Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This came up many years ago at a policy event at the Reagan building decades ago. Hosted by the Atlantic, a highly regarded policy wonk (from Brookings IIRC) presented all the data supporting two parents are better than one through the lens of lifting kids out of poverty and leading to better outcomes on multiple levels.

All backed up by data, including longitudinal studies.

The upper class policy wonks, advocates, etc went nuts.

“Racist!”

“Not true! I’m a single mom with a big six figure salary and my kids go to (insert big 3 dc school)! You are wrong!”

Um…the poor guy with the data wasn’t wrong. The audience just centered themselves instead of realizing they are the outliers instead of the norm. And more importantly, socioeconomics plays a big role in all outcomes…because money can fix a lot of issues.

LOL, but the data literally says a single mom with resources has the same outcome as a 2 parent family with resources and does better than a 2 parent family without resources.

Right.

Isn’t that what I said?

The well known dc policy wonk advocate in the audience who said the data was both racist and wrong was (1) a divorced woman (2) with a wealthy ex (3) a fancy degree and big job (4) living in a great neighborhood (5) and sending her kids to one of the best private schools.

Of course her kids should have terrific outcomes!!!

But the bulk of the data (and all of the data being presented that day) was focused on single parents and poverty. We all know that two incomes are better than one. We also know that having two loving parents makes an impact…particularly on boys of color.

Research tends to focus on low income or middle class families, not dcum rich people.

I disagree 2 incomes is always better than 1.

Marriages rarely have 2 loving parents, so who knows. Most surgeons are absent parents even if they live in the same house.

Why would you say something like that? So sad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lived and worked in Boston up until recently. So many 40 plus, never married, educated and career focused women I knew just decided to forgo getting married or quit looking for a man and opted for a sperm donor instead. They have a nanny or 2 and see their kids on the weekend. I wonder if one were to compare their kids outcomes to a comparable heterosexual couple (upper middle class or higher, educated with careers) what the main difference would be if any.

the main difference is they have more emotional resources because they don’t have to deal with a DH! only sort of kidding …

anyway, my neighbor just had a baby on her own and I’m pretty sure she’s going to be just fine.

Those poor kids. Growing up with one older parent who couldn't manage to find one other person on the planet to build a life with. Let's hope there are a lot of cousins/extended family so that child is not isolated and completely dependent on that one adult.

The author makes this statement:

The issue is complicated, and solutions will necessarily be multifaceted. Just as scholars, journalists and policymakers acknowledge the need to improve schools and debate various reform ideas, those of us who discuss and debate questions of society and policy should be frank about the advantages of a healthy two-parent home for children and challenge ourselves to come up with ways to promote and support that institution.

I look at this differently. We don't need to promote and support the institution of marriage to achieve the author's goals. We should be concerned about how to reform policy and society so that as many people as possible grow up in healthy home environments with access to quality education and parents (and a supportive community) who have adequate resources and energy to raise them. If we achieve these goals, there will be more healthy, stable children and adults, increasing the likelihood that they will form healthy, stable relationships. When discussing reforms, I would ask why we have a public school system that asks so much of families that kids from single-parent homes and even two-parent homes without sufficient income to have a parent stay a home have trouble succeeding without significant outside support (either family or paid) or extremely flexible work arrangements. Schools have not changed since the days when most women were SAH parents. I take that back, they actually have changed to impose greater demands and expectations on parents, ignoring the fact that most of them work outside of the home. These demands have the greatest impact on parents with less education, less income, and less time and less control over how their time is spent, to the detriment of their children, and often, through no fault of their own.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lived and worked in Boston up until recently. So many 40 plus, never married, educated and career focused women I knew just decided to forgo getting married or quit looking for a man and opted for a sperm donor instead. They have a nanny or 2 and see their kids on the weekend. I wonder if one were to compare their kids outcomes to a comparable heterosexual couple (upper middle class or higher, educated with careers) what the main difference would be if any.

The study shows the children have the same outcome.

…in terms of what can be objectively measured.

But you can’t easily measure whether someone has Daddy issues, trust issues, attachment issues, etc.

Kids raised by happily married parents tend to have the best relationships.

LOL. You are ignoring the actual data in favor of your priors. The truth is there are lots of ways that kids can get messed up, within lots of types of families.

