I've met a lot of people that come from homes with both parents, and they still wind up carrying baggage. Some more than others. It just depends on the character of the parent or parents. Do they want to take the initiative to raise children that can function in society?

I was raised by a single mother. My parents divorced when I was very young, and my father ended up remarrying. I didn't see my father at all from when I was about 14 until he died years ago.

There is no doubt for me that growing up without a father does have a lot of negative effects on your development, although these only really became clear to me well into adulthood. Growing up I didn't really realize these things, because at the time you take your circumstances as given and don't really know any different or what it would be like to live in an intact family.

Until I met my husband, nobody I'd dated was marriage material. Not that they weren't nice enough guys, but they had no idea how to be in a healthy adult relationship. My husband happens to be the only man I dated whose parents are married. My parents are still married, too. My mom always told me this would matter in a future partner. It's anecdotal, but there it is.

Well, according to Ann Coulter, single moms are responsible for most of the
strippers, murderers and rapists — no wonder they're not dating material! (although some men might like to date a stripper ..)

But, I jest.

Some of my friends grew up in highly dysfunctional alcoholic families; they've gone on to have successful careers but they have struggled in relationships.

Another friend's mom had an affair and then left their dad and moved the whole lot of them into the house with her lover; you can guess how happy a situation that was.

My former hubby was raised by a single mom — and he cheated on me.

We all have baggage, and we can all point our fingers at our parents for failing us. But, at some point we are accountable for how we choose to live our lives. There are many people who have overcome terrible tragedies and dysfunction.

So, before rejecting someone outright for being raised by a single mom, please look at the individual standing before you. I'd hate it if someone rejected my sweet boy just because his mom — me! — made a tough but wise decision to divorce his dad.

Here are some of the effects of fatherlessness on kids:

http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/facts_on_fatherless_kids.html

@Kat Wilder
_____

I'm not a fan of Ann Coulter, but you are taking her out of context and misrepresenting what she said. Single mothers do contribute to a lot of societies problems, and society at large contributes by providing incentive and excuse for their poor behavior.

Of course, it is clear that each child of a single mother has a biological father. The difference is that they really don't have the power that the mothers do, not legally, not reproductively, etc. We've made laws that will force them to be there, at least financially, at gunpoint.

In doing so, we've provided a reverse incentive. We can't reduce the illegitimacy rate by paying the person most in control of pregnancy to get pregnant. It just can't work.

Could someone please define what they mean by single mother? Do you mean that the father is not in the picture?

Kendra: Could someone please define what they mean by single mother?

I wasn't aware the term "single mother" was in any way ambiguous.

Kendra: Do you mean that the father is not in the picture?

Bingo.

Or at least, relegated to a lesser role.

Here is anecdotal data from a family I know well, that is kind of a living experiment for this sort of data: there were six children (all now retirement age), all six of whome married and founded families. Three of them divorced, and three stayed married. It's interesting to look at the next generation.

The divorced parents had a total of 9 children. Of these stayed 3 married, 4 divorced, and 2 have had really serious problems in their lives.

The parents who stayed married had a total of 6 children. Of these, 5 stayed married, 1 divorced and none have had any sort of serious problems.

It's anecdotal but clear: the kids from stable families have led much more stable lives themselves.

> It just depends on the character of the
> parent or parents.

No, no, no, no no nononono

A thousand times no.

In the late 80's, Dr. Daniel Amneus wrote a book called Garbage Generation, available for download on the Web. It was filled with solid statistics on the damage done by families with no father. Including proof that high income kids with no father in the house are as messed as low income kids with no dad around.

One figure was men from single mom households (no effective father allowed) were SEVEN times more likely to end up in prison. (See the figures on black parentage and prison rates as an extreme example. The problem is not racial tendencies, but parentage conditions. Black kids from two parent families do very well.) At first, I didn't buy that 7X statement, but after I figured out the math it was right on.

My late ex-BIL worked for many years in corrections in several states. I asked him about it, and he said it was so obvious, he was surprised not everyone knew it. He said he could not remember the last time a dad came to visit a prisoner.

It's called PC. We aren't supposed to say it, because after all those single mommies have so much LLLOOOVVVVVE!!! If those vicious men would just send more money in the mail, all would be well.

Some of the contributing reasons are known but at this time even discussing the topic is prohibited. It is okay to say all men are trash and serve no purpose, but it is prohibited to say women can't raise children alone as well as two parents.

Y'all who tell of personal observations, I recently read something I liked: The plural of anecdote is not data. That is so true.

>>So, before rejecting someone outright for being raised by a single mom,

In my communications with men, the most basic rule for those who wish to avoid divorce is:

1. Do not marry a woman who did not have a close, loving relationship with her father.

Well, actually, I break it down into several rules if I have time.

1. Do not marry a woman whose mother was an unwed mother, or a divorced mother.

2. Do not marry a divorced woman or an unwed mother.

And, I explain this is because women in both categories have a higher divorce rate. Such women never learned how to be married women, only how to be unwed mothers or divorced women.

Women shriek, "That's not fayerrr!" Fairness has nothing to do with it. If you want fairness, find Sir Galahad. The point is to attempt to avoid being one of the 40% divorces, and fairness can go hang. When you are seeking the mother of your children, go for the best, or don't marry at all.

The women who divorce good husbands because they are bored or unhappy and prevent the father from seeing them while accepting his money, are anything but fair. Don't be a chivalrous sucker.

And, 3. Look for a woman who has a close loving relationship with her father. The negative is, if you don't deserve her, you will not get past her dad.

I discussed this topic with women friends, and they almost universally agreed the same rules apply to women seeking mates.

