, abstinence is available, the abortion pill is available and yes, there are very few women who do not have the means to take a Greyhound bus to the next state. For the few who can't, you can donate to a non profit to pay for it.

People need to be taught that there are consequences to their actions. When 70% of black children are born out-of-wedlock, there is something wrong. Women are not victims; they are making choices. And the choices that they are making are keeping themselves and their children in reduced circumstances.

Abstinence doesn’t help you if you are raped. Republicans want to ban the abortion pill too. The cost of going to another state is not just a bus ticket, it is multiple days lost at work and potentially a hotel stay because many states have multi day waiting periods.

While this is true, the % of children born to single parents as a result of rape is an extremely small number.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, boys in particular who grow up without a father figure tend to replicate that in their own lives. It's a cycle.

I'm not sure how we can support marriage as a society. It seems that all tax advantages go to single moms, but if you cut that off, then you're hurting single moms.

We're talking about two parents, not married couples. Big difference.

What tax advantages? -Single mom

None they all go to married couples.

https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/marriage/7-tax-advantages-of-getting-married/amp/L1XlLCh0m

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

Do you always try to argue without facts?

I lived through it and she’s not wrong.

Yeah, me too. In a neighborhood full of 70s kids and most of our mothers didn't work and we certainly not feral.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But let's continue to act like abortion services is about evil slutty women... Our society makes no sense. Two parent households are better, but we're going to force you have this baby and become a single mother (leaving the father off the hook entirely as we continue to deride single mothers as the problem) and then we're going to shame you for it by conducting a study that says you've done parenthood all wrong, when you may not have wanted to do it at all.

First of all, no women are "being forced to have a baby." Free and subsidized birth control is available, abstinence is available, the abortion pill is available and yes, there are very few women who do not have the means to take a Greyhound bus to the next state. For the few who can't, you can donate to a non profit to pay for it.

People need to be taught that there are consequences to their actions. When 70% of black children are born out-of-wedlock, there is something wrong. Women are not victims; they are making choices. And the choices that they are making are keeping themselves and their children in reduced circumstances.

Your wrong. married women are forced to have sex, check out many Christian teaching that say married women are not allowed to abstain. Also men who thinks it’s okay to cheat of their wife chooses to abstain.

Married women have abortions but many feel forced to have the unwanted children.

Lots of oops babies in married couples.