Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like the most obvious conclusion ever

except it's kids in homes with men that are most abused. I mean sure, they might have more money but they are more likely to be beaten or raped

“Men,” not DAD, as in the kid’s biological father. Huge difference.

Yes, mom's boyfriend is the biggest risk to the kids. Not just and man.

+1 Women need to choose their mates very carefully.

Of the male perpetrators, 51% were biological fathers. The second largest group of male perpetrators was nonparents (26%) who included male relatives (12%), male nonrelatives (13%), and those with a combination of nonparental relationships (1%). Boyfriends accounted for 10% and stepfathers for 8%.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is stupid

I was raised in a Catholic area on Long Island. everyone had like 12 kids no divorces omg

Well my single mother of four .( Dad was a complete shit.)Raised four great kids pulled us out of Catholic school because abuse was rampant in ours.

Three doctors and a computer scientist. All well adjusted. No one in a cult.

Yeah single mothers rock.

Single mothers don't rock. You were an outlier.

or not, perhaps the OPINION piece is just confused between correlation and causation.

Do you really believe that?

If you read the actual research it says that it all comes down to resources. Women who have an education and resource have the same outcome as 2 parent homes. Also, it says if the woman has resources, but the husband does not bring resources to the marriage, the marriage privilege is erased.

The vast majority of the women raising kids alone don't have the resources. That's why the opinion holds.

Then say that, say poor women who are single parents are not a good thing, but if you have resources being a single mother has not affect on your children's outcome.

Also say being poor is not a good thing because being married and poor is "not a good thing".

Are you slow or something? Why does the obvious need to be pointed out to you?

So you don’t understand the science.

Being poor is bad not being a single parent.

So we should celebrate and encourage poor single parenting because it works out for rich single parents?

We should do research that is responsible.

Being poor is bad for children regardless of their parents marital status.

If women have resources then they should not be compelled to marry simply because they want a child.

Poor people should also not be compelled to have children they can’t afford.

Write an article/book telling poor married people to stop having children because it’s “not good”.

Studies like this stigmatize by generalizing. It really comes down to individual situations, but there is no study money in that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like the most obvious conclusion ever

except it's kids in homes with men that are most abused. I mean sure, they might have more money but they are more likely to be beaten or raped

“Men,” not DAD, as in the kid’s biological father. Huge difference.

Yes, mom's boyfriend is the biggest risk to the kids. Not just and man.

Where do you get your information from?

77% of kids are abused by a parent. "Most child victims are abused by a parent. In 2021, a reported 452,313 perpetrators abused or neglected a child. In substantiated child abuse cases, 77% of children were victimized by a parent."

https://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/media-room/national-statistics-on-child-abuse/

And, men and women abuse kids equally with more women than men:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/418470/number-of-perpetrators-in-child-abuse-cases-in-the-us-by-sex/#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20about%20233%2C918%20perpetrators,compared%20to%20213%2C672%20male%20perpetrators.

Children residing in households with adults unrelated to them were 8 times more likely to die of maltreatment than children in households with 2 biological parents

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11927705/#:~:text=Conclusions%3A%20Children%20living%20in%20households,adults%20live%20in%20the%20home.

That has nothing to do with single parenting.

It could be an uncle in a 2 parent household.

You can still be a single parent with a boyfriend in the house. Much more dangerous than the child's other parent in the house.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like the most obvious conclusion ever

except it's kids in homes with men that are most abused. I mean sure, they might have more money but they are more likely to be beaten or raped

“Men,” not DAD, as in the kid’s biological father. Huge difference.

Yes, mom's boyfriend is the biggest risk to the kids. Not just and man.

+1 Women need to choose their mates very carefully.

Family members are a bigger risk

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is stupid

I was raised in a Catholic area on Long Island. everyone had like 12 kids no divorces omg

Well my single mother of four .( Dad was a complete shit.)Raised four great kids pulled us out of Catholic school because abuse was rampant in ours.

Three doctors and a computer scientist. All well adjusted. No one in a cult.

Yeah single mothers rock.

Single mothers don't rock. You were an outlier.

or not, perhaps the OPINION piece is just confused between correlation and causation.

Do you really believe that?

If you read the actual research it says that it all comes down to resources. Women who have an education and resource have the same outcome as 2 parent homes. Also, it says if the woman has resources, but the husband does not bring resources to the marriage, the marriage privilege is erased.

The vast majority of the women raising kids alone don't have the resources. That's why the opinion holds.

Then say that, say poor women who are single parents are not a good thing, but if you have resources being a single mother has not affect on your children's outcome.

Also say being poor is not a good thing because being married and poor is "not a good thing".

Are you slow or something? Why does the obvious need to be pointed out to you?

So you don’t understand the science.

Being poor is bad not being a single parent.

So we should celebrate and encourage poor single parenting because it works out for rich single parents?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duh. This is something that conservatives already know and have known for years.

Highest rate of single mothers is in conservative states

And do you know why that high rate is true?

