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:So what is the moral of the story here?
We have immoral men who do not live with the mother of their offspring, or are the mothers bad
Now someone even suggested women should breed for Charity because every adoptee gets guaranteed 2 parent home that will never experience divorce, parental unemployment, disability or end up on welfare

The first step is for society to universally acknowledge the evidence that there are some circumstances that lead to more favorable outcomes statistically. (This doesn’t mean you don’t personally know of exceptions to the ideal. There are, of course, evil people who do evil things in two-parent families and there are exceptionally-successful good people in single parent families…that’s not the point)
The point is that striving to create two-parent families is the best outcome on average for most circumstances and results in positive outcomes for the financial, academic, and socio-emotional well being of the child.
Acceptance and support for families who do not operate in this model for whatever reason is also important for society. But it does society a disservice when we pretend all outcomes for any circumstance are equally desired. It’s okay to have a standard and ideal outcome, figure out the most likely way to achieve that, and promote that as a value.

Or is the point that striving to create better societal supports for single moms the point? As a society we're moving away from marriage as the ideal, and for many good reasons. How do we keep up with changes in a way that prepare the next generation to succeed? After all, they're tomorrow's leaders.

Whatever the government does - it can't compensate for not having two parents in terms of possibility of having two earners and possibility of splitting the labor of raising kids.

Two parents in the home does not guarantee two incomes or equitable division of labor.

That is true - but it's more likely

It doesn't have to be equitable. Even if the division of labor was 10% to 90% it's better than 1 person bearing 100% of the burden.

No because it’s 90% of a lot and 100% of less. Plus there is no man child to care for and ego stroke which is a ton of time suck for married women.

It’s all around easier for women when men are not in the picture.

Well I guess that's not what the data shows here.

What data?

The data that it the premise of this thread - and shown in the original post on page 1.

The data that is the premise of this thread is that single women with resources and married people with resources both have successful children. There is no difference in the success of a child based on marital status.

That is the data from the woman who wrote the oped in the New York Times

This is the data from the article I am reading that was linked in the OP:
"This is not a positive development. The evidence is overwhelming: Children from single-parent homes have more behavioral problems, are more likely to get in trouble in school or with the law, achieve lower levels of education and tend to earn lower incomes in adulthood. Boys from homes without dads present are particularly prone to getting in trouble in school or with the law."

I wonder if two parent lesbian families counted as “two parent families” or “homes without dads” in her research.

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:So what is the moral of the story here?
We have immoral men who do not live with the mother of their offspring, or are the mothers bad
Now someone even suggested women should breed for Charity because every adoptee gets guaranteed 2 parent home that will never experience divorce, parental unemployment, disability or end up on welfare

The first step is for society to universally acknowledge the evidence that there are some circumstances that lead to more favorable outcomes statistically. (This doesn’t mean you don’t personally know of exceptions to the ideal. There are, of course, evil people who do evil things in two-parent families and there are exceptionally-successful good people in single parent families…that’s not the point)
The point is that striving to create two-parent families is the best outcome on average for most circumstances and results in positive outcomes for the financial, academic, and socio-emotional well being of the child.
Acceptance and support for families who do not operate in this model for whatever reason is also important for society. But it does society a disservice when we pretend all outcomes for any circumstance are equally desired. It’s okay to have a standard and ideal outcome, figure out the most likely way to achieve that, and promote that as a value.

Or is the point that striving to create better societal supports for single moms the point? As a society we're moving away from marriage as the ideal, and for many good reasons. How do we keep up with changes in a way that prepare the next generation to succeed? After all, they're tomorrow's leaders.

Whatever the government does - it can't compensate for not having two parents in terms of possibility of having two earners and possibility of splitting the labor of raising kids.

Two parents in the home does not guarantee two incomes or equitable division of labor.

That is true - but it's more likely

It doesn't have to be equitable. Even if the division of labor was 10% to 90% it's better than 1 person bearing 100% of the burden.

No because it’s 90% of a lot and 100% of less. Plus there is no man child to care for and ego stroke which is a ton of time suck for married women.

It’s all around easier for women when men are not in the picture.

Well I guess that's not what the data shows here.

What data?

The data that it the premise of this thread - and shown in the original post on page 1.

The data that is the premise of this thread is that single women with resources and married people with resources both have successful children. There is no difference in the success of a child based on marital status.