I haven't dated anyone from a one-parent household, but I have dated several people whose parents were divorced. Never again. It's been my experience (and since I've only dated men this is somewhat limited) that men whose parents are divorced do not understand that disagreeing is not the same as fighting; that you can disagree and work it out instead of leaving; and that there are such things as promises you intend to keep, regardless of how you feel at that moment.

I dated a man for a while who, whenever we disagreed about something, would shriek "well, if that's how you feel, FINE!" and 'break up' with me. He didn't really mean that we were broken up, and would show up a day or two later, genuinely surprised when I pointed up that, since he had said he was leaving me, we were no longer a couple. This was also trouble because when I did, in fact, leave him, he didn't understand that that was exactly what I meant.

I have now been with a lovely man whose parents are 35+ years into marriage and still completely gaga about each other. We may argue from time to time, but I know the thought of splitting just doesn't occur to him, and when he makes a promise, he sticks to it, regardless of how he feels about keeping it at that moment.

Adult children of divorced parents, in my opinion, do not understand that sometimes, you have to do things that you don't feel like doing, and in general, it's been my experience that they have a very hard time controlling their emotions, are prone to being manipulative, and have serious problems with clinginess.

Here are some of the effects of fatherlessness on kids:
http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/facts_on_fatherless_kids.html -- from the link:

"Psychiatric Problems. In 1988, a study of preschool children admitted to New Orleans hospitals as psychiatric patients over a 34-month period found that nearly 80 percent came from fatherless homes.
Source: Jack Block, et al. "Parental Functioning and the Home Environment in Families of Divorce," Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27 (1988)"

80%!!! ZOMG that's a lot!

Unfortunately, it's irrelevant to the "kids need their fathers" proposition it intends to support.

Reductio: "100% of dead people had previously breathed air containing oxygen."

So, this figure is almost meaningless as presented. Although factual, it contains almost no information. The most it can do is suggest a hypothesis worth investigating.

Why was it included? Likely the compiler figured very few in its target audience could tell the difference between a meaningful fact and a technical non-lie. In this I concur.

But I get queasy when I see such sophistry in support of a position I share. How about you? Should we fight the good fight by any means necessary? Or should we stick to the rules even if that means we sometimes lose?

I say no to sophistry, it's not worth it. Civilization and compelling arguments require one another. If we return to "I don't need a compelling argument, I have a bigger sword!" as our primary conflict resolution procedure, we're done for. Tolerating bad rhetoric undermines good rhetoric. Contributing to it is unconscionable.
--
phunctor

>>Here are some of the effects of fatherlessness on kids:

>> http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/facts_on_fatherless_kids.html

Good stuff, Amy. One serious error. At the bottom of the page is a box listing famous fatherless people. It lists Robert Graysmith the Zodiac killer. He was author of a book about the Zodiac, and was not the killer.

That page is like the stuff in the GARBAGE GENERATION.

Sorry - everyone has baggage. You can't blame it on broken homes alone. I have met some pretty fucked up people whose parents are still together. If purple wants to meet some of them I would be happy to introduce her to the some of these wonderful, baggage-free men she so pines for. Let's see...there's the guy who is going on vacation with a friend of mine. His mommy is worried that her baby boy is going on vacation to Cuba...so she wants to call and talk to my friends mommy first, you know, just to make sure all is ok. Oh - did I mention these guys are 30 and 35!?! Nope - no issues there, real keepers, the both of them!!!

I like me and I like my life. I am comfortable in my skin and proud of my achievements. I am not perfect by far but I don't believe anyone is. That people judge who I am simply because my parents are divorced, as if you are somehow perfect because your parents are together!?!?! That's the biggest load of bullshit I have ever heard. I wouldn't change anything in my life, including the divorce of my parents. It made them happier people and it played a role in who I am today. And who I am is a wonderful person.

Kat - just teach your son to be a loving and caring person who is open and accepting of himself and others. That way he will be a better person than those morons who think that just because their parents are together that they are somehow perfect.

1. Do not marry a woman who did not have a close, loving relationship with her father.

My fate was sealed, then, when my father died when I was 4. Mom tried, but stepdad died, too, 11 years later (both vehicle accidents). Good thing I never tried to marry anyone.

My point is, there are no hard and fast rules you can apply to human beings.

Karen, don't feel poked by the stick as an indictment of yourself. after all, you didn't have a choice in that.

But here is the heart of the problem. What are those of us who come from split or single homes supposed to do? Simply never have relationships our whole lives? For fear that there will be a problem?

While it's true that anecdotes aren't data, they can show trands... Seems like it's better to come from parents who stay together. Exceptions exist. In my own family my grands all stayed together, but on my father's side, all four brothers were messed up pieces of work, and 3 divorced, one, several times. The other just never got married, but had a revolving door of girlfriends.

On the other claw, a lot of my friends come from generations who stayed together, and they seem to work it out.

The bottom line seems to be that once you are close to a divorce, you know how it works, and it looks like a tool to you. A way to end a relationship that doesn't work. It isn't a tool to tell you how to MAKE a relationship work. When one partner or the other has this experience, it seems a miserable, but viable solution.

So the answer as Crid might say is to choose well at the start. Which I also hold true.

But. What do you do if it didn't work out that way? My kids didn't ask to be born of several gens of divorce. What am I supposed to point them to? There has to be a way to overcome the downside of this, so that future generations don't just repeat the cycle.

Add to all that, the inherent downside to getting married at all currently, and things just don't look good.

> You can't blame it on broken
> homes alone.

