Here's what the left wing Brookings Institute says on the matter:
The effects on children of the increase in single parents is no longer much debated. They do less well in school, are less likely to graduate, and are more likely to be involved in crime, teen pregnancy, and other behaviors that make it harder to succeed in life.
Not every child raised by a single parent will suffer from the experience, but, on average, a lone parent has fewer resources—both time and money—with which to raise a child.
Poverty rates for single-parent families are five times those for married-parent families. … The growth of such families since 1970 has increased the overall child poverty rate by about 5 percentage points (from 20 to 25%). …
Recent research suggests that boys are indeed more affected than girls by the lack of a male role model in the family. If true, this sets the stage for a cycle of poverty in which mother-headed families produce boys who go on to father their own children outside marriage.
That's pretty similar to what the Heritage Foundation says:
According to the U.S. Census, the poverty rate for single parents with children in the United States in 2009 was 37.1%. The rate for married couples with children was 6.8%. Being raised in a married family reduced a child’s probability of living in poverty by about 82%.
Some of this difference in poverty is due to the fact that single parents tend to have less education than married couples, but even when married couples are compared to single parents with the same level of education, the married poverty rate will still be more than 75% lower.
Marriage is a powerful weapon in fighting poverty. In fact, being married has the same effect in reducing poverty that adding five to six years to a parent’s level of education has.
So clearly societies attacks on marriage are a problem. Even worse the Democrats, despite warnings from Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan, structured the welfare system to encourage single parent families.
Why then don't Democrats like Joe Biden push for changes to the welfare system and changing societies views on voluntary single parent families?
Perhaps for the same reason that Joe doesn't talk about the thousands of Blacks shot and murdered each year in Democrat run cities.
5 comments:
None of this is evidence that same sex parents are insufficient. There are numerous studies (including meta-analysis papers) showing no or minimal difference between kids with gay and straight parents.
Further people that opt to be voluntary single parents are likely to be more stable and financially sufficient than people who end up that way by accident. So assuming findings for the latter apply to the former is wrong.
First this article wasn't about gay couples but about the need for a father and a mother, ie not single parent families
Second those studies you cite are full of huge problems one i recall in particular counted on the gay parents to not only self select for the study but also tell the researchers how well the children they were caring for were doing.
Third the point is that kids from single parent families do in fact have a much higher probability of ending up doing drugs, getting pregnant while very young, or being criminals. There are actual reliable studies that show that.
Fourth it's common sense. No matter how much a man loves his kids he can't be a mother--unless of course you're such a misogynist that you think that men can be as good at mother as women are-- and no matter how much a woman loves her kids she can't be a father
> First this article wasn't about gay couples but about the need for a father and a mother, ie not single parent families
Then maybe revise the headline? Because at the moment it excludes gay couples.
> Second those studies you cite are full of huge problems ...
Ah, yes. Trinko the science guy who conveniently disagrees with scientific consensus whenever it conflicts with his political or religious views. You read one study, disliked it and decided all the literature must be bad. This is why I mentioned the existence of meta-analysis studies.
Tell me, do you disagree with scientific consensus when it isn't politically helpful? Do you like randomly believe in big foot? Or think water fluoridation is harmful? Or support cupping or homeopathy? Or is it exclusively when it's convenient for you?
> Third the point is that kids from single parent families do in fact have ...
I never questioned this in the general case.
> Fourth it's common sense
Good ole common sense. Completely useless in the face of, you know, actual science. I also love how you always throw allegations of "racism" or "misogyny" even when it's totally unrelated. Usually it's democrats that are accused of playing such cards.
Also you totally ignored the voluntary single parent line of argument so I'm assuming you concede that point and I await revisions to the post.
If you knew anything about science, which you clearly don't, you wouldn't talk about scientific consensus especially when papers published in the field you're citing have only a 1/3 chance of being reproducible.
I have looked at several of these "studies". I only cited one here for brevity.
Ok so you agree with the article yet as usual you bring up something either trivial or not stated in the article to attack.
I'm sorry but common sense in relationship to human behavior, as opposed to quantum mechanics, is very scientific.
I ignored the voluntary single parent because many women on welfare who are single parents do so voluntarily to get more welfare money. Further the sort of rich white elites who adopt a kid without a spouse aren't generally that wonderful; check out "Mommy Dearest".
> If you knew anything about science, which you clearly don't, you wouldn't talk about scientific consensus especially when papers published in the field you're citing have only a 1/3 chance of being reproducible.
many of these studies are just statistical analysis of existing data. that isn't where the reproducibility crisis is striking.
But cool now I can also reject all your sources out of hand too by pointing to issues of reproducibility. where does that leave us? do you reject all social science findings? including the ones referenced in this article?
> Ok so you agree with the article yet as usual you bring up something either trivial or not stated in the article to attack.
uh, no the article is rubbish. I just attacked the most egregiously wrong points.
> I'm sorry but common sense in relationship to human behavior, as opposed to quantum mechanics, is very scientific.
Common sense is at best hypothesis generating. It is to be discarded once we have actual data.
> Further the sort of rich white elites who adopt a kid without a spouse aren't generally that wonderful
wow. citation needed? preferably not just a source worse than anecdotal?
Post a Comment