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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

. . . 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. XThe point is, that is not the norm. And the pre-marital sex angle is not really the point.

I will assume you understand that anecdotal evidence is different from statistical evidence.
But in case others do not understand this…here is how that works:
If your “lived experience” or “observed anecdotes” fall outside of a statistical norm, that is called an outlier. And when that happens, it doesn’t mean that what you’re observed or experienced isn’t valid or true. It just means that it is not the case for MOST circumstances or in enough circumstances to move the needle on the statistical result.

Well the statistics say kids are just as happy and successful in single parent homes as 2 parent homes if they have resources.

IF they have resources. How many single parents homes are at or below poverty?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oops! Should PP have clarified that they were referring to those kids who were not strong out on drugs?

How embarrassing that PP thought that was a zinger. Kids today are a mess despite their helicoptering parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

. . . 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. XThe point is, that is not the norm. And the pre-marital sex angle is not really the point.

I will assume you understand that anecdotal evidence is different from statistical evidence.
But in case others do not understand this…here is how that works:
If your “lived experience” or “observed anecdotes” fall outside of a statistical norm, that is called an outlier. And when that happens, it doesn’t mean that what you’re observed or experienced isn’t valid or true. It just means that it is not the case for MOST circumstances or in enough circumstances to move the needle on the statistical result.

Well the statistics say kids are just as happy and successful in single parent homes as 2 parent homes if they have resources.

IF they have resources. How many single parents homes are at or below poverty?

There are plenty 2 parent homes that are also at or below poverty
Please do not accuse the poor of being promiscious
Children in 2 parent homes also fare well and are happy when there are resources
I am not convinced that 2 parent homes are automatically that much better, or that people in a marriage are supposedly more moral or more wealthy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

. . . 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. XThe point is, that is not the norm. And the pre-marital sex angle is not really the point.

I will assume you understand that anecdotal evidence is different from statistical evidence.
But in case others do not understand this…here is how that works:
If your “lived experience” or “observed anecdotes” fall outside of a statistical norm, that is called an outlier. And when that happens, it doesn’t mean that what you’re observed or experienced isn’t valid or true. It just means that it is not the case for MOST circumstances or in enough circumstances to move the needle on the statistical result.

Well the statistics say kids are just as happy and successful in single parent homes as 2 parent homes if they have resources.

IF they have resources. How many single parents homes are at or below poverty?

There are plenty 2 parent homes that are also at or below poverty
Please do not accuse the poor of being promiscious
Children in 2 parent homes also fare well and are happy when there are resources
I am not convinced that 2 parent homes are automatically that much better, or that people in a marriage are supposedly more moral or more wealthy

Seems reasonable that more adults to support the household the better. Divide and conquer. But to keep coming back to say that rich women raising children alone means single parenthood is great, seems a little far fetched. What's the agenda behind that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There have been a couple similarly-themed articles in the NYT in the last couple weeks.

I don't think the articles or studies sufficiently parse out the difference between: (i) women who have babies without getting married, where dad may or may not be in the picture (but realistically, mom bears most of the childrearing); (ii) babies born to marriage, but where there's a divorce and one parent effectively abandons the family (basically, the classic 1970s divorce); and (iii) babies born to married, but where there's a divorce but both parents are still active, engaged parents in separate households. I'm going to guess all are, on average, less favorable than the typical two-parent household, but that (iii) is a lot better than (i) and (ii).

But the primary solution shouldn't be making women care for babies in unhappy marriages. It should be making abortions unstigmatized and available and, shocker, encouraged (with absolute knowing consent). I don't really care about the arguments that this is "racist" eugenics because we're mostly talking about POC. I think it's a lot more racist for their kids to grow up in a cycle of poverty that could have been predicted from the minute the sperm hit the egg. We can put our tax dollars into women's prenatal healthcare (which is proven to work), or we can put a lot more of it into the war on poverty, which 60 years later consensus is that it's really expensive and doesn't work.

Or those single mothers could choose adoption. There are more couples looking to adopt babies of any race domestically than there are babies available to domestically adopt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been a couple similarly-themed articles in the NYT in the last couple weeks.

