View Full Version : NYT: 2 parent families do better.
Who knew?....
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/us/two-classes-in-america-divided-by-i-do.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig
One of the most important arguments for marriage equality, equal pay for equal work, and an end to sexism, which defines gender roles as women parent, men abandon, etc.
Seems to me it is 2 INCOME familes do better, not 2 Parent. Unless of course one of the parents makes loads of money.
There was a peculiar thread here a few years ago. How I remember it (who knows if that's really how it went) is that this topic was being discussed and I commented on the popularity of purposeful single motherhood, no dads in the picture, as a lifestyle. I was seeing a rash of that back then, outside of ghetto culture where it is rife, of course.
What was odd is that several posters responded saying essentially that they didn't see this, that women were not purposely choosing this role, that few go into motherhood with the stated goal of cutting dads out of the picture. That is BS.
I disagreed then and still do. It's what I am seeing: planned pregnancies with no real interest on the part of mom to keep dad involved in the kid's life. These moms are not professional career women, they will live hand to mouth for the rest of their lives due to this and probably future poor decisions. It's a really bad idea, girls. Wonder when they will get that since surely we've been educating young women about birth control now for how many decades?
It seems pretty obvious that you need money and a strong support system to raise children; I don't know why that's so difficult for some to grasp.
"Wonder when the'y will get that since surely we've been educating young women about birth control now for how many decades?"
But we romanticize motherhood, glorify unbridled (read "unprotected") passion, and demonize abortion. Result: unhappy, disadvantaged children.
Two people of whatever gender that are committed to a relationship and children would probably always do better than a single. Simply to have the other person to be support and to turn to in times of need. Doesnt matter who parents or works or how it is shared. It simply is better or maybe easier to have two instead of one.
Seems like a made up filler article.
rosarugosa
7-15-12, 6:40pm
Bae: Thanks for sharing. I actually thought it was really interesting to see the demographic trends over the years. Yes, we've all heard that two heads are better than one, united we stand and there is strength in numbers, but apparently many who are starting families in this country don't realize the implications these choices have for them and their children. I wonder if we're teaching this stuff in the schools, probably at junior high level, with the message being don't do this because your life will be the worse for it and the lives of your children as well?
jennipurrr
7-15-12, 9:56pm
Seems to me it is 2 INCOME familes do better, not 2 Parent. Unless of course one of the parents makes loads of money.
I have to disagree with this statement...I believe that a family with a stay at home parent can accomplish much more even with the same income as a single parent (assuming middle class income, not hand to mouth). The SAHP relieves a lot of the time constraints to be involved with the kids activities and also allows for increased frugality by avoiding the cost of day care and having time to make home cooked meals (simplistic, but you know, they have time to run the house). It seems to me that two (+) adults as a built in support system for raising a family are much more stable than one, whether they are spouses, multigenerational folks in one home, etc.
Perhaps a mandatory 24-hour marathon of Teen Mom would do the trick (what a sad cautionary tale that is), accompanied by a roomful of Baby Cries-alot, or Baby ThinkItOver, or whatever that little surrogate was called.
iris lily
7-16-12, 12:00am
Bae: Thanks for sharing. I actually thought it was really interesting to see the demographic trends over the years. Yes, we've all heard that two heads are better than one, united we stand and there is strength in numbers, but apparently many who are starting families in this country don't realize the implications these choices have for them and their children. I wonder if we're teaching this stuff in the schools, probably at junior high level, with the message being don't do this because your life will be the worse for it and the lives of your children as well?
I don't blame schools, this is family culture and values stuff. That why the underclass continue with having too many babies without adequate income to support them, it's the done thing there, it's their culture.
Sure, if schools wish to throw in some of the fringe things such as budgeting for a household (we covered that in HomeEc where it went in one ear and out the other) and family economics, etc, that's fine with me, but I don't think it really belongs there as an effective and motivating tool. This education is dinner table conversation where family members trade news of the day and share experiences, that's where culture and values are internalized.
iris lily
7-16-12, 12:47am
I...But we romanticize motherhood, glorify unbridled (read "unprotected") passion, and demonize abortion. Result: unhappy, disadvantaged children.
