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

[Anonymous]

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?

If you're only using "human" in a solely biological way, then you're right. If you mean "human" in a way that carries any moral weight, then no. A blastocyst isn't human in any way that matters morally.

[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:

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.

That is true - but it's more likely

It doesn't have to be equitable. Even if the division of labor was 10% to 90% it's better than 1 person bearing 100% of the burden.

No because it’s 90% of a lot and 100% of less. Plus there is no man child to care for and ego stroke which is a ton of time suck for married women.

It’s all around easier for women when men are not in the picture.

Well I guess that's not what the data shows here.

What data?

The data that it the premise of this thread - and shown in the original post on page 1.

The data that is the premise of this thread is that single women with resources and married people with resources both have successful children. There is no difference in the success of a child based on marital status.

That is the data from the woman who wrote the oped in the New York Times

This is the data from the article I am reading that was linked in the OP:
"This is not a positive development. The evidence is overwhelming: Children from single-parent homes have more behavioral problems, are more likely to get in trouble in school or with the law, achieve lower levels of education and tend to earn lower incomes in adulthood. Boys from homes without dads present are particularly prone to getting in trouble in school or with the law."

I wonder if two parent lesbian families counted as “two parent families” or “homes without dads” in her research.

Why do you think she would even care about lesbian families? She doesn’t even care about a single woman with resources. She only counts single women raising children if they don’t have money.

[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?

If you're only using "human" in a solely biological way, then you're right. If you mean "human" in a way that carries any moral weight, then no. A blastocyst isn't human in any way that matters morally.

So cool that the omniscient arbiter of morality posts on DCUM.

Thanks, God!

[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:

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.

That is true - but it's more likely

It doesn't have to be equitable. Even if the division of labor was 10% to 90% it's better than 1 person bearing 100% of the burden.

No because it’s 90% of a lot and 100% of less. Plus there is no man child to care for and ego stroke which is a ton of time suck for married women.

It’s all around easier for women when men are not in the picture.

Well I guess that's not what the data shows here.

What data?

The data that it the premise of this thread - and shown in the original post on page 1.

The data that is the premise of this thread is that single women with resources and married people with resources both have successful children. There is no difference in the success of a child based on marital status.

That is the data from the woman who wrote the oped in the New York Times

This is the data from the article I am reading that was linked in the OP:
"This is not a positive development. The evidence is overwhelming: Children from single-parent homes have more behavioral problems, are more likely to get in trouble in school or with the law, achieve lower levels of education and tend to earn lower incomes in adulthood. Boys from homes without dads present are particularly prone to getting in trouble in school or with the law."

I wonder if two parent lesbian families counted as “two parent families” or “homes without dads” in her research.

Why do you think she would even care about lesbian families? She doesn’t even care about a single woman with resources. She only counts single women raising children if they don’t have money.

That chip on your shoulder isn’t a great look.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The traditional 2 parent family with mom and dad married, with no kids from previous relationships is no longer the norm
That has not been the norm for a long time
Ww1 wiped out numerous fathers, as did ww2
In the 60s people started to believe this could be the golden standard
Life has changed with the times and so has the definition of family and even standards for poverty

100% the norm among UC and UMC.

Coincidence?

[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:

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.

That is true - but it's more likely

It doesn't have to be equitable. Even if the division of labor was 10% to 90% it's better than 1 person bearing 100% of the burden.

No because it’s 90% of a lot and 100% of less. Plus there is no man child to care for and ego stroke which is a ton of time suck for married women.

It’s all around easier for women when men are not in the picture.

Well I guess that's not what the data shows here.

What data?

The data that it the premise of this thread - and shown in the original post on page 1.

The data that is the premise of this thread is that single women with resources and married people with resources both have successful children. There is no difference in the success of a child based on marital status.

That is the data from the woman who wrote the oped in the New York Times

This is the data from the article I am reading that was linked in the OP:
"This is not a positive development. The evidence is overwhelming: Children from single-parent homes have more behavioral problems, are more likely to get in trouble in school or with the law, achieve lower levels of education and tend to earn lower incomes in adulthood. Boys from homes without dads present are particularly prone to getting in trouble in school or with the law."

I wonder if two parent lesbian families counted as “two parent families” or “homes without dads” in her research.

