dangin

You think?

Which is no different than a family of eight parents. Except that after the conception and gestation there are the resources of eight adults instead of two. Surely they will do a better job that you and your spouse are doing. I'm only using your argument.

This is simple assertion and is not supported by evidence. There are countless instances of biological parents being unfit. There are countless instances of foster or step parents being fabulous nurturers and providers. There are countless examples of flawed one parent homes, just as there are excellent one parent homes. There is no magic formulae for perfect parenting. To criticize someone because their family structure is different than ours, and to then predict doom for their intended family structure is foolishness.

brighid

I think many problems are attributable to this, but a single parent home is not ipso facto dysfunctional, or broken.

Poverty is, as has been agreed, the main contributor to the problems faced in either two parent, or single parent homes. Education is a prime, moving force in regard to poverty. Equal education for at risk groups (such as those presently poor) starting at the primary educational levels could well address many of the problems experienced later on in life: teenage pregnancy, violence and crime, and extended poverty.

As a formerly single parent I can tell you that my son's life was harmed by the dysfunction of a distruptive father. My son always had many strong, male role models in his life. I never needed a man to help me discipline my son appropriately. In my situation the discipline my son's father chose was abusive and damaging. We were and are better off without his influence in our life. I have since married and my husband is a wonderful addition to an already, and very much intact, fully functional family. I have raised a well adjusted, happy, healthy child and my husband is very thankful for that gift. I am still the ultimate arbiter when it comes to parenting, discipline, etc. We are now a somewhat traditional, family unit. Are we better for it? Yes. It is easier having the support of a loving husband, but it is because I have a loving partner that we are successful, not because he is a man. I am quite confident that if I were a lesbian, in a loving relationship with a supportive partner are lives would be equally enriched.

Is a two parent family consisting of two loving parents, working in unison with one another the best case scenario for the development of a child? In the best case I would say yes. Is a father or even a mother necessary for the successful development of a child? NO. A child brought up in a loving, stable, supportive environment regardless of socioeconomic status can and do grow up to be fully functioning, happy and healthy adults.

There are positive and negative aspects of any parenting situation. No situation is perfect, or even near perfect. A child raised by a single parent will not be handicapped because the parents partner either willingly abandoned the parent and child, was killed, or is temporarily absent from the parenting situation. A child will likely be handicapped by any dysfunctional familial situation, including the many, many children who are a product of divorce.

If society supported parents more, but especially those who find themselves in the difficult situation of single parenting society would greatly benefit by helping to produce better adults.

You can look to societies such as Sweden who have a large single parent (by choice) population and they do not have the problems the US has. It is because society supports single parents and family units to a much higher degree then does the US. Sweden values children and families highly and therefore invests many resources to insuring the development of all it's citizens.

There is a solution, but blaming single parents for our societies ills is not it.

Brighid

lisarea

Well, you're speaking from experience, and that's always valid. However, it's not universal.

I was raised in a very happy, functional two-parent family, and I've raised my own son on my own. He is far better adjusted than any of my siblings or I was at his age. This doesn't mean that a single-parent household is superior, though. It just means it can and does happen.

And to be blunt, I think some of your ideas of the father role are a little weird. Particularly something you said about teaching boys to be chivalrous or something. Now, I sure as all hell didn't teach my son to be chivalrous. I taught him to treat women the way he treats men. Let me assure you, as a woman myself, there are very limited circumstances in which I want to be treated differently according to my sex.

I'm sure many married couples will tend to fall into comfortable gender roles in the course of raising children together, with the mother taking on the role of the nurterer and the father the disciplinarian; but IMO, there's nothing keeping a parent of either sex from doing all of that by themselves if need be.

Is everyone up to the task? Well, hell, no. Just as many married couples fall into abusive and otherwise dysfunctional cycles, so many single parents do, too.

As a single parent, I fall roughly into the same socioeconomic category as men who have a wife and kids at home. Yeah, I have to spend a little more because I don't have someone home doing chores for me during the day*, but OTOH, I only have one other person to support, too. I realize it doesn't always fall out that way, and it certainly is more difficult with younger children who need day care, etc., but I believe that, for our circumstances and the choices available, we did the best thing possible.

IMO, statistics are meaningful only really from the broad sociological perspective. Their applicability to any given individual situation is negligible, and I don't think they provide much if anything in the way of concrete data on which to base personal decisions.


