For those of you who believe that single motherhood is a serious problem that needs to addressed,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incentivize fatherhood.

Try to reform the winner-take-all dating economy (good luck).

Make fatherhood cool again (too many oafish goofballs on TV).

Reverse the decline of communities (very hard to do). Bring back God, churches and communities to try to hold crummy men more accountable.

Embrace stigma (not popular).

Embrace harems and alternative family structures.

Incentivize fatherhood?! Holy crap male privilege is mind blowing. Do we incentivize motherhood? No, women are default sole providers.

Women are also the default choosers on the parenthood question in the first place.

Not really anymore.

Women don't pick their partners.

Men just take any women they want and force themselves on them?

Yes. Rape is severely underreported.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the percentage of families with a single mother?

That percentage is not sustainable. Father figures are important.

You see the effects on society today.

Don't reward single patenting. Staying together is sometimes difficult, but single parenting of close to 50% is not acceptable either. An abusive relationship is a different subject altogether.

But the outcomes are not as good as two parent families in the aggregate.

So I wouldn't cut out subsidies, but I would cut them back and make it less attractive.

How many absent father households are the choice of the mother raising the child(ren)? He is absent because of the father- whether that be choice, jail, disinterest, another family, etc. You are punishing women and children for the choices of the male. Super on brand for our culture but nonetheless deplorable. And two parents don't have to be married or live together to raise a child. Data must separate between single parent households with an involved and financially supportive co-parent (regardless of sex) and those that are single parent household by choice and those that are single parent households without an involved and supportive co-parent. These are three different types of issues and more than likely have different outcomes.

Why are women choosing to get pregnant with such irresponsible men? Perhaps our values are all wrong. Why not question our priorities?

Why exactly aren’t these valid questions?
Why ignore the source of the problem? sp

Because what, exactly, are you going to do about that on a societal level? Shoulda, coulda, woulda isn’t a solution.

Recognize that we currently subsidize those choices, and push for other incentives.

Tell us what “choices” we “subsidize.”

Keep in mind that all social welfare benefits in the U.S. pale in comparison to those available in Scandinavian countries.

Sounds like you're aware of them already. Would women choose differently if those options were not available?

Of course.

Provide other incentives. That can be everything from tax policy, social shaming, or even crazier options like raising by the state.

Choices have consequences, unless you believe that women lack agency which is the most misogynistic thing I can think of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incentivize fatherhood.

Try to reform the winner-take-all dating economy (good luck).

Make fatherhood cool again (too many oafish goofballs on TV).

Reverse the decline of communities (very hard to do). Bring back God, churches and communities to try to hold crummy men more accountable.

Embrace stigma (not popular).

Embrace harems and alternative family structures.

Incentivize fatherhood?! Holy crap male privilege is mind blowing. Do we incentivize motherhood? No, women are default sole providers.

Women are also the default choosers on the parenthood question in the first place.

Not really anymore.

Women don't pick their partners.

Men just take any women they want and force themselves on them?

Yes. Rape is severely underreported.

Then what percentage of single moms have been raped? If its 95%, then we look to one set of solutions; if it is 5% another set of solutions.

Let me ask you this. Do women have agency?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the percentage of families with a single mother?

That percentage is not sustainable. Father figures are important.

You see the effects on society today.

Don't reward single patenting. Staying together is sometimes difficult, but single parenting of close to 50% is not acceptable either. An abusive relationship is a different subject altogether.

But the outcomes are not as good as two parent families in the aggregate.

So I wouldn't cut out subsidies, but I would cut them back and make it less attractive.

How many absent father households are the choice of the mother raising the child(ren)? He is absent because of the father- whether that be choice, jail, disinterest, another family, etc. You are punishing women and children for the choices of the male. Super on brand for our culture but nonetheless deplorable. And two parents don't have to be married or live together to raise a child. Data must separate between single parent households with an involved and financially supportive co-parent (regardless of sex) and those that are single parent household by choice and those that are single parent households without an involved and supportive co-parent. These are three different types of issues and more than likely have different outcomes.

Why are women choosing to get pregnant with such irresponsible men? Perhaps our values are all wrong. Why not question our priorities?

Why exactly aren’t these valid questions?
Why ignore the source of the problem? sp

Because what, exactly, are you going to do about that on a societal level? Shoulda, coulda, woulda isn’t a solution.

Recognize that we currently subsidize those choices, and push for other incentives.

Tell us what “choices” we “subsidize.”

Keep in mind that all social welfare benefits in the U.S. pale in comparison to those available in Scandinavian countries.

Sounds like you're aware of them already. Would women choose differently if those options were not available?

Of course.

Provide other incentives. That can be everything from tax policy, social shaming, or even crazier options like raising by the state.

Choices have consequences, unless you believe that women lack agency which is the most misogynistic thing I can think of.

You are absolutely sick in the head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the percentage of families with a single mother?

That percentage is not sustainable. Father figures are important.

You see the effects on society today.

