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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess such studies are important because there has been a significant effort to prove that stable two parent duo has no advantages over single and divorced parents. Yes, no one should feel excluded and everyone can do their level best but there is no need to deny that stable two parent families are a better environment not just for the kids but whole society as well.

Yes, I think there was a lot of well-intended work to make everyone feel included. But along the way we lost sight of how much better the two-parent family is, on average, as a basis for child-rearing.

+1 Instead of jumping into bed with every handsome dude or beautiful woman, people should choose marriage partners carefully and commit to a long-term marriage (barring extreme physical abuse, etc). Kids generally thrive with love, security, and parenting time from two parents.

Lol now don’t get crazy and start making sense. DCUM won’t have it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In other words Americans are hypocritical schizophrenics who have no idea what they want, what they value, or how to better their lives. Which, in turn, makes them very susceptible to all sorts of con men/women.

News at 11.

Abortion has been readily available for quite some time. Yet there are so many single parents. They didn't choose abortion, so that's not the issue here. It's weird that someone is assuming they would have aborted their child rather than raise in a single parent household when they had the chance and didn't.

No, abortion has never been “readily available” in many places, even pre-Dobbs. Nor has birth control.

Please. Most people are gladly having their kids. They wouldn't choose abortion anyway.

Statistically true.

Also statistically true that most third-trimester abortions are performed on healthy fetuses by healthy women, same as in first trimester abortions, but that doesn’t prevent the “most third trimester abortions are to save the life of the mother or due to fetus abnormality” narratives from being pervasive. (Source is Guttmacher Institute—a pro-choice research group)

Most people think what they want to think in order to hold their position, even when the stats and facts don’t support it.

Or, they simply “feel,” come to conclusions based on feelings, and then cannot be swayed by reason or evidence.

[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.

In other words Americans are hypocritical schizophrenics who have no idea what they want, what they value, or how to better their lives. Which, in turn, makes them very susceptible to all sorts of con men/women.

News at 11.

. . . some of us do recognize what is beneficial for society and that is: to get married before having sex. Then, any subsequent babies will be raised in a two-parent household, which yields statistically stronger outcomes for all children across all metrics.
But, since this viewpoint has been dismissed long ago as antiquated and unrealistic, despite its societal benefits, we reap what we sow.

Well put. And generally the gist of the NYT article.

Question is: why is there such resistance to the acceptance of this simple fact?

Where is this resistance coming from?

Who is pushing alternative narratives, and most importantly,

Why?

[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.

In other words Americans are hypocritical schizophrenics who have no idea what they want, what they value, or how to better their lives. Which, in turn, makes them very susceptible to all sorts of con men/women.

News at 11.

I mean I think some of us do recognize what is beneficial for society and that is to get married before having sex and then any subsequent babies will be raised in a two-parent household, which yields statistically stinger outcomes for all children across all metrics.
But, since this viewpoint has been dismissed long ago as antiquated and unrealistic, despite its societal benefits, we reap what we sow.

And worse outcomes for women...but sure, lets gloss over that part. SHHHHH. Your obsession with marriage versus looking at other ways to stabilize children's lives is bordering on insanity. You keep pushing this rhetoric of marriage, marriage, marriage. We can look back and see what happened to women, children, and babies when marriage was imposed by societal pressure.

I would be interested to know if you believe- honestly- that a two parent household of the same sex has the same outcomes as opposite sex couples and if you are also supportive of two parent same-sex households adopting?

[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?

NP. I don't know about "facts" but I know what I lived and saw and the PP is not wrong for everyone I knew who grew up with me at that time. I would maybe take issue with "neglected" as the characterization but it probably appears that way compared to today's hyper fixation on controlling and knowing everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In other words Americans are hypocritical schizophrenics who have no idea what they want, what they value, or how to better their lives. Which, in turn, makes them very susceptible to all sorts of con men/women.

News at 11.

. . . some of us do recognize what is beneficial for society and that is: to get married before having sex. Then, any subsequent babies will be raised in a two-parent household, which yields statistically stronger outcomes for all children across all metrics.
But, since this viewpoint has been dismissed long ago as antiquated and unrealistic, despite its societal benefits, we reap what we sow.

Well put. And generally the gist of the NYT article.

Question is: why is there such resistance to the acceptance of this simple fact?