Conservative values

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duh. This is something that conservatives already know and have known for years.

Highest rate of single mothers is in conservative states

And do you know why that high rate is true?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like the most obvious conclusion ever

except it's kids in homes with men that are most abused. I mean sure, they might have more money but they are more likely to be beaten or raped

“Men,” not DAD, as in the kid’s biological father. Huge difference.

Yes, mom's boyfriend is the biggest risk to the kids. Not just and man.

+1 Women need to choose their mates very carefully.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is stupid

I was raised in a Catholic area on Long Island. everyone had like 12 kids no divorces omg

Well my single mother of four .( Dad was a complete shit.)Raised four great kids pulled us out of Catholic school because abuse was rampant in ours.

Three doctors and a computer scientist. All well adjusted. No one in a cult.

Yeah single mothers rock.

Single mothers don't rock. You were an outlier.

or not, perhaps the OPINION piece is just confused between correlation and causation.

Do you really believe that?

If you read the actual research it says that it all comes down to resources. Women who have an education and resource have the same outcome as 2 parent homes. Also, it says if the woman has resources, but the husband does not bring resources to the marriage, the marriage privilege is erased.

The vast majority of the women raising kids alone don't have the resources. That's why the opinion holds.

Then say that, say poor women who are single parents are not a good thing, but if you have resources being a single mother has not affect on your children's outcome.

Also say being poor is not a good thing because being married and poor is "not a good thing".

Are you slow or something? Why does the obvious need to be pointed out to you?

So you don’t understand the science.

Being poor is bad not being a single parent.

Anonymous wrote:Duh. This is something that conservatives already know and have known for years.

Highest rate of single mothers is in conservative states

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like the most obvious conclusion ever

except it's kids in homes with men that are most abused. I mean sure, they might have more money but they are more likely to be beaten or raped

“Men,” not DAD, as in the kid’s biological father. Huge difference.

Yes, mom's boyfriend is the biggest risk to the kids. Not just and man.

Where do you get your information from?

77% of kids are abused by a parent. "Most child victims are abused by a parent. In 2021, a reported 452,313 perpetrators abused or neglected a child. In substantiated child abuse cases, 77% of children were victimized by a parent."

https://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/media-room/national-statistics-on-child-abuse/

And, men and women abuse kids equally with more women than men:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/418470/number-of-perpetrators-in-child-abuse-cases-in-the-us-by-sex/#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20about%20233%2C918%20perpetrators,compared%20to%20213%2C672%20male%20perpetrators.

Children residing in households with adults unrelated to them were 8 times more likely to die of maltreatment than children in households with 2 biological parents

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11927705/#:~:text=Conclusions%3A%20Children%20living%20in%20households,adults%20live%20in%20the%20home.

That has nothing to do with single parenting.

It could be an uncle in a 2 parent household.

Duh. This is something that conservatives already know and have known for years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is stupid

I was raised in a Catholic area on Long Island. everyone had like 12 kids no divorces omg

Well my single mother of four .( Dad was a complete shit.)Raised four great kids pulled us out of Catholic school because abuse was rampant in ours.

Three doctors and a computer scientist. All well adjusted. No one in a cult.

Yeah single mothers rock.

Single mothers don't rock. You were an outlier.

or not, perhaps the OPINION piece is just confused between correlation and causation.

Do you really believe that?

If you read the actual research it says that it all comes down to resources. Women who have an education and resource have the same outcome as 2 parent homes. Also, it says if the woman has resources, but the husband does not bring resources to the marriage, the marriage privilege is erased.

The vast majority of the women raising kids alone don't have the resources. That's why the opinion holds.

Then say that, say poor women who are single parents are not a good thing, but if you have resources being a single mother has not affect on your children's outcome.

Also say being poor is not a good thing because being married and poor is "not a good thing".

Are you slow or something? Why does the obvious need to be pointed out to you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like the most obvious conclusion ever

except it's kids in homes with men that are most abused. I mean sure, they might have more money but they are more likely to be beaten or raped

“Men,” not DAD, as in the kid’s biological father. Huge difference.

Yes, mom's boyfriend is the biggest risk to the kids. Not just and man.

Where do you get your information from?

77% of kids are abused by a parent. "Most child victims are abused by a parent. In 2021, a reported 452,313 perpetrators abused or neglected a child. In substantiated child abuse cases, 77% of children were victimized by a parent."

https://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/media-room/national-statistics-on-child-abuse/

And, men and women abuse kids equally with more women than men:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/418470/number-of-perpetrators-in-child-abuse-cases-in-the-us-by-sex/#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20about%20233%2C918%20perpetrators,compared%20to%20213%2C672%20male%20perpetrators.

Children residing in households with adults unrelated to them were 8 times more likely to die of maltreatment than children in households with 2 biological parents

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11927705/#:~:text=Conclusions%3A%20Children%20living%20in%20households,adults%20live%20in%20the%20home.