I don't think the articles or studies sufficiently parse out the difference between: (i) women who have babies without getting married, where dad may or may not be in the picture (but realistically, mom bears most of the childrearing); (ii) babies born to marriage, but where there's a divorce and one parent effectively abandons the family (basically, the classic 1970s divorce); and (iii) babies born to married, but where there's a divorce but both parents are still active, engaged parents in separate households. I'm going to guess all are, on average, less favorable than the typical two-parent household, but that (iii) is a lot better than (i) and (ii).

But the primary solution shouldn't be making women care for babies in unhappy marriages. It should be making abortions unstigmatized and available and, shocker, encouraged (with absolute knowing consent). I don't really care about the arguments that this is "racist" eugenics because we're mostly talking about POC. I think it's a lot more racist for their kids to grow up in a cycle of poverty that could have been predicted from the minute the sperm hit the egg. We can put our tax dollars into women's prenatal healthcare (which is proven to work), or we can put a lot more of it into the war on poverty, which 60 years later consensus is that it's really expensive and doesn't work.

Or those single mothers could choose adoption. There are more couples looking to adopt babies of any race domestically than there are babies available to domestically adopt.

No one is entitled to a baby. Children are not a product to be bought and sold. You’re not a good person if you plan to build your joy off the backs of someone else’s misery.

[Anonymous]

So what is the moral of the story here?
We have immoral men who do not live with the mother of their offspring, or are the mothers bad
Now someone even suggested women should breed for Charity because every adoptee gets guaranteed 2 parent home that will never experience divorce, parental unemployment, disability or end up on welfare

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been a couple similarly-themed articles in the NYT in the last couple weeks.

I don't think the articles or studies sufficiently parse out the difference between: (i) women who have babies without getting married, where dad may or may not be in the picture (but realistically, mom bears most of the childrearing); (ii) babies born to marriage, but where there's a divorce and one parent effectively abandons the family (basically, the classic 1970s divorce); and (iii) babies born to married, but where there's a divorce but both parents are still active, engaged parents in separate households. I'm going to guess all are, on average, less favorable than the typical two-parent household, but that (iii) is a lot better than (i) and (ii).

But the primary solution shouldn't be making women care for babies in unhappy marriages. It should be making abortions unstigmatized and available and, shocker, encouraged (with absolute knowing consent). I don't really care about the arguments that this is "racist" eugenics because we're mostly talking about POC. I think it's a lot more racist for their kids to grow up in a cycle of poverty that could have been predicted from the minute the sperm hit the egg. We can put our tax dollars into women's prenatal healthcare (which is proven to work), or we can put a lot more of it into the war on poverty, which 60 years later consensus is that it's really expensive and doesn't work.

Or those single mothers could choose adoption. There are more couples looking to adopt babies of any race domestically than there are babies available to domestically adopt.

No one is entitled to a baby. Children are not a product to be bought and sold. You’re not a good person if you plan to build your joy off the backs of someone else’s misery.

Having your own baby is a right.

Women in prison for life sentences have the right to become pregnant if they want.

[Anonymous]

So so little about men's responsibilities towards children.
Birth control is available, abcheek swab for paternity testing is the easiest thing.
We're fighting over women's choices and rights and once again exempting men from being judged for choices or made to own up to their responsibilities.
Men should be equally financially liable for any child born from them. Contraception is available to them, including permanent and semi-permanent options. They also have self-control options. There is no reason why a man should only pay for diapers and swim classes if he is or was married to the child's mother.
Equal financial burden from offspring irrespective of marital history - THAT is gender equality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

. . . 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. XThe point is, that is not the norm. And the pre-marital sex angle is not really the point.

I will assume you understand that anecdotal evidence is different from statistical evidence.
But in case others do not understand this…here is how that works:
If your “lived experience” or “observed anecdotes” fall outside of a statistical norm, that is called an outlier. And when that happens, it doesn’t mean that what you’re observed or experienced isn’t valid or true. It just means that it is not the case for MOST circumstances or in enough circumstances to move the needle on the statistical result.

Well the statistics say kids are just as happy and successful in single parent homes as 2 parent homes if they have resources.

