Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of young single grandmothers and aunties raise their grandchildren with single mothers. That’s common in some circles.

This shifts the responsibilities of men (the father) even more squarely onto the shoulders of even more women than just the mother. This is not sustainable for a healthy culture.

It also creates a self-fulfilling cycle of male irresponsibility—Disengaged, low-investment, irresponsible men leave women alone with kids who raise disengaged, irresponsible boys, who grow up into disengaged, irresponsible men that women leave, etc etc. Look at cultural circles where this is de facto the case: their outcomes are abysmal.

We saw evidence of this in the precipitous drop in crime rates in the 90s. Post-Roe v. Wade, women who weren't in a position to raise children well were more likely to get abortions. That led to fewer damaged, irresponsible boys and, therefore, lower crime rates. We should reinstate Roe.

I disagree—all the millenial women complaining presently got married to loser manchildren who were not aborted after Roe. It’s the product of a decimation of moral virtue and cultural values, which is what the pundits are ostensibly trying to restore.

The past was, more or less, a moral hell hole. Just look at how we treated gay people until very recently.

It's not so black and white. Yes as to the treatment of gay people. But in the past, it was, for example, much easier to support a family on one relatively low income. It was easier to pay for housing, medical care (even though it was inferior in many ways), and education. People tended to be more connected to their communities because it was where they were raised, so they had families, friends, churches, and other charitable organizations willing and able to help. Society has become, in many ways, much more cruel generally even as we moreso recognize that it is wrong to mistreat people based on sexual orientation, gender, race, etc.

There are two points getting conflated here that are addressed somewhat in the Politico article. One point is that the people who are dysfunctional or not at all inclined to support a family (e.g., drug addicts, the chronically unemployed by choice) are not the ones who the experts think should be marrying. They shouldn't be having kids, but that's a different issue. We are talking about encouraging people who are otherwise functional people to get married.

The second point is that we should take steps as a society to make it easier to stay married and raise children. There is a LOT of disagreement about what those policies are or even what the policy considerations should be. But no one is suggesting that there are not likely policy solutions to the question of why people don't want to get or stay married.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of young single grandmothers and aunties raise their grandchildren with single mothers. That’s common in some circles.

This shifts the responsibilities of men (the father) even more squarely onto the shoulders of even more women than just the mother. This is not sustainable for a healthy culture.

It also creates a self-fulfilling cycle of male irresponsibility—Disengaged, low-investment, irresponsible men leave women alone with kids who raise disengaged, irresponsible boys, who grow up into disengaged, irresponsible men that women leave, etc etc. Look at cultural circles where this is de facto the case: their outcomes are abysmal.

We saw evidence of this in the precipitous drop in crime rates in the 90s. Post-Roe v. Wade, women who weren't in a position to raise children well were more likely to get abortions. That led to fewer damaged, irresponsible boys and, therefore, lower crime rates. We should reinstate Roe.

I disagree—all the millenial women complaining presently got married to loser manchildren who were not aborted after Roe. It’s the product of a decimation of moral virtue and cultural values, which is what the pundits are ostensibly trying to restore.

The past was, more or less, a moral hell hole. Just look at how we treated gay people until very recently.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of young single grandmothers and aunties raise their grandchildren with single mothers. That’s common in some circles.

This shifts the responsibilities of men (the father) even more squarely onto the shoulders of even more women than just the mother. This is not sustainable for a healthy culture.

It also creates a self-fulfilling cycle of male irresponsibility—Disengaged, low-investment, irresponsible men leave women alone with kids who raise disengaged, irresponsible boys, who grow up into disengaged, irresponsible men that women leave, etc etc. Look at cultural circles where this is de facto the case: their outcomes are abysmal.

We saw evidence of this in the precipitous drop in crime rates in the 90s. Post-Roe v. Wade, women who weren't in a position to raise children well were more likely to get abortions. That led to fewer damaged, irresponsible boys and, therefore, lower crime rates. We should reinstate Roe.

I disagree—all the millenial women complaining presently got married to loser manchildren who were not aborted after Roe. It’s the product of a decimation of moral virtue and cultural values, which is what the pundits are ostensibly trying to restore.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of young single grandmothers and aunties raise their grandchildren with single mothers. That’s common in some circles.

This shifts the responsibilities of men (the father) even more squarely onto the shoulders of even more women than just the mother. This is not sustainable for a healthy culture.