Don't reward single patenting. Staying together is sometimes difficult, but single parenting of close to 50% is not acceptable either. An abusive relationship is a different subject altogether.

But the outcomes are not as good as two parent families in the aggregate.

So I wouldn't cut out subsidies, but I would cut them back and make it less attractive.

How many absent father households are the choice of the mother raising the child(ren)? He is absent because of the father- whether that be choice, jail, disinterest, another family, etc. You are punishing women and children for the choices of the male. Super on brand for our culture but nonetheless deplorable. And two parents don't have to be married or live together to raise a child. Data must separate between single parent households with an involved and financially supportive co-parent (regardless of sex) and those that are single parent household by choice and those that are single parent households without an involved and supportive co-parent. These are three different types of issues and more than likely have different outcomes.

Why are women choosing to get pregnant with such irresponsible men? Perhaps our values are all wrong. Why not question our priorities?

Why exactly aren’t these valid questions?
Why ignore the source of the problem? sp

Because what, exactly, are you going to do about that on a societal level? Shoulda, coulda, woulda isn’t a solution.

Recognize that we currently subsidize those choices, and push for other incentives.

Tell us what “choices” we “subsidize.”

Keep in mind that all social welfare benefits in the U.S. pale in comparison to those available in Scandinavian countries.

Sounds like you're aware of them already. Would women choose differently if those options were not available?

Of course.

Provide other incentives. That can be everything from tax policy, social shaming, or even crazier options like raising by the state.

Choices have consequences, unless you believe that women lack agency which is the most misogynistic thing I can think of.

Thanks for saying the quiet part out loud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incentivize fatherhood.

Try to reform the winner-take-all dating economy (good luck).

Make fatherhood cool again (too many oafish goofballs on TV).

Reverse the decline of communities (very hard to do). Bring back God, churches and communities to try to hold crummy men more accountable.

Embrace stigma (not popular).

Embrace harems and alternative family structures.

Incentivize fatherhood?! Holy crap male privilege is mind blowing. Do we incentivize motherhood? No, women are default sole providers.

Women are also the default choosers on the parenthood question in the first place.

Not really anymore.

Women don't pick their partners.

Men just take any women they want and force themselves on them?

Yes. Rape is severely underreported.

Then what percentage of single moms have been raped? If its 95%, then we look to one set of solutions; if it is 5% another set of solutions.

Let me ask you this. Do women have agency?

That poster is just clinging to taking points because they like infantalzing women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what solutions do you propose?

Each one should be paired with a millionaire. Dilutes the wealth and increases marriage rates.

What if the single moms are millionaires?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the percentage of families with a single mother?

That percentage is not sustainable. Father figures are important.

You see the effects on society today.

Don't reward single patenting. Staying together is sometimes difficult, but single parenting of close to 50% is not acceptable either. An abusive relationship is a different subject altogether.

But the outcomes are not as good as two parent families in the aggregate.

So I wouldn't cut out subsidies, but I would cut them back and make it less attractive.

How many absent father households are the choice of the mother raising the child(ren)? He is absent because of the father- whether that be choice, jail, disinterest, another family, etc. You are punishing women and children for the choices of the male. Super on brand for our culture but nonetheless deplorable. And two parents don't have to be married or live together to raise a child. Data must separate between single parent households with an involved and financially supportive co-parent (regardless of sex) and those that are single parent household by choice and those that are single parent households without an involved and supportive co-parent. These are three different types of issues and more than likely have different outcomes.

Why are women choosing to get pregnant with such irresponsible men? Perhaps our values are all wrong. Why not question our priorities?

Why exactly aren’t these valid questions?
Why ignore the source of the problem? sp

Because what, exactly, are you going to do about that on a societal level? Shoulda, coulda, woulda isn’t a solution.

Recognize that we currently subsidize those choices, and push for other incentives.

Tell us what “choices” we “subsidize.”

Keep in mind that all social welfare benefits in the U.S. pale in comparison to those available in Scandinavian countries.

Sounds like you're aware of them already. Would women choose differently if those options were not available?

Of course.

Provide other incentives. That can be everything from tax policy, social shaming, or even crazier options like raising by the state.

Choices have consequences, unless you believe that women lack agency which is the most misogynistic thing I can think of.

You are absolutely sick in the head.

What are the best interests of the child? If single motherhood is a serious problem like the OP alleges, then a broad array of options should be discussed.

Shame is a powerful motivator. CPS should also be a powerful motivator for people to take care of their children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the percentage of families with a single mother?

That percentage is not sustainable. Father figures are important.

You see the effects on society today.

Don't reward single patenting. Staying together is sometimes difficult, but single parenting of close to 50% is not acceptable either. An abusive relationship is a different subject altogether.

But the outcomes are not as good as two parent families in the aggregate.

So I wouldn't cut out subsidies, but I would cut them back and make it less attractive.