Why do you think she would even care about lesbian families? She doesn’t even care about a single woman with resources. She only counts single women raising children if they don’t have money.

That chip on your shoulder isn’t a great look.

You get a little chippy when faced with facts and data.

[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:

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.

That is true - but it's more likely

It doesn't have to be equitable. Even if the division of labor was 10% to 90% it's better than 1 person bearing 100% of the burden.

No because it’s 90% of a lot and 100% of less. Plus there is no man child to care for and ego stroke which is a ton of time suck for married women.

It’s all around easier for women when men are not in the picture.

Well I guess that's not what the data shows here.

What data?

The data that it the premise of this thread - and shown in the original post on page 1.

The data that is the premise of this thread is that single women with resources and married people with resources both have successful children. There is no difference in the success of a child based on marital status.

That is the data from the woman who wrote the oped in the New York Times

This is the data from the article I am reading that was linked in the OP:
"This is not a positive development. The evidence is overwhelming: Children from single-parent homes have more behavioral problems, are more likely to get in trouble in school or with the law, achieve lower levels of education and tend to earn lower incomes in adulthood. Boys from homes without dads present are particularly prone to getting in trouble in school or with the law."

I wonder if two parent lesbian families counted as “two parent families” or “homes without dads” in her research.

Why do you think she would even care about lesbian families? She doesn’t even care about a single woman with resources. She only counts single women raising children if they don’t have money.

That chip on your shoulder isn’t a great look.

You get a little chippy when faced with facts and data.

I’m a NP and not at all chippy.

O/U on your posts in this thread: 30.

Not a good look.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That is true - but it's more likely

It doesn't have to be equitable. Even if the division of labor was 10% to 90% it's better than 1 person bearing 100% of the burden.

No because it’s 90% of a lot and 100% of less. Plus there is no man child to care for and ego stroke which is a ton of time suck for married women.

It’s all around easier for women when men are not in the picture.

Well I guess that's not what the data shows here.

What data?

The data that it the premise of this thread - and shown in the original post on page 1.

The data that is the premise of this thread is that single women with resources and married people with resources both have successful children. There is no difference in the success of a child based on marital status.

That is the data from the woman who wrote the oped in the New York Times

This is the data from the article I am reading that was linked in the OP:
"This is not a positive development. The evidence is overwhelming: Children from single-parent homes have more behavioral problems, are more likely to get in trouble in school or with the law, achieve lower levels of education and tend to earn lower incomes in adulthood. Boys from homes without dads present are particularly prone to getting in trouble in school or with the law."

I wonder if two parent lesbian families counted as “two parent families” or “homes without dads” in her research.

Why do you think she would even care about lesbian families? She doesn’t even care about a single woman with resources. She only counts single women raising children if they don’t have money.

That chip on your shoulder isn’t a great look.

You get a little chippy when faced with facts and data.

I’m a NP and not at all chippy.

O/U on your posts in this thread: 30.

Not a good look.

Data hon data.

But sure hang onto a opinion piece.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That is true - but it's more likely

It doesn't have to be equitable. Even if the division of labor was 10% to 90% it's better than 1 person bearing 100% of the burden.

No because it’s 90% of a lot and 100% of less. Plus there is no man child to care for and ego stroke which is a ton of time suck for married women.

It’s all around easier for women when men are not in the picture.

Well I guess that's not what the data shows here.

What data?

The data that it the premise of this thread - and shown in the original post on page 1.

The data that is the premise of this thread is that single women with resources and married people with resources both have successful children. There is no difference in the success of a child based on marital status.

That is the data from the woman who wrote the oped in the New York Times

This is the data from the article I am reading that was linked in the OP:
"This is not a positive development. The evidence is overwhelming: Children from single-parent homes have more behavioral problems, are more likely to get in trouble in school or with the law, achieve lower levels of education and tend to earn lower incomes in adulthood. Boys from homes without dads present are particularly prone to getting in trouble in school or with the law."

I wonder if two parent lesbian families counted as “two parent families” or “homes without dads” in her research.

Why do you think she would even care about lesbian families? She doesn’t even care about a single woman with resources. She only counts single women raising children if they don’t have money.

