I keep hearing, when single parenthood is correlated with juvenile crime, low educational attainment, drug use in teens, or other problems, that the REAL cause is poverty. This is not always true - some studies have controlled for income level - but if it were true, isn't that just ducking the obvious? Single parenthood often CAUSES poverty. It's not just chance that a one-parent family has less income than a two parent family. It is a direct result of not having a wage-earning father in the house - it's one consequence of single parenting.
Isn't this like saying, "Cheeseburgers don't cause heart attacks - they just cause high cholesterol. High cholesterol is what causes heart attacks - not cheeseburgers."
Single parenthood doesn't cause problems - poverty does?
I agree. I think single parenting CAN cause poverty. I also think single parenting CAN cause 'bad kids'. So the real cause of problems is kind of a moot point for me. I think it's a bad place to be (single parent in poverty). But I do not think we should offer any more financial support as is given to double parents in poverty. Too often we reward irresponsible behavior with government handouts. (Roll on thumbs down from the warm and fuzzies!)
It's hard enough to raise kids when you have two people focusing. When one drops the ball, the other catches it. As a single parent, when you drop the ball, that battle is lost. And that is further complicated when the other parent is indirectly in the picture and perhaps does not agree with you on parenting priorities and rules.
Reply:"controlled for income" means that single mother-headed households are the worst situation for children whether in poverty or not. It means that poverty is not "the" issue some want to make it. That some may try to excuse the obvious does not negate the fact. Even in situations of mother-headed households that are not in poverty, the children tend to have more social pathologies than children raised in poverty by both bio-parents.
What you are doing is proclaiming women as "victims" of their own choices as well as "if they had enough (free) money, everything would be just hunky-dory".
Women choose to become pregnant by engaging in sex (with or without contraception, there is a risk); they choose to allow the pregnancy to continue to term; they choose to accept the child and raise it alone and many times, they choose to cast the father out of the home, all of which tend to lead to both a life of poverty and increased juvenile crime and other anti-social problems. The problem of poverty is often the result of bad choices women make.
No amount of hand-waving will make this one fact go away: children do better socially, educationally and morally when raised by both parents, regardless the financial circumstances of the family.
Reply:and the studies that control for income level show that children of comparable economic backgrounds have the same likelihood of committing a crime whether they come from a nuclear family or a single parent home. so the issue *is* money.
single parenthood does not cause poverty, correlation does not equal causation. two parents can lead a poor home.
Reply:If single parenthood doesn't cause problems, all human societies across the world would not have evolved in to the present "family system".
In the social life of many species like ants, cattle etc, there is no concept of family. Human beings were also like this. Only cultural evolution caused us to live in families and no where, not even in the remotest parts of the world one can find a human social system which is not based on family. Even among cannibal tribals.
Reply:Single parenthood does NOT cause poverty 100% of the time.
It increases your risk of living in poverty but it's not completely causitive.
Therefore your argument is wrong.
Reply:i've had it every which way. the variations of monied and married with children, monied with children without a partner, poverty stricken with children and a partner and poverty stricken with children and without a partner. some i stayed home, with some i worked full time. all said that they never knew they were monied or not. they always had parents or parent that provided love, safety and response to their needs. money is not the issue. one or two parent families are not an issue. it's common place these days. teaching children to respect themselves and others, not to judge, but use discretion. and to be kind. and to provide them with the survival skills they need to flourish. an education. as the old saying goes, teach your children well.
so far, as adults, each are healthy, fully-functioning, successful in their own right human beings. not to say, there are issues of life that they've had to overcome like we all have.
poverty of the mind is the most dangerous condition.
Reply:I think the point people are trying to make is that the poverty is the most important issue, not the lack of the other parent. Yes, there's a correlation- but there doesn't have to be. If we lived in a country that had better social programs, and held corporations and other job providers to a higher standard (like a higher minimum wage, benefits, etc) like many western European countries, single parent households would be in much better shape.
Personally, I grew up in a two parent household that would have been much better if one of those parents had been removed (my mother). My father stayed with her because she was the bread winner. Two parents are not always better than one. Some two parent situations suck. Some single parent situations are pretty good. But rarely does poverty not have a strong negative impact.
Reply:I think that it is a series of things. Typically, single parents experience higher stress levels, and, do have lower incomes than two-income families. Also, there is rarely a full-time caregiver in a single parent family. As such, children are often left to raise themselves or are raised by daycare providers (who can't love the kids like a parent can). This is obviously not the ideal situation for children. Also, once a parent starts dating again, this can be confusing for the children and cause "acting out". I do believe it goes together- parents don't have the time because they don't have the money if they don't work.... It is sort of like the chicken or the egg.
Reply:It's just Feminist propaganda and biased stats that try to weed men out of society, and legally kidnap their children away from them.
- 40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the fathers visitation to punish their ex-spouse.