IF they have resources. How many single parents homes are at or below poverty?

Your statement shows that you don't understand how research works. The cause for children's outcome is poverty not marital status. So why doesn't the research talk about poverty?

How many 2 parent home are below poverty? How many have a male in the home that sexually molests the children? How many 2 parent homes have a male in the home the beats the wife?

[Anonymous]

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.

. . . 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 well put.

1. It was an opinion piece not an article.
2. The fact is children raised in a single parent family do just as well as 2 parent family if there are resources.
3. ”resistance “ comes from people saying “facts” when it’s an opinion and pointing out the actual facts and statistics that show the opinion is nit based in facts.

Fact: kids are better off raised by a single mom than a 2 parent home if they single mom is stable and has resources and the 2 parent family is unhappily married.

You so desperately want this to be true but it is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

. . . 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. XThe point is, that is not the norm. And the pre-marital sex angle is not really the point.

I will assume you understand that anecdotal evidence is different from statistical evidence.
But in case others do not understand this…here is how that works:
If your “lived experience” or “observed anecdotes” fall outside of a statistical norm, that is called an outlier. And when that happens, it doesn’t mean that what you’re observed or experienced isn’t valid or true. It just means that it is not the case for MOST circumstances or in enough circumstances to move the needle on the statistical result.

Well the statistics say kids are just as happy and successful in single parent homes as 2 parent homes if they have resources.

IF they have resources. How many single parents homes are at or below poverty?

There are plenty 2 parent homes that are also at or below poverty
Please do not accuse the poor of being promiscious
Children in 2 parent homes also fare well and are happy when there are resources
I am not convinced that 2 parent homes are automatically that much better, or that people in a marriage are supposedly more moral or more wealthy

Seems reasonable that more adults to support the household the better. Divide and conquer. But to keep coming back to say that rich women raising children alone means single parenthood is great, seems a little far fetched. What's the agenda behind that?

I disagree. Perhaps they have to live in a bigger house. Men are also very, very expensive people to have in your home. Also the more communication needed the more chance for strife. Pushing the false narrative that these men that never help around the house and get no sex are better environments for children, it seems very, very far fetches. What's the agenda behind that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Abortion is killing (that is literally the point), not murder. IMO a fetus doesn’t have personhood, and personhood is required for murder.

No abortion is no more killing than liposuction.

If you believe that, then why the bristling and backtracking lately from pro-abortionists (and reporters) when pro-lifers point out the advocacy for no limits on abortion??
Why is the mantra “literally no one is in favor of abortion in the 9th month” (which is untrue btw…it’s literally in the language of most recent bill to have zero restrictions) if it’s no different from liposuction???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what is the moral of the story here?
We have immoral men who do not live with the mother of their offspring, or are the mothers bad
Now someone even suggested women should breed for Charity because every adoptee gets guaranteed 2 parent home that will never experience divorce, parental unemployment, disability or end up on welfare

The first step is for society to universally acknowledge the evidence that there are some circumstances that lead to more favorable outcomes statistically. (This doesn’t mean you don’t personally know of exceptions to the ideal. There are, of course, evil people who do evil things in two-parent families and there are exceptionally-successful good people in single parent families…that’s not the point)
The point is that striving to create two-parent families is the best outcome on average for most circumstances and results in positive outcomes for the financial, academic, and socio-emotional well being of the child.
Acceptance and support for families who do not operate in this model for whatever reason is also important for society. But it does society a disservice when we pretend all outcomes for any circumstance are equally desired. It’s okay to have a standard and ideal outcome, figure out the most likely way to achieve that, and promote that as a value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Abortion is killing (that is literally the point), not murder. IMO a fetus doesn’t have personhood, and personhood is required for murder.

No abortion is no more killing than liposuction.

If you believe that, then why the bristling and backtracking lately from pro-abortionists (and reporters) when pro-lifers point out the advocacy for no limits on abortion??
Why is the mantra “literally no one is in favor of abortion in the 9th month” (which is untrue btw…it’s literally in the language of most recent bill to have zero restrictions) if it’s no different from liposuction???

Aw, you're so cute when you fabricate "facts" out of thin air. Bless your heart.