Obviously.

But generally speaking research supports and commonsense dictates that kids tend to fare better when raised in a loving two-parent household.

Money helps.

No research supports kids do best in families with resources having 1 vs 2 parents is irrelevant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This came up many years ago at a policy event at the Reagan building decades ago. Hosted by the Atlantic, a highly regarded policy wonk (from Brookings IIRC) presented all the data supporting two parents are better than one through the lens of lifting kids out of poverty and leading to better outcomes on multiple levels.

All backed up by data, including longitudinal studies.

The upper class policy wonks, advocates, etc went nuts.

“Racist!”

“Not true! I’m a single mom with a big six figure salary and my kids go to (insert big 3 dc school)! You are wrong!”

Um…the poor guy with the data wasn’t wrong. The audience just centered themselves instead of realizing they are the outliers instead of the norm. And more importantly, socioeconomics plays a big role in all outcomes…because money can fix a lot of issues.

LOL, but the data literally says a single mom with resources has the same outcome as a 2 parent family with resources and does better than a 2 parent family without resources.

Right.

Isn’t that what I said?

The well known dc policy wonk advocate in the audience who said the data was both racist and wrong was (1) a divorced woman (2) with a wealthy ex (3) a fancy degree and big job (4) living in a great neighborhood (5) and sending her kids to one of the best private schools.

Of course her kids should have terrific outcomes!!!

But the bulk of the data (and all of the data being presented that day) was focused on single parents and poverty. We all know that two incomes are better than one. We also know that having two loving parents makes an impact…particularly on boys of color.

Research tends to focus on low income or middle class families, not dcum rich people.

I disagree 2 incomes is always better than 1.

Marriages rarely have 2 loving parents, so who knows. Most surgeons are absent parents even if they live in the same house.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lived and worked in Boston up until recently. So many 40 plus, never married, educated and career focused women I knew just decided to forgo getting married or quit looking for a man and opted for a sperm donor instead. They have a nanny or 2 and see their kids on the weekend. I wonder if one were to compare their kids outcomes to a comparable heterosexual couple (upper middle class or higher, educated with careers) what the main difference would be if any.

The study shows the children have the same outcome.

…in terms of what can be objectively measured.

But you can’t easily measure whether someone has Daddy issues, trust issues, attachment issues, etc.

Kids raised by happily married parents tend to have the best relationships.

LOL. You are ignoring the actual data in favor of your priors. The truth is there are lots of ways that kids can get messed up, within lots of types of families.

Obviously.

But generally speaking research supports and commonsense dictates that kids tend to fare better when raised in a loving two-parent household.

Money helps.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, boys in particular who grow up without a father figure tend to replicate that in their own lives. It's a cycle.

I'm not sure how we can support marriage as a society. It seems that all tax advantages go to single moms, but if you cut that off, then you're hurting single moms.

We're talking about two parents, not married couples. Big difference.

Plus most tax advantaged go to married couples.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This came up many years ago at a policy event at the Reagan building decades ago. Hosted by the Atlantic, a highly regarded policy wonk (from Brookings IIRC) presented all the data supporting two parents are better than one through the lens of lifting kids out of poverty and leading to better outcomes on multiple levels.

All backed up by data, including longitudinal studies.

The upper class policy wonks, advocates, etc went nuts.

“Racist!”

“Not true! I’m a single mom with a big six figure salary and my kids go to (insert big 3 dc school)! You are wrong!”

Um…the poor guy with the data wasn’t wrong. The audience just centered themselves instead of realizing they are the outliers instead of the norm. And more importantly, socioeconomics plays a big role in all outcomes…because money can fix a lot of issues.

LOL, but the data literally says a single mom with resources has the same outcome as a 2 parent family with resources and does better than a 2 parent family without resources.

Right.

Isn’t that what I said?

The well known dc policy wonk advocate in the audience who said the data was both racist and wrong was (1) a divorced woman (2) with a wealthy ex (3) a fancy degree and big job (4) living in a great neighborhood (5) and sending her kids to one of the best private schools.

Of course her kids should have terrific outcomes!!!

But the bulk of the data (and all of the data being presented that day) was focused on single parents and poverty. We all know that two incomes are better than one. We also know that having two loving parents makes an impact…particularly on boys of color.