["Frequency of Visitation" by Sanford Braver, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry]
- 50% of mothers see no value in the fathers continued contact with his children.
["Surviving the Breakup" by Joan Berlin Kelly]
- 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes.
[National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools]
- 70% of juveniles in state operated institutions come from fatherless homes
[U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept., 1988]
- 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes.
When you're so full of hatred, you will alter any statistic and do whatever you have to do, to show hatred towards that group that you hate. It's truly sad.
Edit: Also, porverty leading to crime is a myth. In Economic Theoretical terms, crime is not an economic benefit to the local economy, which means that CRIME leads to POVERTY... not poverty leads to crime. When everyone is committing crimes, this does not contribute to a stable economy, but actually weakens an economic system... most crimes are oligolopolistic or monopolistic competitive which harms the benefits attained by competition in an economic system.
Stopping the crime will strengthen a local economic system!
Reply:I tend to agree with you. But children need emotional AND economic support. I have seen many children succeed even when they come from poverty- the difference is whether the parent puts their duty to raising the children first.
Reply:I have always argued that the only reason single-parent families sometimes produce less-adjusted children is strictly because of poverty. also, when a woman is forced to work many, many hours to put food on the table, she is not going to be around as much to raise her children. this does not make her a bad parent. the solution, of course, is actually more social programs so that single parents can work less hours and not have to stress about insurance and paying for after-school programs. making men pay child support helps too. i believe in socialism to an extent. it really does take a village to raise a child.
Reply:maybe parents need to learn how to get along better and make better choices together.
And maybe not to have all these un-planned pregnancies that "trap" two people together who "grow out" of eachother.
Tooo many excuses.
Why don't our wise elders assist more with the raising of their children's children, while their children are paying their way?
They can take the time to really teach our children how to get along. Then when they grow up they might form lasting relationships!
If our government didn't take from us at our every turn, maybe even used that money to generate more and PAY US BACK what they TAKE...
maybe we could afford to live.
Poverty is a problem that stretches over 6000 years of history. I can't even imagine the ammount of power it would take to turn that around. But it all starts with the children.
Reply:i think youre wrong..
poverty doesnt equal bad kids..
bad kids come from poor parenting, lack of parenting, lazy parenting..need i go on?
rich..or poor...you can raise bad children..or you can raise good children..it all depends on the parenting skills you choose to use
Reply:This is a very "in general" question. I was raised in a wealthy, white suburb with two parents but....they were alcoholics. I love my parents now, but at the time when I was a child, IF I had been given the opportunity to be adopted by a poor single woman who could acutually MEET all of my emotional needs, I would have taken that anyday. I have to say that two wealthy parents can raise troubled children just as a single poor parent can shower her child w/ love and other things than money to produce a very productive child. To answer your question ambiguously but honestly: It all depends
P.S. Statistics truly mean nothing when regarding the individual
Reply:Parenting is tough enough with two parents both financially and with attentiveness. I submit to you that poverty does not cause the problems, it is the lack of being around for that child. Depending on others to raise he/she and often times leaving that child home alone. I was raised by my mother, no dad, however we had lots of material things and we were raised right. The money means something but it not the major factor in whether kids turn out right or not. Like anything else, you get what you put into it!
Reply:I raised two children and my highest earning year was 11,000.00. My kids don't do drugs, have never been arrested, graduated from high school and are now loving parents of their own. The true cause of all those things are parents who can't or won't be involved in their children's lives. I made things happen for my kids, kept them involved in school and extracurricular activities and, most of all, made myself an important part of their lives.
Reply:Dad was a drunk and spent every penny on booze. He never paid for anything. We had a roof over our head because Ma was the apartment manager. After he left and child or spousal support never came Ma went to college and took a part time job (other than managing the apartments). After she graduated things were good. We got off welfare (I was 4'ish by then) and was supported completely by one parent.
We were in poverty when he was around. It wasn't until he left that thing's financially got better. If he stayed around I would have turned out like cr*p.
Reply:Having money in the house helps, which is why single parents with more affluent lifestyles tend to have better-behaved children. But the real issue is one or both parents neglecting to raise the children to an acceptable extent. In my city, we have tons of poor and delinquent children raised by single parents, most of whom have been abandoned by their partners.
Reply:Hi, first of all I have no sources but:
1) Single mothers with affluent lifestyles bring up children who are much more badly behaved than those who don't due to them being raised in daycare.
2) In my city all single mothers raising one or more children decided to do it by themselves and fought very hard to exclude a willing father from the family.
Like I said, I have absolutely no sources, but those two things above are 100% true. Please don't think I am a complete idiot for making wild claims without sources.
If lack of money is the cause of social problems, then custody should be determined by who is better able to provide for the children rather than "the primary caregiver". Of course, considering that would ruin the feminist's gravy train for irresponsible women they would never go for that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment