Daddies Matter
Ian Rowe and Brad Wilcox respond to a Harvard study -- and the headline says it: Sorry, Harvard, fathers still matter -- including Black fathers. Black children from two-parent homes do better than children from single-parent homes when it comes to prison, poverty and graduating college. They write at USAToday:
From academia to the policy world, most sensible people acknowledged the importance of strong and stable families for kids. Hailing from the Ivory Tower in 2015, scholars from Brookings and Princeton reported on the new scientific consensus: "most scholars now agree that children raised by two biological parents in a stable marriage do better than children in other family forms across a wide range of outcomes."In the public square, the consensus view about the importance of fathers was best articulated by Barack Obama, in speeches at churches and colleges across the country. He underlined the value of fathers for kids and his own dedication to breaking the cycle of fatherlessness he experienced as a boy. "And so my whole life, I've tried to be for Michelle and my girls what my father was not for my mother and me," he told the graduates of Morehouse College in 2013. "I want to break that cycle where a father is not at home -- where a father is not helping to raise that son or daughter. I want to be a better father, a better husband, a better man." No one could doubt that President Obama understood how much fathers mattered for their kids.
The 'Myth' of the Two-Parent Home
But now, progressives are calling into question even the kids-benefit-from-fathers argument Obama made so powerfully and poignantly. This month, for instance, The Harvard Gazette ran an article entitled, "Why living in a two-parent home isn't a cure-all for Black students." Written by Harvard sociologist Christina Cross, it spotlights her research showing that poor Black kids with two parents do not do better on a few educational outcomes compared to their peers with single parents.Cross' article echoed themes from an earlier article, "The Myth of the Two-Parent Home," that she published in The New York Times that claimed "living apart from a biological parent does not carry the same cost for black youths as for their white peers."
There's only one problem with this revisionist effort that relies on cherry picking a few findings to fit its narrative: it obscures the full truth from the sciences about the importance of two-parent families for kids.
A new report from the Institute for Family Studies co-authored by us with sociologist Wendy Wang finds large differences between Black kids raised by their own two parents, compared to their peers raised by single parents (primarily single mothers). Black children raised by single parents are three times more likely to be poor, compared to Black children raised by their own married parents. Black boys are almost half as likely to end up incarcerated (14% for intact; 23% for single parent) and twice as likely to go on and graduate from college (21% for intact; 12% for single parent) if they are raised in a home with their two parents, compared to boys raised by just one parent. Parallel patterns obtain for girls. Equally striking, we also find that Black children from stable two-parent homes do better than white children from single-parent homes when it comes to their risk of poverty or prison, and their odds of graduating from college. Young white men from single-parent families, for instance, are more likely to end up in prison than young Black men from intact, two-parent homes.
...Research like this has kept some influential thinkers and journalists on the left defending the scientific consensus about marriage, fatherhood, and family. "I think that my half of the political spectrum -- the left half -- too often dismisses the importance of family structure," noted New York Times columnist David Leonhardt, responding to another of Chetty's studies. "Partly out of a worthy desire to celebrate the heroism of single parents, progressives too often downplay family structure. Social science is usually messy, with correlation and causation difficult to separate. But the evidence, when viewed objectively, points strongly to the value of two-parent households."
Which would effectively shoot down the two gay parents argument, since this specified "biological parents."
But there's been no comparison between two gay parents and, say, a single mom, for instance.
And suggesting that all other family forms are completely meritless would mean that no one should ever adopt an orphaned child.
Patrick at June 20, 2021 4:54 AM
Patrick:
Which would effectively shoot down the two gay parents argument, since this specified "biological parents."
- - - - - - -
It's worse than that. The Number 1 risk factor for child molestation is the presence in the home of adults who are not the child's biological parents.
Add in the pedo/twink elements of gay "culture" and you have a recipe for disaster.
BenDavid at June 20, 2021 6:16 AM
"Why living in a two-parent home isn't a cure-all for Black students." ~Harvard Gazette
Why does it have to be a 'cure-all'? Can't it be a 'cure most'? Or even a 'just better than the alternative'?
Life does not offer perfection. In refusing anything less than perfection you guarantee you get nothing.
Ben at June 20, 2021 6:39 AM
One of the stated goals of BLM is the destruction of the nuclear family.
Tried to get across the benefits of 2 parent families but those on the left have it ingrained that benefit is all about 2 income not 2 people. So give single mothers more $. No study will change their hearts.
Joe J at June 20, 2021 7:20 AM
In general, being raised by two biological parents is probably best. That does not mean other forms are meritless, however. The two biological parent model is ideal, however not always attainable, for a variety of reasons.
I read somewhere that studies have shown that children in a single parent household due to death do better than those in a single parent household due to divorce. A such, the commitment of the parents in a two parent model seems to be an important factor.
As for adoption, the stringency of the adoption approval procedure almost guarantees a decent parent set to the orphaned child. I know people who have adopted and the approval process was described by them as "brutal."
I think we probably have enough longitudinal data by now to at least begin to analyze the outcomes of the two gay parents model by now. Perhaps, two gay people in a committed relationship can have a positive impact on a child, more so than a single parent.
A single parent, of either gender (yes, 2), can easily be overwhelmed by the demands of parenthood. So, having a second parent is important for relief, if nothing else. Ideally, however, I think being raised by parents who both contributed genetic material to the child (for whom the child is their genetic legacy) is the most desirable situation, albeit one that is not always possible.
I think single parenthood works better for folks at the higher ends of the socio-economic scale, people with resources to provide the instruction, mentorship, and guidance that a single parent cannot. Those at the lower ends of that scale do not seem to fare as well.
In my mind, I keep going back to the commitment level of the parents as a key factor in the success of raising a child.
Not to mention that not all "cure-all" situations will work out best, thus rendering it not a "cure-all." Even a biological parent can be a bad parent.
And not all "less-than-deal" situations will result in a lost child. Some single parents will do a bang-up job. A lot of it depends upon the child as well.
Still, odds are that a child in the two-biological-parent model will turn out better than one in the single-parent model.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's they way to bet. ~ Damon Runyon
Conan the Grammarian at June 20, 2021 7:40 AM
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
The zero defects, zero risk mentality in government coupled with little or no actual accountability has destroyed a lot of lives.
A well run orphanage is better in many respects from a dysfunctional home. And a well run school with average teachers and good discipline is better than a hot mess of the latest educational fads.
Not everyone can be saved or fixed, and the attempt can often unwittingly destroy entire institutions.
Isab at June 20, 2021 8:13 AM
Conan:
Or that could simply be because a two-parent committed household is more likely to carry life insurance, leaving the remaining parent in a better position than a single parent who has four kids from six different possible daddies.
Patrick at June 20, 2021 10:53 AM
"Or that could simply be because a two-parent committed household is more likely to carry life insurance, leaving the remaining parent in a better position than a single parent who has four kids from six different possible daddies."
Most of these studies control for income and wealth as best they can, can't control for everything, such as extended family influence.
From having been around some single mothers with boys. Many were perfectly comfortable, calling the father and often all men every vile name in the book with the child right there. And then surprised when the boy acted up. I've known 2 widows with children one later remarried, I'd only heard one say somethings bad about the father more often good.
It is very difficult to hide hatred from someone you live with that reminds you of someone you hate. Growing up with that has to have some effect.
Joe J at June 20, 2021 12:25 PM
Joe beat me to it Patrick. Divorce does appear to be more damaging than death. Then you throw in the shared custody stuff with both parents still fighting with two different set of rules and expectations. It results in a very unstable environment.
As for the gay parent thing, as Conan stressed you have to understand you are dealing with statistics. The trend may be in one place but that doesn't mean everyone is there. Homosexuals do appear to have more unstable relationships than heterosexuals. That instability appears to be the biggest issue with raising kids. But that is the average. There are lots and lots of unstable hetero relationships and there are quite a few stable homosexual ones. When dealing with a population of 300 million just 1% bucking the trend is still 3 million people. Not a small number.
Ben at June 20, 2021 12:59 PM
Conan:
I think we probably have enough longitudinal data by now to at least begin to analyze the outcomes of the two gay parents model by now. Perhaps, two gay people in a committed relationship can have a positive impact on a child, more so than a single parent.
- - - - -
You're watching too much TV - that's where most of the "gay people in a committed relationship" exist...
We have the statistics - they just don't say what you want to believe:
1. Gays are 1.5 percent of the population. Not more than 20-30 percent of them will ever be in a long term relationship - where "long term" is leniently defined as "three years or more". The vast majority of gays spend their adult lives tumbling through short term romances that dissolve in envy, infidelity, and sometimes violence before the 2-year mark.
The Carousel Of Promiscuity quickly slows when one is no longer a Pretty Young Thing able to compete in the meat market/"gay community"... The "long term relationships" are mostly an accommodation of that harsh reality. But they still fall far short of hetero marriages in their longevity.
2. They also fall short in fidelity: Even these "committted" relationships are typically wide open to other partners, who often are transient pay-for-play opportunists... The exact same pattern of transient boyfriends makes single-mother homes statistically prone to molestation and abuse.
- - - - -
I know this doesn't jibe with the liberal propaganda on TV - or with self-reporting by gays - but this is what Ministries of Health from Sweden to SanFran have reported for decades.
BenDavid at June 20, 2021 1:50 PM
Conan:
I think we probably have enough longitudinal data by now to at least begin to analyze the outcomes of the two gay parents model by now. Perhaps, two gay people in a committed relationship can have a positive impact on a child, more so than a single parent.
- - - - -
You're watching too much TV - that's where most of the "gay people in a committed relationship" exist...
We have the statistics - they just don't say what you want to believe:
1. Gays are 1.5 percent of the population. Not more than 20 percent of them are ever in a long term relationship - where "long term" is generously defined as "three years or more". The vast majority of gays spend their adult lives tumbling through short term romances that dissolve in envy, infidelity, and sometimes violence before the 2-year mark.
The Carousel Of Promiscuity quickly slows when one is no longer a Pretty Young Thing and no longer able to compete in the meat market/"gay community"... The "long term relationships" are a forced accommodation of that harsh reality. But they still fall far short of hetero marriages in the longevity department.
2. They also fall short in The fidelity department: Even these "committted" relationships are typically wide open to other partners, who often are transient pay-for-play opportunists... The exact same pattern of transient boyfriends makes single-mother homes statistically prone to molestation and abuse.
- - - - -
I know this doesn't jibe with the liberal propaganda on TV - or with self-reporting by gays - but this is what Ministries of Health from Sweden to SanFran have reported for decades.
BenDavid at June 20, 2021 1:55 PM
Women who truly love their children give them a loving father.
Crid at June 20, 2021 2:48 PM
Women who truly love their children give them a loving father.
Crid at June 20, 2021 2:48 PM
Yes. All good parents, most times put their children’s interests ahead of their own and they stay married, if they possibly can for as long as it takes.
I’ve seen a few situations where people need to get divorced for legitimate reasons, but most times, it is pure short term hormone induced craziness. (Both the marriage and the divorce)
Isab at June 20, 2021 4:25 PM
The animosity toward marriage stems largely from radical feminism (of mostly lesbians) who have no use for men and may hate them. They really don't care if the children are better off with 2 parents.
In the case of the black community, it has become doctrine that one may not criticize anything about them, even if data show it. Gangs? Can't mention them. Broken families? The fault of racism.
cc at June 20, 2021 5:07 PM
Notes that the sociologist in question got her Ph.D. in it from Michigan. When I was a grad student in a STEM department there, interaction with sociology grads quickly showed me not to take much of anything they said or believed seriously, unless they showed that they should be (i.e. said some things that made sense, rather than whatever they were trying to twist into syncing up with their beliefs).
Former Wolverine at June 20, 2021 5:46 PM
BenDavid,
There are 332 million people in the US. Using your numbers that means there are 5 million non-hetero people in the US and a little under 1 million stable families they could provide. At the same time there are 54 million hetero families with all the same problems you brought up about the gay community. Isn't it better to differentiate based on the problematic behavior?
To be quite frank the african american community has unstable family units that slightly exceed the homosexual community's.
Ben at June 20, 2021 8:10 PM
Ben:
that means there are 5 million non-hetero people in the US and a little under 1 million stable families
- - - - -
Well, no.
The 20-30 percent number I quoted is gays who manage to maintain relationships beyond the 2-3 year mark. That is, beyond the point where romantic/narcissistic projection starts to yield to a realistic view of the other...
The number who actually get married and maintain a longer relationship (childrearing is a 20 year committment) is even less. Counts based on actual court records in the US are in the thousands/tens of thousands - decades after legalization.
And your rush to use the word "stable" ignores the widely confirmed observation that most gay relationships - including the "civil unions" - are open to transient hookups and "houseguests".
Here are (plumped up, airbrushed) statistics from a pro-gay law firm. Note the use of amorphous terms like "committed relationship" - which completely elide the meat-market reality of gay life:
https://www.mckinleyirvin.com/resources/same-sex-marriage-parenting-divorce-in-washingto/statistics-on-gay-marriage/
BenDavid at June 20, 2021 10:18 PM
I'm not rushing to use the word 'stable', BenDavid. I'm just using the same term for both groups. Stable family life for hetero groups has fallen tremendously in the US since the 1970s. ~25% of homosexual relationships last that 2 year mark, and using the same measurement hetero couples do much better at ~65%. And american blacks stand out with only ~20% making that 2 year mark. All of those groups get hit when you remove the transient hookups and houseguest stuff.
Personally I am more worried about the 54 million screwups who happen to be heteros just because there are a lot more of them.
I do understand and respect the need for common terms and definitions. People love to play games there. And as culture changes the old definitions don't always apply correctly. Today in the US 20% of children are living with their single biological father. They also happen to be living with their single biological mother at the same time. And that single-single family unit appears like it will last at least till the child hits 25. Not exactly the traditional definition of single.
My generation has largely given up on legal marriage. And for good reason. While I am married at this point I don't intend to encourage my children to get legally married. Current US marriage laws don't have anything to do with children. So if you are looking to settle down and raise a family getting married really isn't part of that deal anymore. If anything it has become a hinderance in forming a stable family unit. Instead legal marriage in the US appears good for transferring assets tax free between old people. So we are oddly enough starting to see a trend where people are not married most of their lives and get married in their 60s to the person they've lived most of their life with.
Odd stuff.
Ben at June 21, 2021 5:36 AM
"Odd stuff."
Indeed. Having seen this gem: "The mapping of the human genome conclusively proved that gays are not "born that way"." - which is easily shown to be completely false - I suspect every word from the zealot here.
As I suspect he wants guys like Patrick branded, even though he won't say it.
Radwaste at June 21, 2021 6:33 AM
Well, something being genetic and being 'born that way' are not actually the same thing. And even if you aren't 'born that way' it doesn't mean you can change it. I know people who were born with all their limbs and then lost one. They aren't growing a new one.
That said the statistics BenDavid quoted do appear to be correct. Under 2% of the population and very unstable relationships. Which is why outside of adoption when you are talking about family units homosexuals don't matter. With all due respect to Patrick there are just so many more heteros out there homosexuals become a rounding error.
Ben at June 21, 2021 6:49 AM
One tragedy in the past generation is the concept of the "ideal" has morphed from something to uphold as often as possible into a hypocritical insult to discard, lest we offend someone who for any number of reasons didn't live up to it.
Trust at June 21, 2021 6:50 AM
Speaking of insults, however, I hate this "birthing person's day" nonsense.
My wife and I are adoptive parents. My wife isn't a "birthing person" but she has been a mother in every other way.
Same with me. I didn't impregnate the birth mother, something most 12 year-olds are both capable of and eager to try. But have been a father in every other way.
Our generation has an abundance of knowledge and a shortage or wisdom.
Trust at June 21, 2021 6:56 AM
I was gonna stop, but since my last post I turned on YouTube and the top story was about an "American Community Survey Five-Year Estimate (2015-2019), Institute for Family Studies" which dies the following statistics on the Poverty Rate of Black Children:
* Living with Two Parents in First Marriage, 13% Poverty Rate
* Living in Likely Step-Parent Family, 33% Poverty Rate
* Living with Single Parent, 46% Poverty Rate
I don't see any stats for divorced families. But it is clear there is a real advantage to marriage and the presence of fathers in the home.
Again, and it is frustrating that this has to be repeated, it is not in any way meant as an insult to those who perform admirably without a father in a married home.
Trust at June 21, 2021 7:02 AM
"most scholars now agree that children raised by two biological parents in a stable marriage do better than children in other family forms across a wide range of outcomes." ~article
"And suggesting that all other family forms are completely meritless would mean that no one should ever adopt an orphaned child." ~Patrick
I suspect most scholars agree that orphaned children should not stay with their biological parents. At least barring advances in the fun new science of necromancy.
Ben at June 21, 2021 7:54 AM
BenDavid, "longitudinal data" means being able to study something over time from the same viewpoint - instead of random snapshots. That is, we should by now have enough data from the date gay marriage was declared legal in the US to track the lifespan of and behavior in legally-recognized relationships in the gay community, to track the changes in these relationships over time.
The statistics you cite include a period of time when and places where gay relationships, of any sort, were not legally recognized or formalized. The behavior you cite may carry over, even into formalized and legally-recognized relationships.
Without legal entanglements, family attendance at a formal ceremony, and all the other trappings of marriage, I'd bet most relationships don't last very long. Living together is not marriage, no matter how much each party insists that they're seriously committed to each other.
The lesbian divorce rate is double that of the gay men divorce rate. Considering that women initiate most divorces, that seems logical.
A 2011 US study showed gay divorce rates roughly half that of straight couples. However, the study erred in calculating the percentage based on when gay marriage was made legal. The 2015 adjusted rate is 2%, equal to the divorce rate of straight marriages.
The question that brought all this up was whether having a same-sex couple as parents has a statistically better outcome for children than having a single parent; no matter your feelings on gay relationships.
And, dood, I don't really care if the data vindicates or condemns gay marriage/adoption. I have no dog in that fight.
Conan the Grammarian at June 21, 2021 8:16 AM
Ben:
My generation has largely given up on legal marriage. And for good reason. While I am married at this point I don't intend to encourage my children to get legally married. Current US marriage laws don't have anything to do with children. So if you are looking to settle down and raise a family getting married really isn't part of that deal anymore. If anything it has become a hinderance in forming a stable family unit.
- - - - - -
It was not always so. The people on the Left who have altered and weakened marriage - making it less about children, intimacy, and covenant and more about adult self-indulgence - did so deliberately: we know this from their own words.
And the equating of swinging gay shackups to hetero marriage - the entire formulation of marriage as a "right", an enitlement - is part of that dilution and shift of meaning.
BenDavid at June 21, 2021 12:41 PM
So what is to be done to... I mean, with, Sir Elton and David, or George and Brad?
Radwaste at June 21, 2021 6:20 PM
The Economist and Atlantic keep having articles pop up about how the nuclear family sucks.
NicoleK at June 24, 2021 5:46 AM
Leave a comment