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

[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.

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

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

Asia is poorer than the us for the most part but has a lot less single parents

You are underplaying culture in your list of reasons

*fewer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It probably depends on the parents - one of the best mothers I know is a single mother. She is teaching and modeling self confidence, discipline, kindness and social skills to her teen who is following in her foot steps. Another wealthy single mother I know has been a narcissistic disaster and is raising a highly toxic and irresponsible young person. I imagine this is true for two parent families as well. Some are up to the many physical, moral and emotional challenges of parenting and some are not .

I personally could not handle being a single parent. Parenting has been Uber challenging the last few years. But I truly admire my single parent friends who do it well.

I agree that there are so many individuals. If you are a non-2 parent home and the type to be concerned about studies like this, you are likely not part of those demographics. I think things like this depress people who are still doing a great job. Likewise, it might make a 2 parent type feel a lot more smug and comfortable than they should be.
The most successful satisfied kids I've seen come from divorced remarried parents where both new step parents adore them as much as their birth parents and get along with both couples. Unfortunately, I've mainly seen that in the very wealthy set. I also see single moms advocating for their kids more than most and it's not lost on the child that they are loved and supported.
The bigger issues for single parent homes come from substance abuse, poverty and neglect.

[Anonymous]

It is extremely frustrating to continue this type of back and forth about the "family unit" when so many of our problems are from lack of support for children, especially for those under 5 years of age.

We do not support children in this country. If you support the child, you support the family- in whatever form that family is in. We are in a country where the Dependent care FSA hasnt been raised since 1986 except for during 2021 covid and they let that expire. Tax credits for kids is at their lowest. Poverty is increasing in families with small children. You have water issues, lead poisoning, environmental poisoning and pollution. Underfunded school systems with lack of teachers. ETC ETC.

And lets not even address the reason marriages lasted so long previously is because women were legally and financially prisoners to their husbands and/or their fathers. To have any independence they needed to get married and that was, for some women, just a different form of a cell. Marital rape didnt even exist as a construct until 1970s and was not illegal nationwide until 1993.

Even our current judicial system is too focused on the rights of the parents when considering to remove children from the home and/or when going through custody determinations.

[Anonymous]

From the wild Irish slums of the 19th century Eastern seaboard, to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history; a community that allows a large number of men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future -- that community asks for and gets chaos. Crime, violence, unrest, disorder -- most particularly the furious, unrestrained lashing out at the whole social structure -- that is not only to be expected; it is very near to inevitable. And it is richly deserved.

follow-up in America magazine to The Negro Family: The Case for National Action (Moynihan of the Moynihan Report, Thomas Meehan, NYT 31 Jul 1966)

[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.

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

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

Asia is poorer than the us for the most part but has a lot less single parents

You are underplaying culture in your list of reasons

Government can’t change culture but it CAN provide access to birth control and remove prohibitions on abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From the wild Irish slums of the 19th century Eastern seaboard, to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history; a community that allows a large number of men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future -- that community asks for and gets chaos. Crime, violence, unrest, disorder -- most particularly the furious, unrestrained lashing out at the whole social structure -- that is not only to be expected; it is very near to inevitable. And it is richly deserved.

follow-up in America magazine to The Negro Family: The Case for National Action (Moynihan of the Moynihan Report, Thomas Meehan, NYT 31 Jul 1966)

Oh so it’s the mom’s fault!!

[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.

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

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

Asia is poorer than the us for the most part but has a lot less single parents

You are underplaying culture in your list of reasons

The f#ck you talking about? Much of Asia is so dysfunctional when it comes to kids and marriages - Japan can't procreate, much of SE Asia abandons their kids to grandparents so the parents can go work in HK, Singapore, Dubai, the U.S., etc to send money home. In China, rural parents will go to the big cities and send money home (often not seeing their kids for years). I know multiple people whose parents sent them to the U.S. from Taiwan and China so the kid could be educated here and live with a distant aunt/uncle or cousin, often not seeing their birth parents for many years (especially prior to video calling).

Tons of single moms whose husbands abandoned them. And often those women are shunned by the community and not allowed to work (particularly in rural more conservative areas). Women functionally banned from owning property or opening credit in her own name. Divorce rates actually skyrocket in Asian countries that modernize their economies and become wealthier - this has been observed in South Korea, China, etc.

You really want to import these issues to the U.S.?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m other surprising news, water is wet.

Seriously. Some studies are a waste of time and money.

It's not a study, it's an opinion piece.

[Anonymous]

The people who lament but what can we do are the same ones who make sure we can't do anything about it. God forbid we try to teach a kid that abstinence, monogamy and traditional marriage are the goal posts. I have a gay kid, so don't @ me. I love her and her spouse more than anything and believe they'll make wonderful parents one day. But they both grew up seeing traditional values that instilled the same beliefs - that promiscuity, and "be whatever you want to be" are not conducive to a family environment.

[Anonymous]

It turns out that religion and cultural norms were really important; maybe the whole America is a land of Protestants and Jews and everyone went to church on Sunday wasn't so bad. Relativism and humanism sound great in undergraduate lecture halls, but 95% of people need "irrational" guardrails, as in weekly reminders to behave. This is how societies have functioned for millennia. Throwing out the baby with the bath water on culture and religion--combined with increasing governmental assistance for single parenting--has resulted in a permanent underclass for segments of society, precisely the opposite goal that most who support secular socialism want. This isn't exactly Earth shattering, but the data continue to pile up. The most successful groups in U.S.--Jews, Chinese Americans, Indian Americans, Mormons--have preserved their "backwards" cultures, norms, and traditions while integrating with U.S. economic systems. And before you say "that's just material success", I'd venture that all of those groups are happier than people who have gone with the "anything goes" segments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The people who lament but what can we do are the same ones who make sure we can't do anything about it. God forbid we try to teach a kid that abstinence, monogamy and traditional marriage are the goal posts. I have a gay kid, so don't @ me. I love her and her spouse more than anything and believe they'll make wonderful parents one day. But they both grew up seeing traditional values that instilled the same beliefs - that promiscuity, and "be whatever you want to be" are not conducive to a family environment.

Gay people statistically have way higher body counts than straight people

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Daniel Patrick Moynihan said this 60 years ago and was derided for it. Turns out, he was a prophet.

They don't make politicians like that anymore

Thank God, prayers do work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The people who lament but what can we do are the same ones who make sure we can't do anything about it. God forbid we try to teach a kid that abstinence, monogamy and traditional marriage are the goal posts. I have a gay kid, so don't @ me. I love her and her spouse more than anything and believe they'll make wonderful parents one day. But they both grew up seeing traditional values that instilled the same beliefs - that promiscuity, and "be whatever you want to be" are not conducive to a family environment.

YOU may teach your child whatever you want. Nobody is stopping you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m other surprising news, water is wet.

Seriously. Some studies are a waste of time and money.

It's not a study, it's an opinion piece.

The author is an academic from UMD with a book coming out on this topic

[Anonymous]

This seems like the most obvious conclusion ever