5 ms·

To give another perspective, let's examine some of the negatives associated with single motherhood: http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/facts_on_fatherless_kids

To give another perspective, let's examine some of the negatives associated with single motherhood: http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/facts_on_fatherless_kids.html http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/facts_on_fatherless_kids.... As someone who grew up in a single mother home, with many friends in the same boat, anecdotally I can say that it is not preferable in any way. Hypothesizing an evolutionary basis for this, I would say that high investment dual parenting has been the most effective method of raising successful and productive children. Societies which embraced this as the norm have flourished - others, not so much. For more on this topic, see J.D. Unwin: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Unwin https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Unwin

Retric 11y ago
Prior to modern transportation it was common for men to be out of touch with there wives for long periods of time (months / years). So, defacto most society's dealt with lots of single mothers. The classic solution was large extended family's which is where America falls down. PS: It's even a major plot point in the Odyssey which is ~2,800 years old.
- zxcvvcxz 11y ago
  There's a substantial difference between a few months (or even years) of deployment vs. 18 years of child development with no father. Also interesting to note is that a lot of negative children statistics do not apply to single mother widows.
  - koolba 11y ago
    > Also interesting to note is that a lot of negative children statistics do not apply to single mother widows. Selection bias?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
AnimalMuppet 11y ago
> As someone who grew up in a single mother home, with many friends in the same boat, anecdotally I can say that it is not preferable in any way. I've never been there. But from my outside perspective, I would think that it might be preferable to abuse, though maybe not preferable to almost anything else. > I would say that high investment dual parenting has been the most effective method of raising successful and productive children. I think that "high investment" is an important note. Even in dual parenting situations, the temptation is to want parenting to be low-investment. (I'm a parent; I definitely struggled with that.)
- DanBC 11y ago
  > But from my outside perspective, I would think that it might be preferable to abuse, though maybe not preferable to almost anything else. We think that step-parents are more likely to sexually abuse, or to physically abuse or to murder their step children than biological parents. https://www.nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/documents/information-service/research-briefing-people-who-abuse-children1.pdf https://www.nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/documents/information-...
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Yet a household with a biological parent and a step-parent is considered a "nuclear family" just as well.
- zxcvvcxz 11y ago
  > I think that "high investment" is an important note. Even in dual parenting situations, the temptation is to want parenting to be low-investment. (I'm a parent; I definitely struggled with that.) Missing the point. I'll quote my other comment: "Even if we pretend both parents provide the exact same types of resources (which they don't: both are important for different reasons), then mathematically you're getting half the resources to raise a better kid." We can make this argument apply for money and time, both of which sound like pretty important things to put into a kid. Both of which are practically gauranteed to be less when there is a single parent. > But from my outside perspective, I would think that it might be preferable to abuse, though maybe not preferable to almost anything else. Nobody's arguing that two parents which are abusive would be preferable to one who is not. I believe this is called the Red Herring fallacy. My point is that it is irresponsible to promote alternative family arrangements which are strongly correlated with worse outcomes for children, without at least considering these correlations first.
icebraining 11y ago
I wouldn't trust a site like that even to correctly cite studies. The "Infamous Fatherless People" list is beyond the pale. Anecdotally, I have the exact opposite experience. That said, the question is, it's preferable to what? I think there's some cognitive dissonance in listing all the ways mothers mess with the relationships between children and fathers (false abuse reports, preventing visitation, etc) and then suggesting that a two parent household would be preferable. Considering the messed-up relationship the two parents obviously have in those cases, would it really?
- zxcvvcxz 11y ago
  Please cite your own sources to discredit the ones I've provided. Yes, the font and web design is straight out of 1999. But the sources include the "U.S. Department of Health and Human Services". I've easily googled other sources which link to proper papers on PubMed, for instance. > That said, the question is, it's preferable to what? High investment dual parenting. Father and mother (and usually contributions from extended family on both sides). Even if we pretend both parents provide the exact same types of resources (which they don't: both are important for different reasons), then mathematically you're getting half the resources to raise a better kid. > Considering the messed-up relationship the two parents obviously have in those cases, would it really? Nobody's arguing that two parents in a failing and abusive relationship would be preferable to a single parent with adequate resources to raise the child. What I'm suggesting is that promoting a system of parenthood that is almost completely associated with being worse for the children is not a responsible thing to do. And that's what articles like this are doing, without weighing what we know to be massive negative associations.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    I don't wish to discredit your sources, I'm not even claiming the site is wrong, just that it simply does not convince me. And it's got nothing to do with the design. As for this article being a "promotion" for single-parent households is, in my opinion, an overstatement. It's not even specifically about mothers, it just mentions them in passing.
  - 11y ago
GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
Are you seriously dropping a link in here with 'feminocracy' in it?
- striking 11y ago
  Are you seriously commenting on the URL of a link rather than its content?
  - frozenport 11y ago
    Are you seriously going to read the whole article?
    - striking 11y ago
      Are you seriously accusing me of not doing so? And, seriously, what does it have to do with my response?
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]