It also creates a self-fulfilling cycle of male irresponsibility—Disengaged, low-investment, irresponsible men leave women alone with kids who raise disengaged, irresponsible boys, who grow up into disengaged, irresponsible men that women leave, etc etc. Look at cultural circles where this is de facto the case: their outcomes are abysmal.

We saw evidence of this in the precipitous drop in crime rates in the 90s. Post-Roe v. Wade, women who weren't in a position to raise children well were more likely to get abortions. That led to fewer damaged, irresponsible boys and, therefore, lower crime rates. We should reinstate Roe.

Anonymous wrote:Marriage is good for society. People share their burdens. Birth, raise and train future citizens. It also tend to lower drinking, drugs, gambling, prostitution etc and people tend to work, save, invest and spend more. Married folks are less likely to get involved in crimes and control their spouse and children's involvement in disorder and crime as well. They tend to provide caregiving for elderly, sick and disabled.

People who drink, do drugs, etc. less are more likely to remain married. People who commit crimes are less likely to get or remain married. If we want more married people, we first need to attack these root causes of unstable, unsuccessful marriages.

Anonymous wrote:How many of the people on here advocating for accepting single parenting as just as good for kids as two-parent households would be appalled if their daughters had one or more kids with absentee fathers? So many hypocrites.

We should make sure abortion is readily available to as many women as possible.

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:Because society is struggling, children are struggling and our birth rate is falling.

That doesn't mean that their ideas will work, but I think that's why it's coming up.

Also, control of women is a priority for some pundit groups.

Agreed. The research is quite clear that children raised in two parent households fair much better, even when controlling for income. It really does a disservice to children and society to ignore reality.

There are serious correlation/causation questions that need to be answered before this tells us very much that we can use.

NP - No, there aren’t. No one reasonable disagrees that children fare better when there are more resources (attention (since neither mommy or daddy is dating other unrelated parties), money (since only paying for 1 household) etc.) going towards their care.

Economist here and I have to agree that that link between correlation and causation is very clear here.

Psychiatrist here, and I agree.
It’s kind of baffling to me that someone can acknowledge that the way children grow up has a profound effect on their adult lives and then, at the same time, say that adults have total and complete agency over their lives.

Those things can not possibly both be true. It’s illogical.

You can't seriously be suggesting that a child in a dysfunctional two parent household is better off than a child raised by a functional single parent.

No one said that.

If a child is in a 2 parent household that is chaotic and full of argument and so forth then it’s okay if the parents divorce because the child will be spared the dysfunction. Okay, no argument there.

On the whole however, studies and stats confirm, OUTCOMES ARE BETTER FOR KIDS (crime, school etc) TO BE RAISED IN A LOVING TWO PARENT HOUSEHOLD THAN IN A SINGLE PARENT HOUSEHOLD. Less incarceration, better everything.

You cant regulate LOVING and STABLE. And that itsnt directly caused by marriage.

Okay. Let me simplify and strip out hyperbole.

Let’s start at a baseline where there is a stable single parent in charge of their child.

And there is another stable couple who are raising a child.

The overwhelming statistics are that the child raised by the couple will have more favorable long term outcomes than the single parent.

The couple doesn’t have to be married, as long as they cohabitate and both contribute to raising the child in a stable environment.

However, if they are married that would probably be beneficial to them from a tax perspective, but that’s another discussion.

So what? It’s not like most people are choosing to be single parents. Most people would choose to be in happy, loving stable relationships.

That doesn’t work out for every person. What’s the point of kicking someone when they’re down?

Stay. On. Topic.

Stop adding emotion into a discussion led by logic and facts.

Two parent households do better. That is the point of my post. No one is punching down at single moms or dads.

And the post was to rebuff a poster who said “western white” (nuclear two person) families could not be shown to produce better outcomes on the whole. That’s false by all credible evidence.

Two parent households do better IF the two parents are both functional adults who get along.

Yes. Again, generally on the whole they are shown to be better. That is the entire point. We all understand what you are saying that there are poor examples. But on the whole better. That’s all.

Well, no. Not exactly. Where you have a situation without two functional adults who get along, often times the couple should not remain together. A lot of times, the pundits who wax poetic about how we need more kids raised by married couples overlook that wrinkle.

Anonymous wrote:Lots of young single grandmothers and aunties raise their grandchildren with single mothers. That’s common in some circles.

This shifts the responsibilities of men (the father) even more squarely onto the shoulders of even more women than just the mother. This is not sustainable for a healthy culture.