Well, I think that single motherhood is glorified in our society.
iris lily
7-16-12, 12:55am
I thought that this paragraph from the OP's article was interesting:
Forty years ago, the top and middle income thirds had virtually identical family patterns: more than 95 percent of households with children in either tier had two parents in the home. Since then the groups have diverged, according to Mr. Western and Ms. Shollenberger: 88 percent at the top have two parents, but just 71 percent do in the middle.
“Things remained extremely stable in the top third,” Mr. Western said. “The middle is increasingly suffering some of the same disadvantages as the bottom
Well, I think that single motherhood is glorified in our society.
Where are the fathers?
Where are the fathers?
Marginalized?
Marginalized?
I think that's often a problem. The combination of the sexual revolution and the institution of the "great society" in the 60's certainly had some, perhaps, un-intended consequences.
I worked with pregnant & parenting teens as a social worker, in the early 90's, and in a rural community. I dedicated a lot of time making sure teen fathers were connected to their babies. They were terrified! I can see why one would view them as marginalized, but the questions are, if this is so, by whom, and why?
I don't understand why the sexual revolution & Great Society tenants would marginalize teen dads. What's your thinking, Alan? I do believe that any male who chooses to have sex with a female needs to wear a condom NO MATTER WHAT OR WITH WHOM unless he plans to support a child.
I don't understand why the sexual revolution & Great Society tenants would marginalize teen dads. What's your thinking, Alan?
Without limiting the problem to teen dads, I think it's fairly obvious that the sexual revolution of the 60's and President Johnson's simultaneous "Great Society" efforts greatly changed the social fabric of the nation, to the detriment of the nuclear family. Several generations of governmental subsidies promoting single parent households eventually creates a new norm.
I do believe that any male who chooses to have sex with a female needs to wear a condom NO MATTER WHAT OR WITH WHOM unless he plans to support a child.
I agree. I also think that any female having sex should seriously consider the consequences. It's not like a huge mystery anymore.
Without limiting the problem to teen dads, I think it's fairly obvious that the sexual revolution of the 60's and President Johnson's simultaneous "Great Society" efforts greatly changed the social fabric of the nation, to the detriment of the nuclear family. Several generations of governmental subsidies promoting single parent households eventually creates a new norm.
I agree. I also think that any female having sex should seriously consider the consequences. It's not like a huge mystery anymore.
Hahaha! Agreed, as it is not a mystery. I do disagree with your stance about the sexual revolution. From my perspective, that was a part of women taking charge of our lives. I am old enough to recall the strictures of the 50's, and they were not humane for either gender. I'm not so sure the nuclear family model is best, either, though I do have a bias towards kids being raised by both parents. As a stepmom, I have seen firsthand what the impact is on kids when their parents divorce and struggle.
All in all, I strongly believe that teen dads need & deserve to be with their babies, and that their children deserve to have a father. Teen parents of both genders also need tons of support to parent well.
iris lily
7-17-12, 12:09am
Hahaha! Agreed, as it is not a mystery. I do disagree with your stance about the sexual revolution. From my perspective, that was a part of women taking charge of our lives. I am old enough to recall the strictures of the 50's, and they were not humane for either gender. I'm not so sure the nuclear family model is best, either, though I do have a bias towards kids being raised by both parents. As a stepmom, I have seen firsthand what the impact is on kids when their parents divorce and struggle.
All in all, I strongly believe that teen dads need & deserve to be with their babies, and that their children deserve to have a father. Teen parents of both genders also need tons of support to parent well.
I am not talking about teenage mothers, I'm talking about adults who choose to get pregnant, or who do precious little to stop it, by men who they don't seem to value as fathers for their children.
I am not talking about teenage mothers, I'm talking about adults who choose to get pregnant, or who do precious little to stop it, by men who they don't seem to value as fathers for their children.