* I lied. I just have a messier house. That, however, is just my bad. My house would be messy no matter what--not because I'm a single parent, but because I am an inveterate slob. But for most people, I guess they'd hire housecleaning services or something.

auto-da-fe

I am not asserting that single parent homes are the root cause of all troubles in America or anywhere else. I am also not asserting that it is impossible to raise a happy child with only one parent. Anything is possible. What I am asserting is that, if both parents are happy and content (this would exclude abusive parents, alcholics, or parents who fight all the time, along with all the other negative possiblities) this would seem to be the ideal wy to raise a child, and that is all that I am asserting.

I know that children can be raised in non-traditional homes and turn out just fine. I am a perfect example of that. It just seems to me that most people today have no interest in having a traditional home and I wonder why. What is the problem with it? I think that it is absoulty wonderful if you can achieve it, and beleive me, I also know that it is incredibly hard to do.

So I will give you your negative possibilities for dual parent homes, and I will give you your postive possibilities for single parent homes, but so far, only brighid has acknowledged that the best case scenario involves to loving parents working in unison.

This is nearly the crux of my argument. That is pretty much all I am saying. I am not trying to put down single parents, or say they are unfit, or even to say that they cannot do it correctly. I am only saying that it is going to be harder for the single mom than it is for the mom who has the support of a competent father.

auto-da-fe

We haven't even discussed multiple children. If a single parent has to take care of say 3 or 4 kids (there was 4 in my household), then the situation is much easier to see how a second competent parent would be invaluable (note the emphasis).

auto-da-fe

As a bit of a side note, I think I am going to enjoy my time here on this board as my conservative family views don't seem to have much support. I say this because I enjoy discussions like we have been having. I would like to put a little disclaimer out here saying that I believe anyone can be a great parent givin the right circumstances. Be it single parent or no, just about any person can raise a happy child if they have the self discipline to do so.


I have noticed a couple of my comments have been taken to mean I think single parents are unfit or unable to raise happy children, and I do not at all think so.

BTW lisarea, I know a lot of females do not like being treated differently, and I apologize if I have offended you. I just happen to think that being a gentleman (and even chivalrous) can never be a bad thing, wether it is applied to females or males. I can be a gentleman to you by opening your door, or I can be a gentleman to another man by respecting his rights and him as a person (and yes I can respect the rights of females too, I was just using opening your door as an example).

brighid

Megadave,

I hope you stick around as I personally feel it is important to engage in discussion with others who bring varying view points to the debate - even conservative ones This is how we learn and hopefully expand our educational and intellectual horizons.

Thank you for clarifying your position. I don't know about you but sometimes what I think I am conveying in written discussion isn't always what comes out clearly to others!

Brighid

Debbie T

Reminds me of the time when Dan Quayle blamed the problems of America on single mothers.

Yes broken and dysfunctional homes can cause problems with children, but I believe this is different then a woman with enough resources that wants to become pregnant and do it on her own. There is not an ugly divorce and children losing a parent which is traumatic for children.

I think poverty should be the focus on the problems not a single mother raising children. It always amazes me when the single mothers get the blame. It's an easy target since this group is a group without power and/or clout. Perhaps its time to round up all the dead beat fathers out there that walked away from their children and make them participate in their part of the responsibility for bringing children into the world. The problems of this world is not the fault of single mothers.

Oops I guess I need to read to the end of the posts, to see what is addressed.

MegaDave, why do you think everyone needs to conform to the traditional family? Its good it works for you, but for some it may not work.

auto-da-fe

Debbie I have said several times I am not blaming single parents on all Americas problems. Why does the existence of a better way automatically mean that your was is the worst way? You are pretty much saying that since I believe that my way is better, I must therefor believe that your way is the worst way. That is not true.

auto-da-fe

I'm not saying everyone needs to conform to traditional families, only that traditional families should be preferred. It is not just semantics. This statement does take into account that it is not always possible to achieve. Only that it should IMO be the preffered method. Not to over simplify it, but compare it to a credit card being the preffered method of payment for some institutions, while cash is still readily accepted.

This is a very complex subject involving huge amounts of variables that cannot all be taken into context within the bounds of this forum. Therefore, I am strictly speaking of hypothetical best case scenarios.