That is the data from the woman who wrote the oped in the New York Times

This is the data from the article I am reading that was linked in the OP:
"This is not a positive development. The evidence is overwhelming: Children from single-parent homes have more behavioral problems, are more likely to get in trouble in school or with the law, achieve lower levels of education and tend to earn lower incomes in adulthood. Boys from homes without dads present are particularly prone to getting in trouble in school or with the law."

That’s not research or data, it’s an opinion piece.

The data which can be found on her website shows that it is related to resources not marital status.

The research is children from single parent homes below the poverty level have more behavioral issues than children from two parent homes above the poverty level.

Conversely, the research shows single parents from a home above the poverty level, do better than children from two parent homes below the poverty level.

When corrected for income, the outcome is the same.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, one good parent is better than two bad parents but its not equal to or better than two good parents.

Actually the research says it is equal, it depends on resources.

Two good poor parents are worse than 1 good UMC mom.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to adequately and accurately prepare people for marriage and the rigors of family life. You know - bring people down to reality. I think Americans have a very ambitious view of marriage and partnership that rarely aligns with reality - hence so many are absolutely miserable. We need to better prepare young people for being heads of household. Our current navel-gazing/everyone is special/take me as I am/fragile culture is doing nobody any favors.

THIS IS THE ANSWER.

Women are prepared for marriage and raising children. As a matter fact, they’re extremely prepared to raise children without men.

The problem is, there are not enough men who are prepared for the job to marry.

No. This is a couple's issue not just a husband issue.

No. It’s a husband issue.

If it was a problem that involved women there would be a ton of single dads.

Yes, one good parent is better than two bad parents but its not equal to or better than two good parents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to adequately and accurately prepare people for marriage and the rigors of family life. You know - bring people down to reality. I think Americans have a very ambitious view of marriage and partnership that rarely aligns with reality - hence so many are absolutely miserable. We need to better prepare young people for being heads of household. Our current navel-gazing/everyone is special/take me as I am/fragile culture is doing nobody any favors.

THIS IS THE ANSWER.

Women are prepared for marriage and raising children. As a matter fact, they’re extremely prepared to raise children without men.

The problem is, there are not enough men who are prepared for the job to marry.

No. This is a couple's issue not just a husband issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the moral of the story here?
We have immoral men who do not live with the mother of their offspring, or are the mothers bad
Now someone even suggested women should breed for Charity because every adoptee gets guaranteed 2 parent home that will never experience divorce, parental unemployment, disability or end up on welfare

The first step is for society to universally acknowledge the evidence that there are some circumstances that lead to more favorable outcomes statistically. (This doesn’t mean you don’t personally know of exceptions to the ideal. There are, of course, evil people who do evil things in two-parent families and there are exceptionally-successful good people in single parent families…that’s not the point)
The point is that striving to create two-parent families is the best outcome on average for most circumstances and results in positive outcomes for the financial, academic, and socio-emotional well being of the child.
Acceptance and support for families who do not operate in this model for whatever reason is also important for society. But it does society a disservice when we pretend all outcomes for any circumstance are equally desired. It’s okay to have a standard and ideal outcome, figure out the most likely way to achieve that, and promote that as a value.

Or is the point that striving to create better societal supports for single moms the point? As a society we're moving away from marriage as the ideal, and for many good reasons. How do we keep up with changes in a way that prepare the next generation to succeed? After all, they're tomorrow's leaders.

Whatever the government does - it can't compensate for not having two parents in terms of possibility of having two earners and possibility of splitting the labor of raising kids.

Two parents in the home does not guarantee two incomes or equitable division of labor.

That is true - but it's more likely

It doesn't have to be equitable. Even if the division of labor was 10% to 90% it's better than 1 person bearing 100% of the burden.

No because it’s 90% of a lot and 100% of less. Plus there is no man child to care for and ego stroke which is a ton of time suck for married women.

It’s all around easier for women when men are not in the picture.

Well I guess that's not what the data shows here.

What data?

The data that it the premise of this thread - and shown in the original post on page 1.

The data that is the premise of this thread is that single women with resources and married people with resources both have successful children. There is no difference in the success of a child based on marital status.