And I wonder again, where are the fathers? My husband's ex-wife left him for an abuser, and my husband fought for his kids. I watched her do everything she could to try to cross him out of their lives, and while he initially backed off to lower the conflict temperature, when it became apparent that they were in a dangerous situation, he stepped up, and we got custody.
I wonder about men who have babies with women they're not emotionally connected to. Do they think about their children? I cannot imagine choosing single parenthood... Of course, I also have an education, which is the single best way to make sure women plan their pregnancies and limit family size. And in most countries, social security is had by having large families in the hopes that some of one's children will survive to adulthood, and support the elders.
I have a neighbor whose 15 year old daughter's best friend is a young mom. I am guessing she's 16 or 17. I recently heard her toddler fussing & crying a lot, so went over on a pretense to meet the child & make sure she was ok. Her mom was distractedly attentive, and the baby is in that early toddler clingy phase. Leslie, the mom, told me she wanted her daughter to go everywhere with her, and never be independent. I read this as Leslie getting her needs met by her child - not so surprising, since she is a teen. I offered to be available as a chilld care person, and she took my number. Interesting, since she just met me... then again, I am friends with the family she's staying with.
I'm rambling... There are so many influences on child bearing; cultural, biological, educational level, community stability, family norms, community norms. How can one tease out any one thread of influence as the dominant one?
"I do disagree with your stance about the sexual revolution. From my perspective, that was a part of women taking charge of our lives. I am old enough to recall the strictures of the 50's, and they were not humane for either gender." (redfox)
I couldn't agree more. IMO though, reproductive responsibility is inextricably entwined with reproductive freedom.
"I do disagree with your stance about the sexual revolution. From my perspective, that was a part of women taking charge of our lives. I am old enough to recall the strictures of the 50's, and they were not humane for either gender." (redfox)
I couldn't agree more. IMO though, reproductive responsibility is inextricably entwined with reproductive freedom.
Absolutely. And, it takes education to know about one's responsibilities & what options exist, as well as a sense of agency in one's life, to know one has a choice about it all. As well as access, which includes affordability.
flowerseverywhere
7-17-12, 1:30pm
as a child in the 50's I did not have any friends whose parents were divorced. Back then you gritted your teeth and stuck with it. Of course, growing up in a violent alcoholic household I am not sure if being poor but unabused and ostracised would have been better than what I went through.
Now of course, anything goes. Despite, all of the progress women have made in wages, breaking through career barriers to become physicians instead of only having the nursing field open, or being the boss instead of the secretary etc. there have been many failures in these societal changes. While many women have stepped up to their potential I have not seen the same in all men. the lucky men are those that realize the sacrifices you make to be there emotionally and financially for your children (regardless of marital status) have gained so much in the process. They are no longer relegated to pacing outside the delivery room but instead from the first second of life can start to be daddies.
There is an insidious demonizing of women in all these articles (only Rush L will come right out and call them sluts) but the undercurrent is the same. But like since the beginning of time, it takes a male and a female to make a baby. Any man can step up and do the right thing, and provide financial, educational and emotional support to their child and I imagine most of these single moms would be happy to receive the help.
I think feminism's greatest triumph, with the help of progressive governance, was the destruction of the father figure.
ApatheticNoMore
7-17-12, 2:41pm
Fathers these days (that are involved in kids lives not the absentee ones) seem EXTREMELY involved in their kids lives. Doting almost (to the degree that I wonder if that's even healthy). Displaying thier kids picture at work, talking about thier kids, and how much they like being parents and how proud they are of it, playing a role that once only a mother would have played, extremely into the fathering thing.
Anyone remember those cold distant world war II era fathers? I do. The greatest man I NEVER KNEW .... oh boy do I relate to that! It's so true. (Men can have kids well into their 50s, that's why I'm a late gen X-er with a world war II era father).
flowerseverywhere, I always proudly told anyone that my parents and inlaws had never divorced and got to 60 years of marriage each. Then after my mom died, I found out my father was her third husband. I almost fainted. The 1940s were very interesting. She was married in 1940, 1944, and 1949. They kept it all a secret for 60 years.