We don't have to. You're pushing too hard to depict our argument as extreme, when actually it's mundane... The statistics are overwhelming and irrefutable. Children with two loving parents do better than those without, even if there are freaky-luck exceptions.

> there are no hard and fast rules
> you can apply to human beings.

There are probabilities that deserve respect. Some people survive plane crashes. Wanna try it? Wanna insist that your child be lucky?

A lot parents do, nowadays....

As a single mother, I do worry about the type of relationships my kids will have as adults. As far as their school performance and their socialization, none of my kids have ever worried about popularity. They've made good choices regarding friendships and they have always been on the honor roll. I made a point of not bringing men into the house and keeping my dating life limited to when they were with their father. I don't like the whole this is my 18th boyfriend thing around the kids though their father has brought women in and out of the home constantly. My kids don't feel he treats women with respect and I'm glad that that came from them and not me. I cannot say that they won't have issues when they are adults but then again, I came from an intact home and had some pretty serious issues myself which led to making very poor choices. I do worry about them however because I did it on my own so they didn't have a model of two parents sharing decisions and being a presence. I wish my ex wanted to participate but he doesn't and I would gladly trade places with any woman who tries to alienate her kids from a good dad.

As far as my experience growing up, I only knew one divorced family, not that there weren't others, just that I only knew one. The parents did do a good job of remaining friendly and co parenting. They were both always a presence in the lives of their kids. All four kids did well in school, were active in sports and extracurricular activities and went on to great colleges. They have all since married and seem very happy with their families. The two daughters were never promiscuous and I do credit that to the fact that their father remained a constant presence in their life which led to her emotional security. Most of the "sluts" I knew in high school were from intact families, but highly dysfunctional families. So maybe we should start looking at the level of parental involvement in a child's life. I don't see any studies showing what happens to these kids that have shitty parents regardless of their marital status.

> So maybe we should start looking
> at the level of parental involvement
> in a child's life.

Would that make you feel better?

Seriously? "Parental involvement"?

And what do you mean, "look at"? Is it time for Obama to form task force, or for Pelosi to assign a committee chair?

to answer the question you'd posed to me in the other topic..

Choika's comments actually recap my thoughts pretty well. What I've experienced is that women who were raised w/o a father present tend to have more turbulent and fragile relationships. Their motives and actions seem confused. They're more promiscuous, but they also want a committed relationship, but then they're ready to leave at the drop of a hat. I think that it's this cycle that creates so much baggage, which really takes its toll as they get older.

But I also agree that it's not appropriate to paint all kids of single parents with the same brush. I think that the circumstances probably matter a great deal. Was mom parading boyfriends through the house, did dad make an effort to stay connected, did mom interfere with the kids' relationship with their father? The worst cases seem to be ones where the father is estranged and the mother has had a succession of boyfriends. This really seems to fuck girls up.

My parents stayed together, and my sister, my brother and I all divorced, my sister twice. (Technically, my brother is still married to his wife, but he is separated from her and having an affair with our cousin, so I'm not sure that counts.) My sister is an alcoholic who is just starting to get her shit together at 50, and my brother is 47 and will never get his shit together. He also has a criminal record. My parents were decent people who did their best. Sometimes people really want to self-destruct.

Thanks Monica for pointning out that people from intact homes aren't necessarily perfect, as Crid would have you believe (because of some "statistics" that have never been identified...just mysteriously referred to).

As for another anecdote about people from intact homes...

My BF is in a family of 7. Parents were together until death. Oldest sister turned out ok...married a man then divorced him when she discovered he was gay. Oldest brother joined the army, married and had 1 child. Second oldest sister married, had 2 kids then divorced. Second oldest brother is an alcoholic and drug addict. Next 2 sisters never married or had kids. Youngest brother never married, had 2 kids then they split up. I think that is pretty much how you will find statistics in the regular community. Some people end up ok, some don't. Everyone makes bad choices.

Sorry folks - you guys can pretend to be knowledgeable but you're not. You're just the 21st century version of witch burners.

Hmmm - i remember a roommate in university who came from a "loving 2 parent family". In the first year she slept with EVERYTHING that moved (she showed up a virgin and within 1 year she had more guys than I had had in my entire lifetime). She even slept with my boyfriend, then moved on to another roommates boyfriend. Then she dropped out of university and went...who knows where.

> But I also agree that it's not
> appropriate to paint all kids of
> single parents with the same brush.

You're looking at it backwards. This isn't about "painting" people, it's about a rational appraisal of the outcomes of their home lives.

> people from intact homes aren't
> necessarily perfect, as Crid
> would have you believe

It's like a parlour trick, the way I do this... The way you so reliably accuse me of saying things I never said, offering no quotes. All you've got is your feelings to respond to.

I say what's best for kids is a loving mother with a loving father...

...And youse guys jump up with ants in your pants, completely irrationally. Cracks my shit up.

You just can't stand having it said that there's a better way to go, one that's readily at hand.
So either I've said 'intact homes make things perfect', or suddenly it's time to consider all the other ways parents can fail. It's like abracadabra, summoning the genie.

Wanna try it again?

Not this afternoon?

Alright, but next week for sure, 'K?

See you then.

"Would that make you feel better?

Seriously? "Parental involvement"?"

It isn't that it would make me feel better, Crid. It is that I feel that we owe it to our children to be the best parents whether single or married. Being part of a couple does not mean that a person has the best parenting skills, love for their child, or even selfless motives just as being a single mother doesn't mean that a person is abandoning her child on the street while waiting for the next government check. I guess the fact that I cop to fears for my children's future relationships was confusing to you by the fact that you seemed to sputter rather than spew your usual stream of nonsense. Save some of your venom for the parents that just aren't parents whether they are married or not. If I didn't know so many fucked up kids from intact families, I'd fight you less, but the fact of the matter is that with the one exception, I grew up with kids that came from intact families. All of the issues you seem to assign to single parent families existed in the intact families, myself included. I'd lean more towards what Oscar points out when he questions the parental involvement, the relationship of the parents, the presence of the parents. Despite your pooh poohing, those are important things.