That chip on your shoulder isn’t a great look.

You get a little chippy when faced with facts and data.

I’m a NP and not at all chippy.

O/U on your posts in this thread: 30.

Not a good look.

Data hon data.

But sure hang onto an opinion piece.

Lol. I haven’t even expressed an opinion on the opinion piece.

My only opinion is that you’re barmy. Carry on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The traditional 2 parent family with mom and dad married, with no kids from previous relationships is no longer the norm
That has not been the norm for a long time
Ww1 wiped out numerous fathers, as did ww2
In the 60s people started to believe this could be the golden standard
Life has changed with the times and so has the definition of family and even standards for poverty

100% the norm among UC and UMC.

Coincidence?

Not really. Divorce rate for UC and UMC is around 30 percent now. Lower than the norm but it's still very common. We live in a wealthy area of Moco and the rate of people on their second (or third!) marriages or who are divorced is about 20-30%. And if you look around and think that's not the norm, it's because you have young kids. Wait until they go off to college!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The traditional 2 parent family with mom and dad married, with no kids from previous relationships is no longer the norm
That has not been the norm for a long time
Ww1 wiped out numerous fathers, as did ww2
In the 60s people started to believe this could be the golden standard
Life has changed with the times and so has the definition of family and even standards for poverty

WWI and WWII wiped out potential fathers. Not actual fathers. What exactly do you think the baby boom was? Also, is the new norm better or worse for children? Are they thriving under this new norm?

You guys are insane. If you think pre-World War I women, we’re not marrying second and third husband.. women weren’t even allowed to own their own property. When a man died, they had to marry someone in order to keep their property.

So yeah, this is not knew that women forced to marry men, and be married because of the way the institution to set up.

What are you even talking about? Married men with children weren't sent to the front lines. The younger single men were. You need to open a history book. You said WWI and WWII wiped out fathers. That's totally false, they were often exempt from service.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The traditional 2 parent family with mom and dad married, with no kids from previous relationships is no longer the norm
That has not been the norm for a long time
Ww1 wiped out numerous fathers, as did ww2
In the 60s people started to believe this could be the golden standard
Life has changed with the times and so has the definition of family and even standards for poverty

100% the norm among UC and UMC.

Coincidence?

Not really. Divorce rate for UC and UMC is around 30 percent now. Lower than the norm but it's still very common. We live in a wealthy area of Moco and the rate of people on their second (or third!) marriages or who are divorced is about 20-30%. And if you look around and think that's not the norm, it's because you have young kids. Wait until they go off to college!

Obesity is now the norm, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The traditional 2 parent family with mom and dad married, with no kids from previous relationships is no longer the norm
That has not been the norm for a long time
Ww1 wiped out numerous fathers, as did ww2
In the 60s people started to believe this could be the golden standard
Life has changed with the times and so has the definition of family and even standards for poverty

100% the norm among UC and UMC.

Coincidence?

Not really. Divorce rate for UC and UMC is around 30 percent now. Lower than the norm but it's still very common. We live in a wealthy area of Moco and the rate of people on their second (or third!) marriages or who are divorced is about 20-30%. And if you look around and think that's not the norm, it's because you have young kids. Wait until they go off to college!

Also silver divorces are on the rise showing that a large % who don’t divorce were unhappy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The traditional 2 parent family with mom and dad married, with no kids from previous relationships is no longer the norm
That has not been the norm for a long time
Ww1 wiped out numerous fathers, as did ww2
In the 60s people started to believe this could be the golden standard
Life has changed with the times and so has the definition of family and even standards for poverty

100% the norm among UC and UMC.

Coincidence?

Not really. Divorce rate for UC and UMC is around 30 percent now. Lower than the norm but it's still very common. We live in a wealthy area of Moco and the rate of people on their second (or third!) marriages or who are divorced is about 20-30%. And if you look around and think that's not the norm, it's because you have young kids. Wait until they go off to college!

Obesity is now the norm, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing.

Well, getting a divorce is like losing 250 pounds of useless deadweight.

And it is a good thing, if you can afford it.

Look at the data instead of a meaningless opinion, piece by an economist

[Anonymous]

Childless Megan McArdle predictable weighs in:

https://wapo.st/3tbiiFC