I think feminism's greatest triumph, with the help of progressive governance, was the destruction of the father figure.
And I think that's nonsense.
Asking for equal rights, equal pay and equal consideration does not equal trashing the male part of the equation. Not in my universe at least.
I'm a child of those times and don't recall ever being told that fathers are inferior. Just that mothers were just as good.
As a result of the women's movement, I grew up, as did many women, with a sense of partnership rather than servitude. If "the father figure" means the strong silent man who brought home the bacon then turned on the TV, leaving parenting to the woman of the house, then RIP.
...
Anyone remember those cold distant world war II era fathers? I do. The greatest man I NEVER KNEW .... oh boy do I relate to that! It's so true. (Men can have kids well into their 50s, that's why I'm a late gen X-er with a world war II era father).
Absolutely--"the greatest man I never knew" sums it up perfectly. Mine really was exemplary in many, many ways but he might as well have lived on another planet.
And I think that's nonsense.
Asking for equal rights, equal pay and equal consideration does not equal trashing the male part of the equation. Not in my universe at least.
I'm a child of those times and don't recall ever being told that fathers are inferior. Just that mothers were just as good.
As a result of the women's movement, I grew up, as did many women, with a sense of partnership rather than servitude. If "the father figure" means the strong silent man who brought home the bacon then turned on the TV, leaving parenting to the woman of the house, then RIP.
In Dubious Conceptions, Kristin Luker discusses the effect of feminism on teenage women's choices to bear children, both in and out of wedlock. She says that, as childbearing out of wedlock has become more socially acceptable, young women, especially poor young women, while not bearing children at a higher rate than in the 1950s, now see less of a reason to get married before having children. Her explanation for this is that the economic prospects for poor men are slim, hence poor women have a low chance of finding a husband who will be able to provide reliable financial support.
Throw in a social welfare centered form of governance which provides subsidies for those same young women, especially if there is no spouse, and the result is what we see today.
flowerseverywhere
7-17-12, 7:10pm
Throw in a social welfare centered form of governance which provides subsidies for those same young women, especially if there is no spouse, and the result is what we see today.
so it is the governments fault? Fathers have no responsibility?
PS that book looks good, can't wait to read it.
so it is the governments fault? Fathers have no responsibility?
No, of course not. We've simply built a society wherein they're not seen as necessary by some when a simple "baby-daddy" will do. And, we've lost the ability to stigmatize the lack of responsibility they show. It's now cultural.
I think feminism's greatest triumph, with the help of progressive governance, was the destruction of the father figure.
I think one of the effects of feminism on men has been the inclusion of fathers in the lives of their children, from being in the birthing room to changing diapers, to advocating for shared custody in a divorce. The father figure is mythic, and I believe that the qualities of this mythic figure can be embodied by all genders.
I'd love to know, Alan, what the father figure is to you. What does it include? I know my own father, who just turned 85, is an important person to me, and I am honored when I notice his qualities manifest in me.
The father figure is mythic, and I believe that the qualities of this mythic figure can be embodied by all genders. So Irina Dunn was right when she said "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle."?
I'd love to know, Alan, what the father figure is to you. What does it include? I know my own father, who just turned 85, is an important person to me, and I am honored when I notice his qualities manifest in me.
After 36 years of marriage, 34 years as a father and over a decade as a grandfather, I can only say that this father is more than a figure. If you're looking for qualities, I'd say that unconditional love, patience, support and influence are the most important things a father can give his children.
iris lily
7-17-12, 10:01pm
flowerseverywhere, I always proudly told anyone that my parents and inlaws had never divorced and got to 60 years of marriage each. Then after my mom died, I found out my father was her third husband. I almost fainted. The 1940s were very interesting. She was married in 1940, 1944, and 1949. They kept it all a secret for 60 years.
I'm sure that you WERE shocked! That's a funny story.
iris lily
7-17-12, 10:07pm
Asking for equal rights, equal pay and equal consideration does not equal trashing the male part of the equation. Not in my universe at least.
