7 ms·

> Yet people with kids get divorced all the time anyway. This ruins the child

by orangepurple 3y ago

ceejayoz 3y ago
So does an unhappy marriage.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  The true answer is that a dysfunctional marriage negatively affects any children period. If the would-be parents can't reasonably guarantee a happy household going forward, having children is the epitome of irresponsiblity.
  - hiatus 3y ago
    > If the would-be parents can't reasonably guarantee a happy household going forward, having children is the epitome of irresponsiblity. Who can do this? Who can possibly guarantee anything about the future, especially when it involves other people?
    - Dalewyn 3y ago
      It should be reasonably possible to ascertain whether you and your spouse will have a pleasant or unpleasant future. If the latter, why the fuck (pun intended) would you have children?
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        Protracted job loss? Major illness? Death of a child? War? There are a lot of variables that go into the success of a marriage that can't be predicted, especially over a 20+ year timeframe. The idea that you can reliably predict if someone'll be happy in their marriage decades later is... unsupported.
runarberg 3y ago
A child of a single parent here (a bastard if you will). No it does not.
- gateorade 3y ago
  This is a nice anecdote, but it doesn’t mean anything. In the US at least, being raise by a single parent is a massive statistical indicator for basically every negative social outcome. Poverty, criminality, future generational single parenthood, etc.
  - runarberg 3y ago
    I wasn’t raised in the US. Aside from that my anecdote is no less scientific than your conjecture. Correlation is not causation, it is far more likely that this statistical indicator comes from a third variable, say poverty. USA has a abysmal social safety network. Single parents are left to fend for them selves, without protections in the workplace (meaning they can loose their jobs), without child sick leave, without financial support, with unavailable and unaffordable child care, etc. etc. Of course a kid raised under these conditions is gonna be statistically more likely to correlate with other negative outcome. PS. I’m slightly insulted you unapologetically put future generational single parenthood in the category of negative social outcome. As if you’ve already concluded that it is bad.
Nursie 3y ago
There is some evidence that kids do better in aggregate in stable two parent homes. There is no evidence I'm aware of that kids do better in homes where their parents would have divorced but are compelled to stay together by social mores or legal compulsion and now hate each other. This is the problem with all these "marriage is best for the children" pieces that get published. They don't (can't?) look at situations that show what would happen if their agenda, to force people to stay married, was actually carried out. They can only see that a stable household under existing conditions has good outcomes. That's hardly a surprise. The question is whether a child in an unstable household gets a better outcome with that specific household staying together 'for the children', and my guess there would be no. I know some successful 'ruined' children who would probably take issue with your summation there too.
- runarberg 3y ago
  I’m guessing in places where single parents are financially supported, childcare is abundant and affordable, sick leave is guaranteed and covers your child, workplace discrimination against single parents is illegal, that any observed difference will disappear. That is I suspect the evidence is actually describing poverty, not parenthood.
  - emodendroket 3y ago
    I wouldn't be so sure about that. Two parents are never going to have the exact same approach or emphasize the same thing, so I think it is likely beneficial to children to have two parents helping them along in different ways.
    - runarberg 3y ago
      Unless the other parent is completely absent, you get that anyway. And even if they are (one of my parent was for a large part of my childhood) you usually get other family members, grandparents, ants and uncles, friends, teachers, etc. While it is probably true that it is easier on the parent to have another person which is always there to help each other out, I doubt—all else being equal—this has any significant difference on the child.

> Yet people with kids get divorced all the time anyway. This ruins the child

ceejayoz 3y ago

So does an unhappy marriage.

Dalewyn 3y ago
The true answer is that a dysfunctional marriage negatively affects any children period. If the would-be parents can't reasonably guarantee a happy household going forward, having children is the epitome of irresponsiblity.
- hiatus 3y ago
  > If the would-be parents can't reasonably guarantee a happy household going forward, having children is the epitome of irresponsiblity. Who can do this? Who can possibly guarantee anything about the future, especially when it involves other people?
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    It should be reasonably possible to ascertain whether you and your spouse will have a pleasant or unpleasant future. If the latter, why the fuck (pun intended) would you have children?
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      Protracted job loss? Major illness? Death of a child? War? There are a lot of variables that go into the success of a marriage that can't be predicted, especially over a 20+ year timeframe. The idea that you can reliably predict if someone'll be happy in their marriage decades later is... unsupported.

runarberg 3y ago

A child of a single parent here (a bastard if you will). No it does not.

gateorade 3y ago
This is a nice anecdote, but it doesn’t mean anything. In the US at least, being raise by a single parent is a massive statistical indicator for basically every negative social outcome. Poverty, criminality, future generational single parenthood, etc.
- runarberg 3y ago
  I wasn’t raised in the US. Aside from that my anecdote is no less scientific than your conjecture. Correlation is not causation, it is far more likely that this statistical indicator comes from a third variable, say poverty. USA has a abysmal social safety network. Single parents are left to fend for them selves, without protections in the workplace (meaning they can loose their jobs), without child sick leave, without financial support, with unavailable and unaffordable child care, etc. etc. Of course a kid raised under these conditions is gonna be statistically more likely to correlate with other negative outcome. PS. I’m slightly insulted you unapologetically put future generational single parenthood in the category of negative social outcome. As if you’ve already concluded that it is bad.

Nursie 3y ago

There is some evidence that kids do better in aggregate in stable two parent homes. There is no evidence I'm aware of that kids do better in homes where their parents would have divorced but are compelled to stay together by social mores or legal compulsion and now hate each other. This is the problem with all these "marriage is best for the children" pieces that get published. They don't (can't?) look at situations that show what would happen if their agenda, to force people to stay married, was actually carried out. They can only see that a stable household under existing conditions has good outcomes. That's hardly a surprise. The question is whether a child in an unstable household gets a better outcome with that specific household staying together 'for the children', and my guess there would be no. I know some successful 'ruined' children who would probably take issue with your summation there too.

runarberg 3y ago
I’m guessing in places where single parents are financially supported, childcare is abundant and affordable, sick leave is guaranteed and covers your child, workplace discrimination against single parents is illegal, that any observed difference will disappear. That is I suspect the evidence is actually describing poverty, not parenthood.
- emodendroket 3y ago
  I wouldn't be so sure about that. Two parents are never going to have the exact same approach or emphasize the same thing, so I think it is likely beneficial to children to have two parents helping them along in different ways.
  - runarberg 3y ago
    Unless the other parent is completely absent, you get that anyway. And even if they are (one of my parent was for a large part of my childhood) you usually get other family members, grandparents, ants and uncles, friends, teachers, etc. While it is probably true that it is easier on the parent to have another person which is always there to help each other out, I doubt—all else being equal—this has any significant difference on the child.