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

Forum Index » Off-Topic

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

. . . 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. [/quote]

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?[/quote]

It's not the "gist." You can have two parent households and rearing without a marriage. [b]I know people doing it and doing it successfully.[/b] XThe point is, that is not the norm. And the pre-marital sex angle is not really the point. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics