I guess I'm just used to all those Japanese articles about their growing single working culture. Those usually focus on how both sexes are giving up relationships in favor of their careers.
Not entirely. Depending on the country, there is often a gap between the number of men and women. Mortality for young men in some countries is still much higher than women (ie. Russia). [1] By 65, there is less than 0.5 men per woman. And even at 15-64 age range, it is 0.9 men per woman.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia#Sex_rat...
> In 2006, 12.9 million families in the US were headed by a single parent, 80% of which were headed by a female.
> 45% of single mothers are currently divorced or separated
Which means that potentially 45% of these 80% had the father in court fighting for his kids custody, and we all know how biased to justice system is toward men in that case. My point is don't make it sound like fathers just abandon their kids.
> Which means that potentially 45% of these 80% had the father in court fighting for his kids custody
No, it doesn't. (Divorce/separated is irrelevant to that, since parental rights for both parents generally exist from birth regardless of marriage so long as paternity is established, and so separation or divorce from marriage is not a prerequisite to custody proceedings. The "potential" number is much higher; though the actual number is lower.)
> and we all know how biased to justice system is toward men in that case.
Yes, courts are substantially biased in favor of men in contested custody cases; men end up with custody less often in divorce because men are less likely to seek custody.
> My point is don't make it sound like fathers just abandon their kids.
Unfortunately, the fact is that fathers, all too often -- both without marriage and when it fails -- just abandon their kids.
"Yes, courts are substantially biased in favor of men in contested custody cases; men end up with custody less often in divorce because men are less likely to seek custody."
More likely, men only go to court when they see a chance of winning to begin with.
It's not a one-to-one correspondence. Nothing says the numbers have to match up. In an extreme case, an individual single father could potentially correspond to dozens of single mothers. An individual single mother is more limited, but could still match up with a dozen or so single fathers.
> Is it because it is seen as socially acceptable for men to lead single lives while not so much for women?
This assumes that society is the only variable in being single. I'm guessing this is not the case.
If I were to hazard a guess, the tact was chosen because there's been an uptick in single women (notably, for the first time in US history, more adult women are single than married). There are other facets to look at, but this might be the most visible in terms of expected social change from the feminist perspective I was brought up with.
Or its simply isn't about single men. Who cares if it is only about them not every other group has to be mentioned in every post even if they also have a stake in the discussion. I can write an article about the issues of db optimization without saying a single word about MySQL. Same situation.
Mostly because there's a big marketing push behind the book "All the Single Ladies" which recently came out. Either this article was pitched by Simon & Schuster's PR team or it is lucky free publicity generated in response to the buzz created by the other articles successfully pitched by them.
A mid to high six figure book advance is really high for a non-fiction book these days. They are hoping they have a blockbuster on their hands.
>> Why does the article only focus on single women?
Because she thinks that women should live independently of men. She thinks we should restructure society and the way we raise children around that notion.
Because the author is a single woman who wants to sell her book. Actually there are already lots of people living as singles, and there isn't really that much of a pressure to get married. She is building up a straw man to make her book seem more important.
I just curious with this article specifically because its about the idea of the classic heterosexual relationship, which is inherently about men and women. It just seemed it was missing 1/2 of the story.
It does sound rhetorical. A more 'honest' approach would be "Is it because it is more socially acceptable for one sex to lead single lives, not so much for the other?"
I don't really see why you'd assume that women are more frowned upon in this situation. I mean, there's even a picture of SUPERWOMAN in this article! And yet, your initial position was to think that women were the 'victims' here. (For lack of a better word.) Interesting, isn't it?
If anything, single women are shown as courageous and going against the tides. If a man decides to lead a single live, he is not seen as a hero. At best it's inconsequential, at worse he's a loser.
And this tendency of inconsequential/loser for the men applies to many situations.
As someone who grew up in a single mother home, with many friends in the same boat, anecdotally I can say that it is not preferable in any way.
Hypothesizing an evolutionary basis for this, I would say that high investment dual parenting has been the most effective method of raising successful and productive children. Societies which embraced this as the norm have flourished - others, not so much. For more on this topic, see J.D. Unwin: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Unwin
Prior to modern transportation it was common for men to be out of touch with there wives for long periods of time (months / years). So, defacto most society's dealt with lots of single mothers.
The classic solution was large extended family's which is where America falls down.
PS: It's even a major plot point in the Odyssey which is ~2,800 years old.
> As someone who grew up in a single mother home, with many friends in the same boat, anecdotally I can say that it is not preferable in any way.
I've never been there. But from my outside perspective, I would think that it might be preferable to abuse, though maybe not preferable to almost anything else.
> I would say that high investment dual parenting has been the most effective method of raising successful and productive children.
I think that "high investment" is an important note. Even in dual parenting situations, the temptation is to want parenting to be low-investment. (I'm a parent; I definitely struggled with that.)
> I think that "high investment" is an important note. Even in dual parenting situations, the temptation is to want parenting to be low-investment. (I'm a parent; I definitely struggled with that.)
Missing the point. I'll quote my other comment:
"Even if we pretend both parents provide the exact same types of resources (which they don't: both are important for different reasons), then mathematically you're getting half the resources to raise a better kid."
We can make this argument apply for money and time, both of which sound like pretty important things to put into a kid. Both of which are practically gauranteed to be less when there is a single parent.
> But from my outside perspective, I would think that it might be preferable to abuse, though maybe not preferable to almost anything else.
Nobody's arguing that two parents which are abusive would be preferable to one who is not. I believe this is called the Red Herring fallacy. My point is that it is irresponsible to promote alternative family arrangements which are strongly correlated with worse outcomes for children, without at least considering these correlations first.
I wouldn't trust a site like that even to correctly cite studies. The "Infamous Fatherless People" list is beyond the pale.
Anecdotally, I have the exact opposite experience.
That said, the question is, it's preferable to what?
I think there's some cognitive dissonance in listing all the ways mothers mess with the relationships between children and fathers (false abuse reports, preventing visitation, etc) and then suggesting that a two parent household would be preferable. Considering the messed-up relationship the two parents obviously have in those cases, would it really?
Please cite your own sources to discredit the ones I've provided. Yes, the font and web design is straight out of 1999. But the sources include the "U.S. Department of Health and Human Services". I've easily googled other sources which link to proper papers on PubMed, for instance.
> That said, the question is, it's preferable to what?
High investment dual parenting. Father and mother (and usually contributions from extended family on both sides). Even if we pretend both parents provide the exact same types of resources (which they don't: both are important for different reasons), then mathematically you're getting half the resources to raise a better kid.
> Considering the messed-up relationship the two parents obviously have in those cases, would it really?
Nobody's arguing that two parents in a failing and abusive relationship would be preferable to a single parent with adequate resources to raise the child.
What I'm suggesting is that promoting a system of parenthood that is almost completely associated with being worse for the children is not a responsible thing to do. And that's what articles like this are doing, without weighing what we know to be massive negative associations.
I don't wish to discredit your sources, I'm not even claiming the site is wrong, just that it simply does not convince me. And it's got nothing to do with the design.
As for this article being a "promotion" for single-parent households is, in my opinion, an overstatement. It's not even specifically about mothers, it just mentions them in passing.
> Yes, the font and web design is straight out of 1999.
The objection wasn't to the site layout. It was "this site is clearly pushing an agenda, and I don't trust them to fairly represent their sources". Which I think is fair: someone who writes that "fatherless children" list is not arguing coherently and in good faith.
I can concede that the list at the bottom does not help the site's credibility and would turn people off from discussion on the topic. It's a mistake that they would do that. And I will rectify the mistake in this post to spark further discussion.
I chose the site because it had a great summary of the important studies - which are perfectly valid science and statistics.
Here is an alternative list of sources (not hosted on a site with a fallacious list, just my HN comment) that speaks to the same manner of strong negative correlations associated with single motherhood:
---
Source: Robert E. Rector, “Increasing Marriage Will Dramatically Reduce Child Poverty,” The Heritage Foundation, Center for Data Analysis Report, No. 03-06 (May 20, 2003).
Source: Daniel T. Lichter, Deborah Roempke, and Brian J. Brown, “Is Marriage a Panacea? Union Formation Among Economically Disadvantaged Unwed Mothers,” Social Problems 50 (2003): 60-86.
Source: Tillman, K. H. (2007). Family structure pathways and academic disadvantage among adolescents in stepfamilies. Journal of Marriage and Family.
Source: Edward Kruk, Ph.D., “The Vital Importance of Paternal Presence in Children’s Lives.” May 23, 2012.
Source: Hofferth, S. L. (2006). Residential father family type and child well-being: investment versus selection. Demography, 43, 53-78.
Source: Osborne, C., and McLanahan, S. (2007). Partnership instability and child well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1065-1083.
Source: Hoffmann, John P. “The Community Context of Family Structure and Adolescent Drug Use.” Journal of Marriage and Family 64 (May 2002): 314-330.
Source: Stephen Demuth and Susan L. Brown, “Family Structure, Family Processes, and Adolescent Delinquency: The Significance of Parental Absence Versus Parental Gender,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 41, No. 1 (February 2004): 58-81.
Source: Teachman, Jay D. “The Childhood Living Arrangements of Children and the Characteristics of Their Marriages.” Journal of Family Issues 25 (January 2004): 86-111.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, “Living Arrangements of Children under 18 Years/1 and Marital Status of Parents by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin/2 and Selected Characteristics of the Child for all Children 2010.” Table C3. Internet Release Date November, 2010.
Source: Nord, Christine Winquist, and Jerry West. Fathers’ and Mothers’ Involvement in their Children’s Schools by Family Type and Resident Status. Table 1. (NCES 2001-032). Washington, DC: U.S. Dept of Education, National Center of Education Statistics, 2001.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey; and America’s Children: Key Indicators of National Wellbeing, 2011.
Source: Census Bureau. “Living Arrangements of Children Under 18 Years Old: 1960 to Present.” U.S. Census Bureau, July 1, 2012.
When I was much younger my parents belonged to a "play group", where parents would take turns baby sitting each others children. Simple printed cards were "paid" each visit and could be redeemed upon other visits. It worked out pretty well and we kids all got to play together. One astonishing outcome: I'm still good friends with someone I met before I have any conscious memory. Kind of cool, right?
This analysis seems awfully shallow. What about their economic situations? I remember reading a lot of pieces cheering the rise of the female breadwinner, but many of those cases involved the man simply losing his job and the woman keeping the same, lower-paying one she had before. Are we just painting a happy and progressive veneer on the same sort of economic decline? It's curious that this is not even mentioned as a factor when they talk about living situations.
Children from single-parent families are more likely to have problems in future with education, income, criminality... In other words if you correct for single parents, differences between races disappear.
I would postulate that any arrangement where the parents, regardless of number, can be happy and productive is an arrangement that results in a happy and productive child.
Instead of studying the various methods and deciding which one is best as though it would make a single difference to the people at large (as if there are people planning their lives by the statistical "best life", whom we should probably ship to Area 51 since they are clearly not human) how about we just agree to all mind our own damn business and let people live how they want to live, with a spouse of the sex and color they prefer, or none at all, with 6 children or with none, and just get on with our lives?
the author is mistaken: single womanhood is not necessarily where female empowerment, or america, is headed. quite the opposite actually. women in scandinavia have been actively decoupling child-bearing from marriage for decades now, and the results are somewhat counterintuitive: marriage rates have been increasing, and at an earlier age[1], because scandinavian women have less concern about balancing career with bearing offspring given all the social and governmental support they now receive.
scandinavia has been a leading indicator of almost every social trend (and concomitant government policy) in north america: relaxation of gender roles, women in the workforce, women in politics, decline of marriage, increase in co-habitation, social services for women, etc. every other indicator is as expected: scandinavia's female workforce participation is higher, women in government is higher, etc.
however there is one cautionary indicator that is lagging in scandinavia, and that has to do with women in leadership roles in business. one possible explanation is that scandinavian businesses, especially global ones, are privy to the international market. thus while scandinavia may comprise the most liberal countries in the world, their business leaders are competing against foreign businesses, some from developing countries, that are hungry and could give a f* about gender politics.
61 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 124 ms ] threadIs it because it is seen as socially acceptable for men to lead single lives while not so much for women?
Edit: My questions sounds kinda rhetorical. I'm genuinely curious.
Because it's worth investigating subgroups, so we can understand whether society treats those groups differently from other groups -- and if so, how.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_parent
> 45% of single mothers are currently divorced or separated
Which means that potentially 45% of these 80% had the father in court fighting for his kids custody, and we all know how biased to justice system is toward men in that case. My point is don't make it sound like fathers just abandon their kids.
No, it doesn't. (Divorce/separated is irrelevant to that, since parental rights for both parents generally exist from birth regardless of marriage so long as paternity is established, and so separation or divorce from marriage is not a prerequisite to custody proceedings. The "potential" number is much higher; though the actual number is lower.)
> and we all know how biased to justice system is toward men in that case.
Yes, courts are substantially biased in favor of men in contested custody cases; men end up with custody less often in divorce because men are less likely to seek custody.
> My point is don't make it sound like fathers just abandon their kids.
Unfortunately, the fact is that fathers, all too often -- both without marriage and when it fails -- just abandon their kids.
More likely, men only go to court when they see a chance of winning to begin with.
This assumes that society is the only variable in being single. I'm guessing this is not the case.
If I were to hazard a guess, the tact was chosen because there's been an uptick in single women (notably, for the first time in US history, more adult women are single than married). There are other facets to look at, but this might be the most visible in terms of expected social change from the feminist perspective I was brought up with.
A mid to high six figure book advance is really high for a non-fiction book these days. They are hoping they have a blockbuster on their hands.
Because she thinks that women should live independently of men. She thinks we should restructure society and the way we raise children around that notion.
I don't really see why you'd assume that women are more frowned upon in this situation. I mean, there's even a picture of SUPERWOMAN in this article! And yet, your initial position was to think that women were the 'victims' here. (For lack of a better word.) Interesting, isn't it?
If anything, single women are shown as courageous and going against the tides. If a man decides to lead a single live, he is not seen as a hero. At best it's inconsequential, at worse he's a loser.
And this tendency of inconsequential/loser for the men applies to many situations.
http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/facts_on_fatherless_kids....
As someone who grew up in a single mother home, with many friends in the same boat, anecdotally I can say that it is not preferable in any way.
Hypothesizing an evolutionary basis for this, I would say that high investment dual parenting has been the most effective method of raising successful and productive children. Societies which embraced this as the norm have flourished - others, not so much. For more on this topic, see J.D. Unwin: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Unwin
The classic solution was large extended family's which is where America falls down.
PS: It's even a major plot point in the Odyssey which is ~2,800 years old.
Also interesting to note is that a lot of negative children statistics do not apply to single mother widows.
Selection bias?
I've never been there. But from my outside perspective, I would think that it might be preferable to abuse, though maybe not preferable to almost anything else.
> I would say that high investment dual parenting has been the most effective method of raising successful and productive children.
I think that "high investment" is an important note. Even in dual parenting situations, the temptation is to want parenting to be low-investment. (I'm a parent; I definitely struggled with that.)
We think that step-parents are more likely to sexually abuse, or to physically abuse or to murder their step children than biological parents.
https://www.nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/documents/information-...
Missing the point. I'll quote my other comment:
"Even if we pretend both parents provide the exact same types of resources (which they don't: both are important for different reasons), then mathematically you're getting half the resources to raise a better kid."
We can make this argument apply for money and time, both of which sound like pretty important things to put into a kid. Both of which are practically gauranteed to be less when there is a single parent.
> But from my outside perspective, I would think that it might be preferable to abuse, though maybe not preferable to almost anything else.
Nobody's arguing that two parents which are abusive would be preferable to one who is not. I believe this is called the Red Herring fallacy. My point is that it is irresponsible to promote alternative family arrangements which are strongly correlated with worse outcomes for children, without at least considering these correlations first.
Anecdotally, I have the exact opposite experience.
That said, the question is, it's preferable to what?
I think there's some cognitive dissonance in listing all the ways mothers mess with the relationships between children and fathers (false abuse reports, preventing visitation, etc) and then suggesting that a two parent household would be preferable. Considering the messed-up relationship the two parents obviously have in those cases, would it really?
> That said, the question is, it's preferable to what?
High investment dual parenting. Father and mother (and usually contributions from extended family on both sides). Even if we pretend both parents provide the exact same types of resources (which they don't: both are important for different reasons), then mathematically you're getting half the resources to raise a better kid.
> Considering the messed-up relationship the two parents obviously have in those cases, would it really?
Nobody's arguing that two parents in a failing and abusive relationship would be preferable to a single parent with adequate resources to raise the child.
What I'm suggesting is that promoting a system of parenthood that is almost completely associated with being worse for the children is not a responsible thing to do. And that's what articles like this are doing, without weighing what we know to be massive negative associations.
As for this article being a "promotion" for single-parent households is, in my opinion, an overstatement. It's not even specifically about mothers, it just mentions them in passing.
The objection wasn't to the site layout. It was "this site is clearly pushing an agenda, and I don't trust them to fairly represent their sources". Which I think is fair: someone who writes that "fatherless children" list is not arguing coherently and in good faith.
I chose the site because it had a great summary of the important studies - which are perfectly valid science and statistics.
Here is an alternative list of sources (not hosted on a site with a fallacious list, just my HN comment) that speaks to the same manner of strong negative correlations associated with single motherhood:
---
Source: Robert E. Rector, “Increasing Marriage Will Dramatically Reduce Child Poverty,” The Heritage Foundation, Center for Data Analysis Report, No. 03-06 (May 20, 2003).
Source: Daniel T. Lichter, Deborah Roempke, and Brian J. Brown, “Is Marriage a Panacea? Union Formation Among Economically Disadvantaged Unwed Mothers,” Social Problems 50 (2003): 60-86.
Source: Tillman, K. H. (2007). Family structure pathways and academic disadvantage among adolescents in stepfamilies. Journal of Marriage and Family.
Source: Edward Kruk, Ph.D., “The Vital Importance of Paternal Presence in Children’s Lives.” May 23, 2012.
Source: Hofferth, S. L. (2006). Residential father family type and child well-being: investment versus selection. Demography, 43, 53-78.
Source: Osborne, C., and McLanahan, S. (2007). Partnership instability and child well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1065-1083.
Source: Hoffmann, John P. “The Community Context of Family Structure and Adolescent Drug Use.” Journal of Marriage and Family 64 (May 2002): 314-330.
Source: Stephen Demuth and Susan L. Brown, “Family Structure, Family Processes, and Adolescent Delinquency: The Significance of Parental Absence Versus Parental Gender,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 41, No. 1 (February 2004): 58-81.
Source: Teachman, Jay D. “The Childhood Living Arrangements of Children and the Characteristics of Their Marriages.” Journal of Family Issues 25 (January 2004): 86-111.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, “Living Arrangements of Children under 18 Years/1 and Marital Status of Parents by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin/2 and Selected Characteristics of the Child for all Children 2010.” Table C3. Internet Release Date November, 2010.
Source: Nord, Christine Winquist, and Jerry West. Fathers’ and Mothers’ Involvement in their Children’s Schools by Family Type and Resident Status. Table 1. (NCES 2001-032). Washington, DC: U.S. Dept of Education, National Center of Education Statistics, 2001.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey; and America’s Children: Key Indicators of National Wellbeing, 2011.
Source: Census Bureau. “Living Arrangements of Children Under 18 Years Old: 1960 to Present.” U.S. Census Bureau, July 1, 2012.
"the democrats should be beating down their door, promising to wash their cars, watch their kids"
> Their impact on politics could in theory be tremendous.
Instead of studying the various methods and deciding which one is best as though it would make a single difference to the people at large (as if there are people planning their lives by the statistical "best life", whom we should probably ship to Area 51 since they are clearly not human) how about we just agree to all mind our own damn business and let people live how they want to live, with a spouse of the sex and color they prefer, or none at all, with 6 children or with none, and just get on with our lives?
scandinavia has been a leading indicator of almost every social trend (and concomitant government policy) in north america: relaxation of gender roles, women in the workforce, women in politics, decline of marriage, increase in co-habitation, social services for women, etc. every other indicator is as expected: scandinavia's female workforce participation is higher, women in government is higher, etc.
however there is one cautionary indicator that is lagging in scandinavia, and that has to do with women in leadership roles in business. one possible explanation is that scandinavian businesses, especially global ones, are privy to the international market. thus while scandinavia may comprise the most liberal countries in the world, their business leaders are competing against foreign businesses, some from developing countries, that are hungry and could give a f* about gender politics.
[1]http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/...