Where is this resistance coming from?

Who is pushing alternative narratives, and most importantly,

Why?

It's not the "gist." You can have two parent households and rearing without a marriage. I know people doing it and doing it successfully. The point is, that is not the norm. And the pre-marital sex angle is not really the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yeah, because they work 100%? GMAFB. I know AT LEAST 4 "condom" babies. Just off the top of my head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Haha, in my neighborhood the mothers often didn't work, but they sure as hell weren't monitoring the kids. "Get out of the house and don't come back until the sun goes down" was a thing in our neighborhood.

[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?

NP. I don't know about "facts" but I know what I lived and saw and the PP is not wrong for everyone I knew who grew up with me at that time. I would maybe take issue with "neglected" as the characterization but it probably appears that way compared to today's hyper fixation on controlling and knowing everything.

I was there too. Nobody I knew was neglected or feral. My kids think I had it the best and wish we could go back to those days. They don't think they are winning now with cut throat academics where kids can barely be kids anymore.

[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.

How many people do you honestly think get pregnant because they are raped? And again, feel free to donate to a nonprofit to sponsor someone’s abortion.

[Anonymous]

90+% of abortions are performed in the first trimester. The zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus aren't human at that point unless you have some superstitious belief in a "soul." And, even if you do, that's no basis for a law, applicable to the superstitious and the rational alike, restricting reproductive freedom and forcing a woman to use her body to bring the fetus to term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In other words Americans are hypocritical schizophrenics who have no idea what they want, what they value, or how to better their lives. Which, in turn, makes them very susceptible to all sorts of con men/women.

News at 11.

I mean I think some of us do recognize what is beneficial for society and that is to get married before having sex and then any subsequent babies will be raised in a two-parent household, which yields statistically stinger outcomes for all children across all metrics.
But, since this viewpoint has been dismissed long ago as antiquated and unrealistic, despite its societal benefits, we reap what we sow.

And worse outcomes for women...but sure, lets gloss over that part. SHHHHH. Your obsession with marriage versus looking at other ways to stabilize children's lives is bordering on insanity. You keep pushing this rhetoric of marriage, marriage, marriage. We can look back and see what happened to women, children, and babies when marriage was imposed by societal pressure.

I would be interested to know if you believe- honestly- that a two parent household of the same gsex has the same outcomes as opposite sex couples and if you are also supportive of two parent same-sex households adopting?

I’ll take you at your word that you’re interested to know what I believe, but what I believe is not the point. There is actual data to show that children raised in a two-parent family regardless of whether it is a same sex couple of opposite sex couple have stronger outcomes across all metrics (financial, academic, socioemotional) than those raised in one-parent or Divo r es households. The true holds for widowed households.
This isn’t a bias. It’s just a fact.
And it didn’t mean there aren’t reasons for not having a two parent household that are sometimes beyond the parents control —but it doesn’t change the fact that it’s beneficial for the child.
Also the “detrimental to women” narrative is false. Married women report being happier in far higher numbers than unmarried women. They are also better off financiallly.
The only metric where they suffer is lifespan. Women who are single tend to outlive married women by about 3-5 years. But anecdotally I guess one can argue the merits of dying lonely and sad at 93 vs happy and fulfilled at 87?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Haha, in my neighborhood the mothers often didn't work, but they sure as hell weren't monitoring the kids. "Get out of the house and don't come back until the sun goes down" was a thing in our neighborhood.

And kids were happier, more independent, less prone to depression and suicide than kids today who are hanging out with TikTok after school killing themselves attempting the next challenge. Why are kids so depressed and miserable now?

[Anonymous]

The rape thing is rhetorical but effective.

A person who doesn't support abortion for rape is a monster. Forcing a woman to incubate her rapist's baby is unthinkably cruel.

A person who does support such an abortion is a hypocrite. If abortion is murder, it doesn't matter how God's little unborn angel was conceived.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Haha, in my neighborhood the mothers often didn't work, but they sure as hell weren't monitoring the kids. "Get out of the house and don't come back until the sun goes down" was a thing in our neighborhood.

And kids were happier, more independent, less prone to depression and suicide than kids today who are hanging out with TikTok after school killing themselves attempting the next challenge. Why are kids so depressed and miserable now?

Kurt "Voice of a Generation" Cobain would like a word.