Research tends to focus on low income or middle class families, not dcum rich people.

Anonymous wrote:Also, boys in particular who grow up without a father figure tend to replicate that in their own lives. It's a cycle.

I'm not sure how we can support marriage as a society. It seems that all tax advantages go to single moms, but if you cut that off, then you're hurting single moms.

We're talking about two parents, not married couples. Big difference.

Anonymous wrote:The Independent Women’s Forum has weighed in here:

https://www.iwf.org/2020/09/22/a-blm-vanishing-act-its-webpage-about-disrupting-the-black-nuclear-family-is-gone/

Speaking as a white mother/ cohead of traditional dual parent family, I think this is harsh and misreading the challenges that face many black families led by single mothers (whom I have frequently worked with in DC in the past). I would frame it as dealing with reality as it is rather than as disrupting the black nuclear family model.

Many black single mothers have no choice but to support each other as there are extremely high rates of black men being incarcerated. Black fathers are often absent, probably in part, because their own fathers were absent. There are many efforts within black communities to change that and to encourage biological black fathers to be more involved with their children and taking leadership roles within society. There is an Episcopal school in SE DC devoted to empowering black boys from disadvantaged circumstances so that they do eventually become positive male role models within both families and communities. My understanding is that the main idea is to disrupt cycles of poverty and male absence from many black families. However that takes time to achieve.

BLM movement addresses wide spread systemic racism. I am sure there was disagreement on some of the wording of their objectives. Some of the banter sounded a bit off but that does not mean the cause is not worthy.

I am grateful that my faith community is trying hard to be anti racist and to be part of healing deep divisions in our society based on superficial differences in skin pigmentations. We all have a role to play in healing race based divisions in our society.

Peace.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lived and worked in Boston up until recently. So many 40 plus, never married, educated and career focused women I knew just decided to forgo getting married or quit looking for a man and opted for a sperm donor instead. They have a nanny or 2 and see their kids on the weekend. I wonder if one were to compare their kids outcomes to a comparable heterosexual couple (upper middle class or higher, educated with careers) what the main difference would be if any.

The study shows the children have the same outcome.

…in terms of what can be objectively measured.

But you can’t easily measure whether someone has Daddy issues, trust issues, attachment issues, etc.

Kids raised by happily married parents tend to have the best relationships.

LOL. You are ignoring the actual data in favor of your priors. The truth is there are lots of ways that kids can get messed up, within lots of types of families.

Anonymous wrote:This came up many years ago at a policy event at the Reagan building decades ago. Hosted by the Atlantic, a highly regarded policy wonk (from Brookings IIRC) presented all the data supporting two parents are better than one through the lens of lifting kids out of poverty and leading to better outcomes on multiple levels.

All backed up by data, including longitudinal studies.

The upper class policy wonks, advocates, etc went nuts.

“Racist!”

“Not true! I’m a single mom with a big six figure salary and my kids go to (insert big 3 dc school)! You are wrong!”

Um…the poor guy with the data wasn’t wrong. The audience just centered themselves instead of realizing they are the outliers instead of the norm. And more importantly, socioeconomics plays a big role in all outcomes…because money can fix a lot of issues.

A couple of things:

1) The data shows no statistically significant difference between two-parent families with means and single-parent families with means.

2) Yes, money solves a lot of issues, but poverty also causes a lot of issues. So, the real factor here isn't one-parent versus two-parent households. It's money.

The Independent Women’s Forum has weighed in here:

https://www.iwf.org/2020/09/22/a-blm-vanishing-act-its-webpage-about-disrupting-the-black-nuclear-family-is-gone/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Society already overwhelmingly favors two-parent families in literally everything. That’s why it’s so hard to be a single parent, duh.

This.

You would the think that social pressure was enough to encourage families to stay together, but it’s not. People still choose divorce instead. Look at the advice on the relationship forum. One spouse doesn’t help with chores as much? Divorce. Not as attracted to spouse as you used to be? Divorce. Why are people voluntarily taking the hard road here if it’s so hard?

Anonymous wrote:Society already overwhelmingly favors two-parent families in literally everything. That’s why it’s so hard to be a single parent, duh.

This.