It also creates a self-fulfilling cycle of male irresponsibility—Disengaged, low-investment, irresponsible men leave women alone with kids who raise disengaged, irresponsible boys, who grow up into disengaged, irresponsible men that women leave, etc etc. Look at cultural circles where this is de facto the case: their outcomes are abysmal.

Outcomes for children in stable two parent families are >>>>> than single parent families.

Marriage is good for society. People share their burdens. Birth, raise and train future citizens. It also tend to lower drinking, drugs, gambling, prostitution etc and people tend to work, save, invest and spend more. Married folks are less likely to get involved in crimes and control their spouse and children's involvement in disorder and crime as well. They tend to provide caregiving for elderly, sick and disabled.

How many of the people on here advocating for accepting single parenting as just as good for kids as two-parent households would be appalled if their daughters had one or more kids with absentee fathers? So many hypocrites.

Anonymous wrote:Lots of young single grandmothers and aunties raise their grandchildren with single mothers. That’s common in some circles.

And in general, on average, outcomes for these children are worse than in the average two-parent household.

Anonymous wrote:Because society is struggling, children are struggling and our birth rate is falling.

That doesn't mean that their ideas will work, but I think that's why it's coming up.

Also, control of women is a priority for some pundit groups.

They want to push responsibility for poverty and disability off the state and onto individuals.

My sister’s case manager recently suggested that she get married. My sister has an IQ in the 80-85 range. She drives and works in a warehouse and takes low level college classes. She has a rewarding social life. However, she can’t remember to service a car, pay utility bills, or make medical appointments. She needs someone to review her bank account and can’t handle any type of dispute or discrepancy with a business. As an unmarried person born with a disability, she gets SS. If she marries, she’ll lose it probably even if her spouse is also a low income disabled person.

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:Because society is struggling, children are struggling and our birth rate is falling.

That doesn't mean that their ideas will work, but I think that's why it's coming up.

Also, control of women is a priority for some pundit groups.

Agreed. The research is quite clear that children raised in two parent households fair much better, even when controlling for income. It really does a disservice to children and society to ignore reality.

There are serious correlation/causation questions that need to be answered before this tells us very much that we can use.

NP - No, there aren’t. No one reasonable disagrees that children fare better when there are more resources (attention (since neither mommy or daddy is dating other unrelated parties), money (since only paying for 1 household) etc.) going towards their care.

Economist here and I have to agree that that link between correlation and causation is very clear here.

Psychiatrist here, and I agree.
It’s kind of baffling to me that someone can acknowledge that the way children grow up has a profound effect on their adult lives and then, at the same time, say that adults have total and complete agency over their lives.

Those things can not possibly both be true. It’s illogical.

You can't seriously be suggesting that a child in a dysfunctional two parent household is better off than a child raised by a functional single parent.

No one said that.

If a child is in a 2 parent household that is chaotic and full of argument and so forth then it’s okay if the parents divorce because the child will be spared the dysfunction. Okay, no argument there.

On the whole however, studies and stats confirm, OUTCOMES ARE BETTER FOR KIDS (crime, school etc) TO BE RAISED IN A LOVING TWO PARENT HOUSEHOLD THAN IN A SINGLE PARENT HOUSEHOLD. Less incarceration, better everything.

You cant regulate LOVING and STABLE. And that itsnt directly caused by marriage.

Okay. Let me simplify and strip out hyperbole.

Let’s start at a baseline where there is a stable single parent in charge of their child.

And there is another stable couple who are raising a child.

The overwhelming statistics are that the child raised by the couple will have more favorable long term outcomes than the single parent.

The couple doesn’t have to be married, as long as they cohabitate and both contribute to raising the child in a stable environment.

However, if they are married that would probably be beneficial to them from a tax perspective, but that’s another discussion.

So what? It’s not like most people are choosing to be single parents. Most people would choose to be in happy, loving stable relationships.

That doesn’t work out for every person. What’s the point of kicking someone when they’re down?

Stay. On. Topic.

Stop adding emotion into a discussion led by logic and facts.

Two parent households do better. That is the point of my post. No one is punching down at single moms or dads.

And the post was to rebuff a poster who said “western white” (nuclear two person) families could not be shown to produce better outcomes on the whole. That’s false by all credible evidence.

I am on topic.


Two parent households do better. White kids do better. It’s better if you have more money or are more conventionally attractive.

So what?

It’s clear you’ve shifted gears away from actually trying to prove your assertion on “western white” model etc, to an antagonistic, petulant, and flippant stance on all this with your cryptic responses, so discussion is no longer productive. Goodbye!