I'm a child of those times and don't recall ever being told that fathers are inferior. Just that mothers were just as good.
....
And that women can do anything, including total parenting. That wasn't the message back in my day of feminism, but it is now. The progressive message, well, progressed.
I blame Helen Reddy.:D
flowerseverywhere
7-17-12, 10:11pm
No, of course not. We've simply built a society wherein they're not seen as necessary by some when a simple "baby-daddy" will do. And, we've lost the ability to stigmatize the lack of responsibility they show. It's now cultural.
so how can that change for those for whom it is cultural? If tomorrow all social services were ended, what would happen? If they were tapered down and ended in ten years what would happen? In societies where there are no social services are women celibate until married and are there no unwed pregnancies?
When history is written about this time in hindsight what will be written of Elvis and the Beatles? birth control, or the sexual revolution and legal abortion? Giving the vote to women or African Americans? What about the Catholic church and Penn State scandals? Or Elliot Spitzer and John Edwards and others of their ilk? About the number of people we have put to death with the death penalty? The internet Television and it's influence on youth and adults alike? I think it is so complicated what has happened to society, the changes have been immense. there is no simple answer, except it is a given that the original hypothesis, that a family that has two adult financially and emotionally contributing to a family is bound to do better than those that don't fit the mold.
ApatheticNoMore
7-17-12, 10:37pm
There is no simple answer, except it is a given that the original hypothesis, that a family that has two adult financially and emotionally contributing to a family is bound to do better than those that don't fit the mold.
If you are comparing apples to apples yea (which is maybe what you mean by emotionally contributing), a functional single parent family compared to a functional two parent family, the two parent would probably be better. But when you start comparing say a good single parent family to a chaotic and abusive two parent family, I'm not really sure the two parent wins. And there are plenty of dysfunctional families of all types all over the place, of course.
So Irina Dunn was right when she said "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle."?
After 36 years of marriage, 34 years as a father and over a decade as a grandfather, I can only say that this father is more than a figure. If you're looking for qualities, I'd say that unconditional love, patience, support and influence are the most important things a father can give his children.
Absolutely! I love that quote. It points to the now-dead assumption that women "need" men to have a complete life & identity. Ditching the two halves make a whole nonsense freed women up to choose men to be willing and equally valued partners, and frees both up from confining stereotypes and imposed role expectations. In my life & marriage, we each know that we're both free to choose how we partner & parent; with that freedom & acceptance of our whole selves, my baking bread while my husband digs out the patio are not roles defined by external drivers. They are choices, because some days he bakes & I dig. The most imortant backdrop to this is that we are equally committed to each other & to our family. It all gets done, eventually!
Yes, fathers are real people, not figures, thank goodness! Real, complex people, not Head of the Household, Master of the Universe, Father Knows Best, etc. The qualities you list make me tear up... they are exactly what I think of as well.
Fathers these days (that are involved in kids lives not the absentee ones) seem EXTREMELY involved in their kids lives. Doting almost (to the degree that I wonder if that's even healthy). Displaying thier kids picture at work, talking about thier kids, and how much they like being parents and how proud they are of it, playing a role that once only a mother would have played, extremely into the fathering thing.
Anyone remember those cold distant world war II era fathers? I do. The greatest man I NEVER KNEW .... oh boy do I relate to that! It's so true. (Men can have kids well into their 50s, that's why I'm a late gen X-er with a world war II era father).
My father was a world war 2 era father, and he was the kindest, most loving father possible.
I adored him.
Good thing he was, too, as my mother was an extremely cold, unloving woman, so I at least had my dad to love me.
All things being equal, I think two parents are better than one, but what struck me, is that the focus of the articles was about raising boys. There was little mention of the two girls of the single mother, aside from the one daughter's friend who raided their pantry. Does that matter as much? Are girls easier to raise by single mother? Or maybe the Aspbergers the boy had made it even harder? Just curious. I do not have any boys of my own. My only experience is vicariously though friends and acquaintances. Given what I see, raising girls is a cakewalk.
rosarugosa
7-18-12, 8:57pm
No, of course not. We've simply built a society wherein they're not seen as necessary by some when a simple "baby-daddy" will do. And, we've lost the ability to stigmatize the lack of responsibility they show. It's now cultural.