That is the data from the woman who wrote the oped in the New York Times

This is the data from the article I am reading that was linked in the OP:
"This is not a positive development. The evidence is overwhelming: Children from single-parent homes have more behavioral problems, are more likely to get in trouble in school or with the law, achieve lower levels of education and tend to earn lower incomes in adulthood. Boys from homes without dads present are particularly prone to getting in trouble in school or with the law."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the moral of the story here?
We have immoral men who do not live with the mother of their offspring, or are the mothers bad
Now someone even suggested women should breed for Charity because every adoptee gets guaranteed 2 parent home that will never experience divorce, parental unemployment, disability or end up on welfare

The first step is for society to universally acknowledge the evidence that there are some circumstances that lead to more favorable outcomes statistically. (This doesn’t mean you don’t personally know of exceptions to the ideal. There are, of course, evil people who do evil things in two-parent families and there are exceptionally-successful good people in single parent families…that’s not the point)
The point is that striving to create two-parent families is the best outcome on average for most circumstances and results in positive outcomes for the financial, academic, and socio-emotional well being of the child.
Acceptance and support for families who do not operate in this model for whatever reason is also important for society. But it does society a disservice when we pretend all outcomes for any circumstance are equally desired. It’s okay to have a standard and ideal outcome, figure out the most likely way to achieve that, and promote that as a value.

Or is the point that striving to create better societal supports for single moms the point? As a society we're moving away from marriage as the ideal, and for many good reasons. How do we keep up with changes in a way that prepare the next generation to succeed? After all, they're tomorrow's leaders.

Whatever the government does - it can't compensate for not having two parents in terms of possibility of having two earners and possibility of splitting the labor of raising kids.

Two parents in the home does not guarantee two incomes or equitable division of labor.

That is true - but it's more likely

It doesn't have to be equitable. Even if the division of labor was 10% to 90% it's better than 1 person bearing 100% of the burden.

No because it’s 90% of a lot and 100% of less. Plus there is no man child to care for and ego stroke which is a ton of time suck for married women.

It’s all around easier for women when men are not in the picture.

Well I guess that's not what the data shows here.

What data?

The data that it the premise of this thread - and shown in the original post on page 1.

The data that is the premise of this thread is that single women with resources and married people with resources both have successful children. There is no difference in the success of a child based on marital status.

That is the data from the woman who wrote the oped in the New York Times

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The traditional 2 parent family with mom and dad married, with no kids from previous relationships is no longer the norm
That has not been the norm for a long time
Ww1 wiped out numerous fathers, as did ww2
In the 60s people started to believe this could be the golden standard
Life has changed with the times and so has the definition of family and even standards for poverty

WWI and WWII wiped out potential fathers. Not actual fathers. What exactly do you think the baby boom was? Also, is the new norm better or worse for children? Are they thriving under this new norm?

You guys are insane. If you think pre-World War I women, we’re not marrying second and third husband.. women weren’t even allowed to own their own property. When a man died, they had to marry someone in order to keep their property.

So yeah, this is not knew that women forced to marry men, and be married because of the way the institution to set up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the moral of the story here?
We have immoral men who do not live with the mother of their offspring, or are the mothers bad
Now someone even suggested women should breed for Charity because every adoptee gets guaranteed 2 parent home that will never experience divorce, parental unemployment, disability or end up on welfare

The first step is for society to universally acknowledge the evidence that there are some circumstances that lead to more favorable outcomes statistically. (This doesn’t mean you don’t personally know of exceptions to the ideal. There are, of course, evil people who do evil things in two-parent families and there are exceptionally-successful good people in single parent families…that’s not the point)
The point is that striving to create two-parent families is the best outcome on average for most circumstances and results in positive outcomes for the financial, academic, and socio-emotional well being of the child.
Acceptance and support for families who do not operate in this model for whatever reason is also important for society. But it does society a disservice when we pretend all outcomes for any circumstance are equally desired. It’s okay to have a standard and ideal outcome, figure out the most likely way to achieve that, and promote that as a value.

Or is the point that striving to create better societal supports for single moms the point? As a society we're moving away from marriage as the ideal, and for many good reasons. How do we keep up with changes in a way that prepare the next generation to succeed? After all, they're tomorrow's leaders.

Whatever the government does - it can't compensate for not having two parents in terms of possibility of having two earners and possibility of splitting the labor of raising kids.

Two parents in the home does not guarantee two incomes or equitable division of labor.

That is true - but it's more likely

It doesn't have to be equitable. Even if the division of labor was 10% to 90% it's better than 1 person bearing 100% of the burden.