I've never once claimed a single parent house is the ideal. But to ignore that there are children from single parent homes who can do well when both parents are involved and supportive is ridiculous.And before you throw the selfish single parent argument in there, there are plenty of married parents that are selfish. So let's hear some realistic solutions,or you could just scoop up all the kids from single parent homes and drop them on an island somewhere.

My parents are together, which didn't stop me from having issues as a teen. Luckily, these have been resolved.

In my mid-20s, I realized my current dating strategy wasn't getting me anywhere, and needed to think about what I wanted in life. "Parents are still together" made the list.

Which isn't to say that you can't have divorced parents and be a good person. Or a single mom who was never married. Heck... even if a good chunk of their kids have issues, a good chunk don't. But the odds of problems are higher. Which doesn't mean definite, just higher.

For me it was more the multi-generational example I wanted to set for my kids.

> It is that I feel that we owe it to
> our children to be the best parents
> whether single or married.

It's like saying you're going to be the best tennis champion you can be who plays without a net. You may well enjoy your afternoons in the sunshine, but no tears if there are no paying spectators.

From a sources about as close to neutral as you can get:

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/97pubs/cb-9701.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-parent#Effects

Dad in the house is better than not. Although the statistics listed here don't necessarily adjust for wealth discrepancies. Single moms are often from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, and that's never plus.

>>Posted by: theloncabbage at May 29, 2010 2:47 PM

If you go to the page Amy listed, some of the studies do indeed control not only for socioeconomic backgrounds and income level but also race.

So did the studies in THE GARBAGE GENERATION.

One is either in denial or not. This has been known for a very long time. When extremists suppress information, we get bad results.

>>So let's hear some realistic solutions,or you could just scoop up all the kids from single parent homes and drop them on an island somewhere.

>>Posted by: Kristen at May 29, 2010 2:12 PM

The solution was well stated years ago when LBJ pushed his "pay women to be unwed mothers" program. Stop paying women to have kids without dads around, and the number will start dropping. In the 90's when Gingrich huffed and puffed he was going to stop welfare, next year for the first time unwed motherhood dropped by 5%. As soon as the girls realized he was only huffing and puffing, it went back up.

This is not new information. Malthus nearly 200 years ago wrote a book, An Essay On Population. It is famous because he claimed the population would always grow to the limits of the food, and then people would starve.

He did not count on b/c pills, nor Norman Borlaug, but in Africa, he was right on.

So, people pay no attention to his book, and liberals hope you don't read it.

Most of the book was table after table, showing that in every country which passed "poor laws" the number of people in poverty went up, just as it has done in the US.

This was known nearly 200 years ago, yet our highly literate population continues to make the same old, stupid mistakes, assuming throwing money at poverty will somehow reduce poverty.

My daughter teaches 8th grade along the border. Some girls make no effort to study at all. She tells them they need to study if they want any sort of life at all. They brazenly tell her, "No, I don't need to study. I am going to have a baby and I will get a check from the government."

Contrary to feminist theories, girls are not mindless idiots. They make intelligent decisions based on their possible choices, and as long as living on welfare is a choice, many will make it.

Kids raised by welfare mothers tend to follow the choices they were taught, while kids from professional families also follow the choices they were taught.

"I say what's best for kids is a loving mother with a loving father..."

I had both. They just weren't together.

"You just can't stand having it said that there's a better way to go, one that's readily at hand."

Actually - no. It's because I don't think your point holds water at all. I think there is MUCH more to raising healthy, happy and emotionally stable children than having parents stay together. You seem to say that no - the single factor in raising healthy, happy and emotionally stable children is whether or not the parents stay together or not. There are infinite amounts of ways that intact families can screw up their kids just like there are ways for divorced parents to raise kids to do well.

I dated a guy who told me that the reason I didn't want kids was because I was so traumatized by my parents divorce that is ruined family for me. Right there is the problem. Just because my parents are divorced, he thought that I was broken. I am not. I just have different priorities in life and kids are not one of them. I didn't date that twit for long. He was one fucked up individual who felt that women live for having babies and cleaning house. Any woman who doesn't want babies, in his opinion (and he felt that a MBA made him an expert on all things) was so shattered by their childhood that they should see a shrink to fix themselves. He came from a "loving 2 parent family". Dick.

As for Oscar..."They're more promiscuous, but they also want a committed relationship, but then they're ready to leave at the drop of a hat."

Here we go with perception again. Maybe Oscar is a dick too and these girls are just smart, independent and ready to kick "Mr. Wrong" to the curb (no offense Oscar, but it is always possible that you are the problem here).

Karen I'm just making a comparison with women I've dated who weren't estranged from their fathers. Also I've observed what's happened among my friends.

FWIW I've dated women who's parent had divorced but the father still had a close relationship, and they didn't behave this way. Try asking some of your male friends about this. I don't think that my experience is unusual.

> They just weren't together

"With", I said.

> It's because I don't think your
> point holds water at all

Riiiiight, so all there's all these pages of stats that have been cited in here, and all the endless anecdotal experience, and still no water is held. You can't even cite my 'point' without distortion.

Isn't that remarkable...!

If you grow up in an environment where marriage is treated as a temporary and disposable thing, how can that not affect (negatively) the way you approach marriage?

If you grow up watching a parent make lousy decisions about partners, how can that not increase the chances that you will make those same mistakes?

Single parenthood shouldn't be a scarlet letter. But it is nothing to be proud of.

The first thing with all these studies, correlation is not causation however it is both government and cultural issues in the US that work against stable two parent families. If the government supports both divorce and unwed motherhood through welfare and court ordered child support, one of the main historical reasons for people to establish and maintain stable families is gone. If you subsidize something you get more of it. The other issues I suspect are cultural. People whose cultural and religious values encourage education tend to have better educated offspring (Asians for example) People who value marriage and commitment tend to raise children who value the same things. These trends show up in the statistics although you should be wary of applying them in any individual case. For example, in our country divorce is a unilateral action.
Even if one party wants and desires a stable marriage, if the other one doesn't, that is all she wrote. The divorce is going to happen. Probably what a lot of it boils down to is poor decision making. Possibly even a genetic link. People who are poor at picking stable mates will tend to have unstable marriages although it will never apply in every case. A large percentage of divorces seem to be caused by financial issues. Poor money management is generally associated with poor impulse control. Infidelity ditto, poor impulse control. Maybe there are some root causes here for unstable marriages? Final thoughts, I have been extremely lucky and there is an element of luck to a good marriage. "There, but for the grace of God go I" comes to mind.

Sorry Crid - I read no authoritative study quoted. Just some mysterious comments like "single parents have the worst outcomes in myriad areas of life, from school performance to promiscuity, to their emotional development" but that is meaningless to me. It doesn't tell me the studies, whether they are biased (I would be willing to bet that they are). Anecdotal evidence collected in this thread is inconclusive (I know crazy people from intact families as well as some from broken homes).

Oscar - so your point has been misconstrued. You are speaking of women with fathers who aren't present in their lives, not necessarily women from divorced families. This is truly an important point. A father can be estranged even though they are still married (i.e. fathers who work long hours and are never around, fathers in the army, pilots etc...) likewise fathers who are divorced can also play an important role in their childrens lives.

"If you grow up in an environment where marriage is treated as a temporary and disposable thing, how can that not affect (negatively) the way you approach marriage?" On that same note, pink, if you grow up in a family that is completely miserable, with no love left, the parents just waiting "for death do us part, sooner rather than later PLEASE!"...how in the world can those children learn to have a fulfilling, loving relationship with another person?? They will only see 2 people who obviously aren't happy. Do you think that will produce happy children, who find happy partners??? Or do you think they will just try and find the same kind of misery that they were raised in??

Oscar,I agree that daughters who are estranged from their fathers don't fare as well, but as Karen pointed out, that happens in intact families. I know many fathers who were emotionally distant for many reasons. Some were uncomfortable showing emotion, some were working too many hours, some were just out drinking. I see too many kids with parents that just don't give a shit and that affects the kids in a negative way. Single parents don't have a monopoly on being shitty parents. And Crid, the circles you dance around a topic are astounding!

Interesting. The first relationship I've had where I've been willing to consider marriage and children is with the only person I've ever dated that came from a healthy, loving, functional two parent home. Mom and Dad are still together.

My mom, incidentally, left when I was 3 years old, because she didn't want to be a wife and mother anymore (that's what she said - a little late, huh?). And I've definitely had issues related to that...however, I've been cognizant of those issues, worked on them for a long time before willing to call myself completely "functional". And it's interesting to discover that now what I'm attracted to as a mate is from the loving two parent family. I'm glad he's not adamantly against me just because of my parents, although that's a valid concern - I'm just glad he judges me independently from them, because I've certainly taken it upon myself to become responsible, stable, and loving. It just took til almost 30 to get there.

There's a lot of discussion on this blog devoted to Ways Parents Can Mess Their Kids Up. Divorce, single parenting, helicopter parenting, overly permissive parenting, parents-who-bring-their-screaming-brats-on-an-airplane, etc. We can agree that a loving, intact, two-parent family should be the standard for raising kids, but that doesn't mean that intact, loving families can't mess up their kids in a myriad of other ways. (For example, I'm willing to bet that married mothers are much more likely to become overprotective Helicopter Mommies than single mothers who don't have time to coordinate every playdate or apply to jobs on their kids behalf.)

Plus, we all know families in which some siblings turned out great, others become screw-ups. Same parents, same environment, but different people will respond differently to their environments and challenges, and you can't predict on an individual level who will survive, thrive, or fail.

>>Single parents don't have a monopoly on being shitty parents.

Said by a number of different posters in different ways.

Yet, men from single mom families are 7 times more likely to end up in prison than men from two parent familes. Etc. Etc. What is there about that you guys can't understand????????

And, the plural of anecdote is not data. Period, end of debate.

Is this like Dorothy who closes her eyes and wishes she were back in Kansas?

Society simply cannot afford to have that many single moms.

My daughter took her teaching practice in the early 90's. An older teacher said when you walk into the classroom, you can spot the kids from single mom families by looking, with no one telling you. She found that to be true. I do not know myself, because I am not a teacher, but she says it is so, and she is smart in her own way.

> I read no authoritative study quoted.

Oh, I love this shit! I love it! As if this weren't about the question asked for the last twenty millennia by every human being who grew to be taller than two feet and look his fellows in the eye: 'Why is this fucker such a mess? What conditions in his background left him so ill-prepared to deal?'

On this blog, we have office functionaries and grocery baggers and retail clerks and insurance adjusters, dirty-nailed fender-hammering workbots whose lives (and beliefs) have nothing to do with the scientific method. But push 'em into a corner, and suddenly they're in the Alexander Agassiz Chair of Zoology at Harvard. They wouldn't know double-blind from double-jointed... They certainly never bothered to argue any other point here in such gloriously pretentious academic terms.

But here we are. And suddenly they wanna see the numbers from every microscope, and the peer-reviewed studies from every lab in the western world... As if they'd know what to make of them.

Well, you've come to the right blog. Amy likes to pull that shit too, so you'll always be welcome here.

More to the point, this is America!... Which is, I contend, as blind with cruel presumption about this as it was with the slavery of blacks 200 years ago.

So relax! Be at peace! You're with your peeps! As Ringo the Beatle once said, "We all AGREE with you!"

Y'know, the cruelty toward blacks was at least about reckless manipulation of someone who appeared to be different than you were, someone imaginably removed from your inner life.

This one's about our kids.

> as Karen pointed out, that happens in intact families.

Jesus Christ on a Popsicle Stick.

DOES – IT – HAPPEN – AS – OFTEN, Kristen?

This whole thing drives me crazy. Does anyone seriously disagree with the statement "Raising a child as a single parent is much harder than raising a child with a partner"? Of course not. We all know it's harder, whether we sneer at single moms or celebrate them.

So, since we all agree it's so much harder, why do the defenders of single parents have such a hard time believing that single parents FAIL much more often than partnered parents? If something is hard, by definition, most people don't do it easily and most people don't have a good outcome.

Oh, and about my own experience---my parents divorced when I was seven, and my mother had several live-in boyfriends throughout my childhood. This was fairly normal in our circle--the sisters, cousins, and friends of my mother were mostly divorced or never-married and they had about the same arrangements. A boyfriend would appear; the mom and he would date with and without the kids for a few months, and then he would move in. All would go well till unofficial stepdad tried to either discipline the kids (including biologically shared kids, sometimes) or bring his own kids, from other relationships, around for more than a weekend. Then the mom would answer that disagreement by throwing him out or moving herself and the kids back to her own mother's house. Then, all the other moms would gather, put the assorted kids in front of a Disney movie, and assure the newly unattached mom that she'd done the right thing and that she didn't need a man for nothin'. Except..giggle, giggle.

All of us, boys and girls, picked up one thing---If you disagree, just leave. The girls got the empowering (misleading) "You don't need a man!" And the boys got..."Women don't need you, other than for that giggly thing. And when it comes to your kids (or kids that may as well be yours) you will be wrong."

And, really, my mother and her sisters/cousins/friends were GOOD mothers in other ways. We all got read to and our homework got checked. We were encouraged to value education and hard work, to pursue our talents wholeheartedly. One of our tight-knit group is an accomplished musician. We are all "successful" in many ways. Except that none of us have any idea how to solve problems with our spouses, and every single one of us (now grown) has more than one babymomma/babydaddy. I realized in couples counseling, close to divorce, that my immediate answer to any disagreement with my husband was "I don't have to take this!" *stomp, stomp* and it's been about the same for all of us.

I suspect that part of the reason those raised by single parents tend to fare worse on a range of outcomes is also that women who are more dysfunctional and have problems are more likely to end up as single mothers in the first place.

Another problem with single parent families is that there are fewer 'checks and balances'. In a family with two parents, and preferably close contact with other relations and so on, there is a greater likelihood that negative influences will be balanced out. If one parent is exerting an undue influence in one direction, there is a chance that the other parent can balance things out. But in a single parent family, there are fewer balancing influences and so a greater likelihood that negative traits will be passed on.

Karen, it seems as though you are trying just a bit too hard to convince everyone that you don't have any problems from your upbringing. I don't think most here are buying it. You doth protesteth too much. And it is obvious from reading between the lines that you are desperately trying to prop up your own fragile ego. You apply all the typical ego-defense mechanisms. It is always other people who have all the problems. Never you.

I was raised in a dysfunctional, abusive single parent family. And I know I am unbalanced and scarred because of it. I don't need to go around desperately trying to convince everyone, 'hey, I turned out just fine. Nothing wrong with me!'. There's this thing called 'self-awareness' and 'self-evaluation'. You really should try it.

It is quite liberating to look at yourself and say 'hey, you might be a bit fucked up. But most people raised in your circumstances would be as well. That's okay. I can live with myself.'

maybe we should be looking at the type of parent that is more likely to end up as a single mom rather then just the end result? Just saying.. correlation is not necessarily causation. If you don't have the communication skills to make a marriage or co-parenting arrangement work, you can't teach your children what you don't know, and thus the cycle perpetuates.

I'm a single mom.. maybe. I'm not married, but I'm engaged to a wonderful guy I've been with for 5.5 years, and known for 7 (we dated about a year before I let him meet my daughter - one of the things he found attractive was that I was upfront about not bringing anyone into my daughter's life until I knew things were serious, and had been serious long enough for the shiny to wear off.) So he's been around half of my daughter's life, and maybe that means I'm not really a single mom.

So.. my experience? My daughter's been dancing competitively since she was 6 yrs old (she's finishing 6th grade now.) She's been an A & B student her entire life, and reads at an 11th grade level. She's been nominated for Jr Honor Society, and received the Good Character award for her grade this year. She's consistently in the top 20% of her Terra Nova scores. She's popular, well mannered and good-hearted (we have talks about being popular because you're nice, not because people are afraid that if they don't like you, you'll be mean to them - yay middle school.) She played 3 years of soccer, has played softball, done horseback riding (we're an active family,) 2 yrs of karate, and she's recently decided to join me in dog showing. She's also been in Science and Art club at school, and recognized for her musical talent (she sings & plays clarinet.) She's good with a computer, and beat 3 boys in her grade at arm wresting after challenging them when they told her ballet was stupid & she told them it wasn't, and it was a tough sport (she's about 4'11" and 70lbs, so she's tiny, but strong.) In my totally biased opinion, she's a great kid and very happy. People that don't know our back story never question that we're anything but a "normal" married two parent family.

obviously, she's not an adult yet. And the years that it was just her and I did have an effect. The first few years my fiance and I were together, I was still clearly the preferred parent. Probably because I've been the constant in her life, and probably partly because I'm mom, and young kids often gravitate to mom to fix the bad things. The last couple years she's definitely been treating us equally.

The greatest correlation I've seen between kids of single moms who do well vs those that don't is in how well the moms do in handling being single. If mom is a confident, fair, motivated, stable and financially secure person, the kids seem to do fine (this goes for the single dads I know too.) These moms also seem to be the ones most likely to maintain a good co-parenting relationship.

I hate the stereotype of the single mom looking to hurt the bioDad however possible and taking into her family's lives anyone that'll have her, but I've seen it firsthand and it's not uncommon. I think that points to an underlying self esteem problem, and I think teaching your child over or under confidence is a greater problem then having both parents there or not.

I also think having both parents is helpful to balance out weaknesses. For example, if one is bad at finances, hopefully the second parent is good at it, and the child learns. I had the benefit of growing up with both parents, and I learned from both of them - sometimes what to do, sometimes what not to do. But it would be harder to figure out the right way to handle things if the only example you have is the wrong way.

"Single mothers do contribute to a lot of societies problems, and society at large contributes by providing incentive and excuse for their poor behavior."

Well, we have yet another apology for single motherhood all over the airways today. Alicia Keys is "very happy" to be expecting her first child by her boyfriend. They "plan" to get married sometime later this year.

This is cheerfully reported, as if it is the thing to do. Yay!

Her guy appears to be another Federline, who has a couple of kids by other women. What a fine dad he'll be...

TLK, it sounds like you "were" a single mom, but now have a two-parent family. And this happened young enough that your daughter will have few memories of it being any other way. FWIW, my experience has been that smaller kids - and especially daughters - almost always prefer Mom. This tends to equalize sometime in the "tween" years. Once the kids become teens it can go any way at all, as it depends much more on the interactions of the individual personalities.

Radwaste, I do not understand this fascination with the private lives of the celebrities. As a group, they are some of the most messed up people on the planet. Maybe it's the same fascination as watching motorcycle racing? Almost no one really cares about the race - it's more about the continual wipeouts, crashes and other disasters. In this case, we all know perfectly well that Alicia Keys (whoever she is, some actress? musician?) will wind up on the front page again when she and her new hubby split up.

> correlation is not necessarily causation.

AAARRRRRGGGHHHHH

Yes, it fucking is, OK? It is CAUSATION.

SINGLE PARENTHOOD FUCKS KIDS UP. Say it. Know it. Live it.

Woke up at 5 to enjoy the Turkish Grand Prix in another window, and you're ruining it for me. (Rain imminent on lap 24)

"Correlation is not necessarily causation".

I just love this. Yes, correlation does not always equal causation. But guess what, correlation does not always NOT equal causation either! Duh!

So to simply assert that 'correlation does not equal correlation' is nothing but pompous, vacuous nonsense.

Thing is, if you can establish a correlation between two things, unless you can offer an alternative explanation other than the causal relationship being assumed, you don't really have an argument.

Oh, fuck me. I just ruined a good swat-down with a typo error. The middle paragraph is supposed to read: 'correlation does not equal causation'.

You see, I wouldn't have done that if I hadn't been so fucked up by being raised by a single parent!

From what I've read, unless there's a high-conflict environment, kids seem to be better off if the parents stay together.

How does one define a high-conflict environment - it seems people will have different thresholds for that (are mommy and daddy going at each other with baseball bats? or does it not have to be physical violence, but wretched constant screaming fights full of verbal and emotional abuse?)

Parents likely have a higher tolerance for what they dish out to each other too, especially if they've been hardened by it for years, than their young child does.

I don't expect there to be one standard of high conflict for all people or one easy answer, but I'm interested in general in this kind of tough decision - comparing the negative impact of divorce/separation to that of staying together in what's a toxic environment.

"Although the statistics listed here don't necessarily adjust for wealth discrepancies."

This is exactly backward. There are wealth discrepancies because there often are two incomes. Or one, higher income which is not possible if you raise a child by yourself. Or pay for child care.

>>The greatest correlation I've seen between kids of single moms who do well vs those that don't is in how well the moms do in handling being single. If mom is a confident, fair, motivated, stable and financially secure person, the kids seem to do fine (this goes for the single dads I know too.)

Yet, kids from single moms are 7 times more likely to end up in prison.

Seven times as often in prison means their neighborhoods are often Hell on earth.

So, all you are really saying is "7 times as often does not mean all."

Yeah, we all know that. But, we still can't afford that 7 times as much, with all the crime and murders and suicides involved.

Being a single mom is like being a married man today. Forty percent of marriages end up in divorce with women being given total freedom, but men expected to continue to act as if still married with responsibilities but no benefits for long years.

Increasingly, men are admitting there is no way to predict a successful marriage versus a divorce, so they are choosing not to marry at all. That is the correct approach.

All single moms obviously start out with high ambition, believing their mother's LOOOVVVVE will conquer all.

So, your anecdote about your excellent daughter has the end result of continuing the hoax, and encouraging millions more women of doing the same thing and seeing their sons living in prison.

