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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Or is the point that striving to create better societal supports for single moms the point? As a society we're moving away from marriage as the ideal, and for many good reasons. How do we keep up with changes in a way that prepare the next generation to succeed? After all, they're tomorrow's leaders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The real first step would be unbiased data, not some clickbait op-ed from an attention-seeker. The policy that you are promoting has been the standard in the US for years, and it has created our current hellscape - it's time to stop ostracizing entire families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Or is the point that striving to create better societal supports for single moms the point? As a society we're moving away from marriage as the ideal, and for many good reasons. How do we keep up with changes in a way that prepare the next generation to succeed? After all, they're tomorrow's leaders.

Whatever the government does - it can't compensate for not having two parents in terms of possibility of having two earners and possibility of splitting the labor of raising kids.

[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.

. . . 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.

It's exactly what the research says. I'm not sure why she is comparing poor single moms to 2 parents homes with resources (which is what she is doing).

If you compared rich single moms with poor 2 parent homes, you would say it's a terrible comparison.

Also, why not compare (like real research) children from equally resourced homes.

She's an opportunist creating propaganda to get rubes like you to buy a book.

[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???

Perhaps you should educate yourself on Roe v Wade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Or is the point that striving to create better societal supports for single moms the point? As a society we're moving away from marriage as the ideal, and for many good reasons. How do we keep up with changes in a way that prepare the next generation to succeed? After all, they're tomorrow's leaders.

Whatever the government does - it can't compensate for not having two parents in terms of possibility of having two earners and possibility of splitting the labor of raising kids.

Two parents in the home does not guarantee two incomes or equitable division of labor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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. Nobody is arguing that is not true. The statistics show that single parents with resources have the same outcome for children as 2 parent homes with resources. (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.No actually that is not what the statistics say.
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.

So now that you know the real statistics, will you take your own advice and acknowledge it is not marital status that makes a child successful, it's resources?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Aren’t human? What species, then?

The same species of creature that “pro life” people have been fine with executing for all manner of slights and sins since ancient times. What kind of creature did the Catholic Church burn at the stake? Or the Protestant majorities here execute for stealing a piece of bread? What kind of creature did Godly men enslave and then fight for the right to keep doing it?

Um, they’re all humans, obviously. I didn’t say anything about capital punishment, burning people at the stake, if my religion. I just pointed out that of course a zygote/embryo/fetus is human (even if you don’t think it counts as a person). It’s certainly not a fish or a cat or a cactus.

[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.

. . . 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.

Yes, i know the difference and I didn't say otherwise. But I was giving an example that it can be done. Most people don't even try. And I don't need statistics to tell me what I have seen throughout my entire life, including with my own parents.

But, thank you for telling me that my experiences are valid and true. A$$hole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There is no incentive on Gods green Earth that we should consider that would result in " creation of two-parent families ". This is some red pill Judeo Christianity BS.

In the bolded, you are starting to tread on free will here buddy.

My values are ensuring that children have access to food, clean water, clean clothes, clean air, a safe and warm space to sleep, no work requirements, time to play, the ability to move their bodies safely and freely, preventative care, treatment for acute and chronic illnesses, etc. How about we focus on that being the "standard and ideal outcome, figure out the most likely way to achieve that, and promote that as a value". Leave marriage requirements out of it.

[Anonymous]

And to add to the above, you wont consider that the objective because children are not the intended beneficiaries of these types of policies. If they were, the focus would be on children but its on adults, and whether they are married or not.

This is the similar to giving aid to a country rife with mismanagement and corruption versus giving cash or resources directly to poor people in those countries. If you want to help poor people and make real change, you give them a way to do that. Directly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Or is the point that striving to create better societal supports for single moms the point? As a society we're moving away from marriage as the ideal, and for many good reasons. How do we keep up with changes in a way that prepare the next generation to succeed? After all, they're tomorrow's leaders.

Whatever the government does - it can't compensate for not having two parents in terms of possibility of having two earners and possibility of splitting the labor of raising kids.

Two parents in the home does not guarantee two incomes or equitable division of labor.

Neither does being raised by a single parent so what’s your point? It certainly increases the odds.

[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?

Being raised in an unstable situation leads to addiction and drug use.

[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.

Yes, i know the difference and I didn't say otherwise. But I was giving an example that it can be done. Most people don't even try. And I don't need statistics to tell me what I have seen throughout my entire life, including with my own parents.

But, thank you for telling me that my experiences are valid and true. A$$hole.

Stop being so defensive. Your outlier situations don’t change reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is common sense PP but all the pushback responses you've gotten show the magnitude of the challenge.