How many absent father households are the choice of the mother raising the child(ren)? He is absent because of the father- whether that be choice, jail, disinterest, another family, etc. You are punishing women and children for the choices of the male. Super on brand for our culture but nonetheless deplorable. And two parents don't have to be married or live together to raise a child. Data must separate between single parent households with an involved and financially supportive co-parent (regardless of sex) and those that are single parent household by choice and those that are single parent households without an involved and supportive co-parent. These are three different types of issues and more than likely have different outcomes.

Why are women choosing to get pregnant with such irresponsible men? Perhaps our values are all wrong. Why not question our priorities?

Why exactly aren’t these valid questions?
Why ignore the source of the problem? sp

Because what, exactly, are you going to do about that on a societal level? Shoulda, coulda, woulda isn’t a solution.

Recognize that we currently subsidize those choices, and push for other incentives.

Tell us what “choices” we “subsidize.”

Keep in mind that all social welfare benefits in the U.S. pale in comparison to those available in Scandinavian countries.

Sounds like you're aware of them already. Would women choose differently if those options were not available?

Of course.

Provide other incentives. That can be everything from tax policy, social shaming, or even crazier options like raising by the state.

Choices have consequences, unless you believe that women lack agency which is the most misogynistic thing I can think of.

You are absolutely sick in the head.

What are the best interests of the child? If single motherhood is a serious problem like the OP alleges, then a broad array of options should be discussed.

Shame is a powerful motivator. CPS should also be a powerful motivator for people to take care of their children.

Shame of what, exactly? Why do you hate mothers raising their children so much?

[Anonymous]

People would rather see children starve so that they can own the libs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the percentage of families with a single mother?

That percentage is not sustainable. Father figures are important.

You see the effects on society today.

Don't reward single patenting. Staying together is sometimes difficult, but single parenting of close to 50% is not acceptable either. An abusive relationship is a different subject altogether.

But the outcomes are not as good as two parent families in the aggregate.

So I wouldn't cut out subsidies, but I would cut them back and make it less attractive.

How many absent father households are the choice of the mother raising the child(ren)? He is absent because of the father- whether that be choice, jail, disinterest, another family, etc. You are punishing women and children for the choices of the male. Super on brand for our culture but nonetheless deplorable. And two parents don't have to be married or live together to raise a child. Data must separate between single parent households with an involved and financially supportive co-parent (regardless of sex) and those that are single parent household by choice and those that are single parent households without an involved and supportive co-parent. These are three different types of issues and more than likely have different outcomes.

Why are women choosing to get pregnant with such irresponsible men? Perhaps our values are all wrong. Why not question our priorities?

Why exactly aren’t these valid questions?
Why ignore the source of the problem? sp

Because what, exactly, are you going to do about that on a societal level? Shoulda, coulda, woulda isn’t a solution.

Recognize that we currently subsidize those choices, and push for other incentives.

Tell us what “choices” we “subsidize.”

Keep in mind that all social welfare benefits in the U.S. pale in comparison to those available in Scandinavian countries.

Sounds like you're aware of them already. Would women choose differently if those options were not available?

Of course.

Provide other incentives. That can be everything from tax policy, social shaming, or even crazier options like raising by the state.

Choices have consequences, unless you believe that women lack agency which is the most misogynistic thing I can think of.

You are absolutely sick in the head.

What are the best interests of the child? If single motherhood is a serious problem like the OP alleges, then a broad array of options should be discussed.

Shame is a powerful motivator. CPS should also be a powerful motivator for people to take care of their children.

Shame of what, exactly? Why do you hate mothers raising their children so much?

Shame and shunning are generally speaking how social norms are enforced unless you have some sort of morality police running around.

Shame in this case stigmatizes certain choices, and incentivizes either not choosing to produce a child, or not commiting to a long term relationship that provides more opportunities to reduce the burdens of raising a child, financially and time wise.

I have expressed no hate for single mothers, but we as a society owe it to their children to provide the best upbringing we can. You appear to be focused on the mother rather than the child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i don’t see it as a problem. The problem is the lack of money and lack of support single mothers are given.

Single mothers are demonized because they are women.

If most single parents were men they would be given support and accolades.

Misogyny is a lot deeper than people realize.

Yes, it is not a problem in and of itself. But I suspect what OP actually wants to talk about is single poor (black?) woman motherhood.

The solutions are multifactorial. One is clear, early, open sex education (and generally a good education) and free and easily available means to prevent pregnancy. Of course this is all against what the religious powers want - So decrease the power religion holds.
Work against the persistence of generational poverty. Track down the boys/men, genetic testing and lifelong support for the child. Males need to be accountable, every time, all the time. Birth control must be in both of your hands, don’t take anyone’s word for it. You are playing with a new life, take it seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:what solutions do you propose?

Duh, ask Asian Americans or Hispanics.

They are doing it, not rocket science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what solutions do you propose?

Duh, ask Asian Americans or Hispanics.

They are doing it, not rocket science.

Single motherhood is very high among Hispanics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what solutions do you propose?

Duh, ask Asian Americans or Hispanics.

They are doing it, not rocket science.

Single motherhood is very high among Hispanics.

There's also multigenerational living and a large community to help. Going at it alone is a bad idea.