(Yet, as good as she is, the odds are great she will end up as a single mom, because she has not learned how to be anything else. Good job!)

And, it will continue until our society is gone, gone, gone. This isn't the first time major civilizations have collapsed like this and won't be the last. I am glad I am old. My kids gotta' take care of themselves.

>>There are wealth discrepancies because there often are two incomes.

I didn't understand the point of that posting.

But, it does bring to mind a riddle.

Imagine with me you have a household with two people working, thus a certain amount of income.

Now, imagine one of those two people quit working. Does the household income go up or down? C'mon, I bet you can figure this out, though liberals think it shouldn't matter.

Now, imagine the last person is forced to leave the house. Does income go up or down? C'mon, I bet you can figure it out, though liberals think it shouldn't matter.

Ever since large numbers of women chose a government check rather than a husband, the absence of a father in the house has created a social disaster on a large scale.

At the same time, no one in the house working also means poverty.

Since both things happened at the same time for the same reason, the liberals scream, "Poverty causes crime. We need to increase welfare payments, and we need to enslave men to support the single moms."

Yet, year after year, it gets worse and worse.

Einstein allegedly said something like, "Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results."

>>In the late 80's, Dr. Daniel Amneus wrote a book called Garbage Generation, available for download on the Web. It was filled with solid statistics on the damage done by families with no father. Including proof that high income kids with no father in the house are as messed as low income kids with no dad around...

I just KNEW a book very warmly recommended by irlandes would be worth a peek!

The author of "The Garbage Generation", the late Dr. A ,owed his PhD to Eng. Lit - not to any of the social sciences, by the way.

Dr. A was very, very, very, very pro the idea of chaps being in charge!

Here is a quote:
"The entire fabric of patriarchal civilization rests upon female chastity. It would be ridiculous to refer to a man's chastity as his virtue because his unchastity does not destroy his family and his wife's reproductive role. But a woman's chastity is her virtue because her unchastity destroys her family and her husband's reproductive role--and civilized society along with them, because civilized society is built on the patriarchal, nuclear, two-parent family."

There is much, much, MUCH more at irlandes' first link.

the request was for "your experience." Unless I misunderstood the request. What I detailed has been my experience. Your milage may vary.

My daughter wouldn't be considered a "normal" child even if she was from a household with married biological parents because of her intelligence, height, weight and family's income bracket.

I'm not the "normal" single mother either. I finished college. I've never used government assistance (other then the *stellar* job the CS office has done in collecting what her bioDad is supposed to be contributing.. I think he was up to $56,000 behind the last time I bothered to look - and no, he's never been sent to jail for it) - I had my own healthcare, and I'm sure my income was too high to qualify for anything had I bothered applying for assistance.

I'm not refuting the studies. I don't think single parenting is a good idea, or noble or should be encouraged. I would've preferred to have done things differently. I was engaged when I got pregnant. I'd used the pill successfully for 5 years prior to getting pregnant while still on it (and haven't had another accident in the nearly 12 years since.) The first 2 years my ex and I were together were great. Over the last 2 years we were together, he spiralled down into alchoholism. I didn't think it was a responsible decison to go ahead and marry the alcoholic he'd become.

"(Yet, as good as she is, the odds are great she will end up as a single mom, because she has not learned how to be anything else. Good job!)"

so, you're saying her first years (to age 6) are going to be more influential then the subsequent 5.5 years, and counting, where she's had a dad, and I've had a partner?

bummer...because he's a really great guy, very involved in her life, and she adores him.

"On that same note, pink, if you grow up in a family that is completely miserable, with no love left, the parents just waiting "for death do us part, sooner rather than later PLEASE!"...how in the world can those children learn to have a fulfilling, loving relationship with another person??"

How often does THAT happen nowadays? People push the reset button when they hit the slightest bump in the road.

And, a relationship like the one you describe, Karen, is a failure of the mate-selection process (same as single parenthood).

Since you asked for personal experiences: I'm dating someone who was mostly raised by a single mom, and she's the most calm, stable, issue-less woman I've ever dated. However, it's not the usual single-mom situation; her dad died at around age 10, plus her gran then helped raise her so there was an extra 'parent' around. Her mom's no longer alive either, but I get the impression she was a really great mom (it shines through in her daughters). But my girlfriend is surely one of the exceptions; parenthood is not something you can feasibly do well alone, I agree children generally ideally need a man and a woman in a stable environment who are decent parents.

I think there is also a "selection bias" though ... the types of women who 'choose' to become single mothers are generally more likely to be the types who are poorer parents to begin with (since if you cared about raising your children properly you'd probably care enough to make sure they could be well-looked after before you brought them into the world).

'Jenny Had A Chance' has a good point; good parenthood is *tough*, and furthermore the nature of many of the tasks involved inherently work much better if executed by two involved parents ... it would be completely absurd to pretend that single parents, all else being equal, are just as likely to be good at such a difficult process as binary parents, and yet that's exactly what so many people do, live in la-la land and pretend that single parents can do it just as well.

The 'single is better than a high conflict environment' argument relies on the assumption that a least one of the partners would be a better parent alone. But there's no justification for this assumption.

Something to consider is that adults who'll expose their kids to their personal conflicts, to the extent that they're harming their children, are demonstrating a lack of conscientiousness that will carry over to their single lives. They're likely to behave similarly when raising the children alone. Their behavior may even become more dramatic without the moderating influence of a spouse.

> to the extent that they're harming their children,
> are demonstrating a lack of conscientiousness
> that will carry over to their single lives. They're
> likely to behave similarly when raising
> the children alone.

Yes,

I like you.