I'd take my chances on the alternative if I were in the situation you describe. Everyone has a different ability and or desire to deal with someone else's control issues, disordered personality, abusiveness, or whatever makes the set-up you describe palatable. We are not all the same.

People stay in objectively horrible situations for all kinds of reasons: fear, weakness, love, finances, or maybe they don't like making their own decisions or being alone. Others don't have the same fears, don't see child-rearing as a burden, and are well-resourced to go it alone.

Enough with the broad brush; there are lots of values to aspire to, independence, self-reliance, self-respect, honesty, and autonomy.

When watching my married friends interact, I often have to self-check to ensure my eyes aren't bugging out and my mouth isn't literally agape. Some of the disrespect directed by the more powerful towards, the less powerful partner on open display and being modeled is horrifying.

There is nothing like watching a friend turn crimson at a significant slight lobbed at her/him from a "loving spouse." Trying to recover quickly.

Or having to go on meds just to keep putting one foot in front of the other because what you will do at 22 for love gets increasingly hard as the years pile up and the estrogen levels drop.

No, thank you, one should stay stuck there for what? To model what? To what advantage? So many people are jumping all over the silly book for what? Because what?

Maybe it makes you feel better to compare your not-that-happy and not-that-well-adjusted family to a group of people whose social circumstances started out on a much lower plane than yours and, due to circumstances not having much to do with being a single parent, will stay stuck amongst the lower social classes. Okay.... pat yourselves on the back and say, "See, I did everything right. I got married before I had sex or had children or whatever" "I'm not on welfare, and I am not addicted to crack. I'm a success!"

Many people of lesser means, create lives in which they and their progeny also grow up with lesser means... is that the big newsflash?

How many of you get a family bulk discount at your local pharmacy because of all of the meds you pick up for yourselves and little Larlo/Larla, anti-depressants, ADHD meds, anti-anxiety meds, Xanax, Viagra for DH, and on and on? And yes, if such seemingly well-adjusted married families are creating the ideal setup and modeling family values that are setting your kids on the true correct and right path, then why are so many of them so depressed?

Maybe it's your fault because you are modeling your own next-level dysfunction on a daily basis and calling it normal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to adequately and accurately prepare people for marriage and the rigors of family life. You know - bring people down to reality. I think Americans have a very ambitious view of marriage and partnership that rarely aligns with reality - hence so many are absolutely miserable. We need to better prepare young people for being heads of household. Our current navel-gazing/everyone is special/take me as I am/fragile culture is doing nobody any favors.

THIS IS THE ANSWER.

Women are prepared for marriage and raising children. As a matter fact, they’re extremely prepared to raise children without men.

The problem is, there are not enough men who are prepared for the job to marry.

Anonymous wrote:The traditional 2 parent family with mom and dad married, with no kids from previous relationships is no longer the norm
That has not been the norm for a long time
Ww1 wiped out numerous fathers, as did ww2
In the 60s people started to believe this could be the golden standard
Life has changed with the times and so has the definition of family and even standards for poverty

WWI and WWII wiped out potential fathers. Not actual fathers. What exactly do you think the baby boom was? Also, is the new norm better or worse for children? Are they thriving under this new norm?

The traditional 2 parent family with mom and dad married, with no kids from previous relationships is no longer the norm
That has not been the norm for a long time
Ww1 wiped out numerous fathers, as did ww2
In the 60s people started to believe this could be the golden standard
Life has changed with the times and so has the definition of family and even standards for poverty

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to adequately and accurately prepare people for marriage and the rigors of family life. You know - bring people down to reality. I think Americans have a very ambitious view of marriage and partnership that rarely aligns with reality - hence so many are absolutely miserable. We need to better prepare young people for being heads of household. Our current navel-gazing/everyone is special/take me as I am/fragile culture is doing nobody any favors.

THIS IS THE ANSWER.

As a policy, you think this is the ANSWER to all of the problems with kids? JFC.

Anonymous wrote:We need to adequately and accurately prepare people for marriage and the rigors of family life. You know - bring people down to reality. I think Americans have a very ambitious view of marriage and partnership that rarely aligns with reality - hence so many are absolutely miserable. We need to better prepare young people for being heads of household. Our current navel-gazing/everyone is special/take me as I am/fragile culture is doing nobody any favors.

THIS IS THE ANSWER.