Retric 11y ago

Prior to modern transportation it was common for men to be out of touch with there wives for long periods of time (months / years). So, defacto most society's dealt with lots of single mothers. The classic solution was large extended family's which is where America falls down. PS: It's even a major plot point in the Odyssey which is ~2,800 years old.

zxcvvcxz 11y ago
There's a substantial difference between a few months (or even years) of deployment vs. 18 years of child development with no father. Also interesting to note is that a lot of negative children statistics do not apply to single mother widows.
- koolba 11y ago
  > Also interesting to note is that a lot of negative children statistics do not apply to single mother widows. Selection bias?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

AnimalMuppet 11y ago

> As someone who grew up in a single mother home, with many friends in the same boat, anecdotally I can say that it is not preferable in any way. I've never been there. But from my outside perspective, I would think that it might be preferable to abuse, though maybe not preferable to almost anything else. > I would say that high investment dual parenting has been the most effective method of raising successful and productive children. I think that "high investment" is an important note. Even in dual parenting situations, the temptation is to want parenting to be low-investment. (I'm a parent; I definitely struggled with that.)

DanBC 11y ago
> But from my outside perspective, I would think that it might be preferable to abuse, though maybe not preferable to almost anything else. We think that step-parents are more likely to sexually abuse, or to physically abuse or to murder their step children than biological parents. https://www.nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/documents/information-service/research-briefing-people-who-abuse-children1.pdf https://www.nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/documents/information-...
- icebraining 11y ago
  Yet a household with a biological parent and a step-parent is considered a "nuclear family" just as well.
zxcvvcxz 11y ago
> I think that "high investment" is an important note. Even in dual parenting situations, the temptation is to want parenting to be low-investment. (I'm a parent; I definitely struggled with that.) Missing the point. I'll quote my other comment: "Even if we pretend both parents provide the exact same types of resources (which they don't: both are important for different reasons), then mathematically you're getting half the resources to raise a better kid." We can make this argument apply for money and time, both of which sound like pretty important things to put into a kid. Both of which are practically gauranteed to be less when there is a single parent. > But from my outside perspective, I would think that it might be preferable to abuse, though maybe not preferable to almost anything else. Nobody's arguing that two parents which are abusive would be preferable to one who is not. I believe this is called the Red Herring fallacy. My point is that it is irresponsible to promote alternative family arrangements which are strongly correlated with worse outcomes for children, without at least considering these correlations first.

icebraining 11y ago

I wouldn't trust a site like that even to correctly cite studies. The "Infamous Fatherless People" list is beyond the pale. Anecdotally, I have the exact opposite experience. That said, the question is, it's preferable to what? I think there's some cognitive dissonance in listing all the ways mothers mess with the relationships between children and fathers (false abuse reports, preventing visitation, etc) and then suggesting that a two parent household would be preferable. Considering the messed-up relationship the two parents obviously have in those cases, would it really?

zxcvvcxz 11y ago
Please cite your own sources to discredit the ones I've provided. Yes, the font and web design is straight out of 1999. But the sources include the "U.S. Department of Health and Human Services". I've easily googled other sources which link to proper papers on PubMed, for instance. > That said, the question is, it's preferable to what? High investment dual parenting. Father and mother (and usually contributions from extended family on both sides). Even if we pretend both parents provide the exact same types of resources (which they don't: both are important for different reasons), then mathematically you're getting half the resources to raise a better kid. > Considering the messed-up relationship the two parents obviously have in those cases, would it really? Nobody's arguing that two parents in a failing and abusive relationship would be preferable to a single parent with adequate resources to raise the child. What I'm suggesting is that promoting a system of parenthood that is almost completely associated with being worse for the children is not a responsible thing to do. And that's what articles like this are doing, without weighing what we know to be massive negative associations.
- icebraining 11y ago
  I don't wish to discredit your sources, I'm not even claiming the site is wrong, just that it simply does not convince me. And it's got nothing to do with the design. As for this article being a "promotion" for single-parent households is, in my opinion, an overstatement. It's not even specifically about mothers, it just mentions them in passing.
- 11y ago

GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago

Are you seriously dropping a link in here with 'feminocracy' in it?

striking 11y ago
Are you seriously commenting on the URL of a link rather than its content?
- frozenport 11y ago
  Are you seriously going to read the whole article?
  - striking 11y ago
    Are you seriously accusing me of not doing so? And, seriously, what does it have to do with my response?
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]