Alan, This is something I've pondered with no successful resolution in my mind. I would not have us return to the days of scarlet letters, but it seems that we've become so accepting of single parenthood that it almost could be said that we encourage it. And the old social sanctions were cruel to the children who were entirely blameless. I would have hoped education (not necessarily higher education, just decent public school curriculum) would have helped prevent most from making such a poor choice, but that doesn't really seem to be working. The single mothers that I know work hard and are very devoted to their children, but I always wonder why someone would choose such a difficult path for themselves and the kids they are so devoted to. I'll also mention that I'm childless by choice and only have a theoretical understanding of the appeal of parenthood under the best of conditions, so it's especially difficult for me to understand why anyone would choose single parenthood.
I agree with you, rosarugosa.
But it doesn't seem to serve anyone to generalize about "the way things are," (which there's a bit of on this thread). There are
two parent families that are strong and stable,
two parent families that are awful/abusive/miserable but stay together "for the sake of the children",
one-parent families that were an accident, or where the mother/child were abandoned,
one-parent families that were the result of a "good" divorce (from a bad situation for the child) or a "bad" divorce (marriage taken lightly)
one-parent families that were premeditated.........
and on and on and on.
I don't know that there is any one trend that can make me say, "THIS is how America is today, and it sucks!" or "It's great!". People can argue about it 'til the cows come home, but it's just not that black and white.
But in a perfect world, I personally -- imho -- think two strong, committed, stable parents might raise the most well-adjusted and healthy kids, especially if their lifestyle is such that one or both parents have the luxury of spending a lot of time helping the kids grow and understand the world. I would not choose parenthood of any other flavor. But I can only speak for myself.
The single mothers that I know work hard and are very devoted to their children, but I always wonder why someone would choose such a difficult path for themselves and the kids they are so devoted to.
This is also a question that has been nagging at me since i read that article. I really respect the single mom in the story for many things she has done, but the nagging question is WHY after being surprised by her first pregnancy at 17/18 and having to drop out of school did she choose to have TWO MORE kids with someone who was clearly not a reliable partner? While they were living with family and clearly struggling both in their relationship and in their financial life? OK, maybe all of the kids were due to birth control failures, or maybe she really did believe that having more kids would make her partner love her more, but still. I remember how much DH and I wrestled with the decision about when to start a family. Both of us are extremely risk averse, so we were pretty much on the same page -- we waited until we'd established ourselves a bit in our first professional positions before we took that leap. And we didn't take the decision to have a second lightly, either. Maybe we tend to overthink everything, but our family, like our professional development, was something we actively planned. And while we definitely love each other and have a strong emotional bond, I do recognize that one of the things that keeps us together and keeps us working on our relationship is the responsibility that comes with having those kids, including the financial responsibility. We have enough assets and skills that we would probably both be fine were we to divorce, but we certainly wouldn't be in the great position we are now (where we are essentially saving 40-50% of our annual income). While I am all in favor of people pursing their true calling, self-actualizing, etc., I think there is a really skewed fantasy about marriage prevalent in our society today. Look at the ridiculous amount some people spend on weddings in comparison to what they probably spend on pre-marriage counselling (including financial counselling). The drama/show/emotional aspect of things is given priority over the practical, down-to-earth, how are we goign to make this work aspect. And then things blow up in 2-7 years for many people, after kids have arrived, and there is no plan or financial foundation to fall back on. I'm not saying people should stay in unhappy marriages. But I do wonder how much effort goes into preventing the disintegration of a relationship.
lhamo
Statistically one particular model may do better than the others. But when you come down to individual situations, you're dealing with individuals and not statistics, and I think that kind of all goes out the window.
If everyone was exactly the same and in the same circumstances, applying one model of family to everyone might work. But we're not.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.