Dia Mirza - "Why Can't Women get Pregnant before Marriage?" - Page 5

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Problem with what you're saying is every study out there confirms stable, two-parent households where the parents are married are better for children's future.

1. 2 parents who live together

2. Married parents

3. Stable partnership (not discordant)

Three factors determined to be best for the children. There has been no study to date which shows otherwise. And I mean studies with objective measurements like educational success, career, future problems with the legal system, etc. Not happiness/life satisfaction indices which are vague.

Of course there can be great single parents. But taken as a whole, children of single parents fare worse.

Would you be willing to cite these published peer-reviewed studies?

I can believe that such studies existed in the past. However, many experts have shifted their thinking and criticized such studies. Archaic beliefs that children need two parents pressured people to stay in unhappy marriages.

The other thing that people are pointing out is correlation is not causation and some of the data is flawed. Children of single parents do suffer in some aspects. But it is largely due to societal perceptions rather than being a single parent. Society would ostracize children born out of wedlock. People treat children of divorced parents differently. Thus, relationship status has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome. It's a false correlation.

Similarly, many single parents do struggle financially. In many countries, the children of single parents struggle due to lack of resources. However, in countries like the Nordic one that have a lot of childcare resources and free education, there is no difference. Once again showing that its a false equivalency between two-parent households and successful children.

I also find it extremely odd that you say your data is true for gay or straight parents, but have "marriage" listed as a factor. Gay marriage is still illegal in many countries. While gay people cannot adopt irrespective of marital status in many parts of the world, a large number of gay couples who adopt are not married. Marital status is actually irrelevant.

Completely dismissing happiness/life satisfaction is quite dangerous. Considering the high rate of depression and mental health issues in successful people, many psychologists and sociologists will say that focusing only on education, career, and financial success is dangerous. Happiness and satisfaction are not as fuzzy as they used to be. The importance of mental well-being has shifted a lot of research and effort into sociological well-being. The global happiness index is actually a well-researched and well-measured index based on multiple data points. Mental well-being is being added to annual physical checkups in many places. Happiness and satisfaction are still qualitative, but if you completely dismiss it in the data you are looking at - your dataset is highly limited.

The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study is one of the largest research undertakings in North America that focuses on children from fragile homes. However, the researcher is key to point out that there is a racial and economic bias in the data. The real questions aren't if single parents families are bad, but what kind of support do single-parent families need. There is plenty of data showing why marriage is NOT the reason why children with two parents are more likely to succeed.

Originally posted by: pali001

A lot of people truly believe one should not have kids they cannot afford to have...not just money wise.

so yes, letting a kid starve and get neglected ...god knows what horrors those kids face...

Infact there is a theory..."not mine". Rich should have more kids and others should milit based on affordability... but reverse happens....rich have trophy kids (one or two) and poor have many

Hmm...so the qualifications of being a parent is to be rich, straight and a two package deal.

Anything else? I think one parent should also be a homemaker to be always available for their kids.

That sounds familiar.

Originally posted by: Harley_Quinn

Hmm...so the qualifications of being a parent is to be rich, straight and a two package deal.

Anything else? I think one parent should also be a homemaker to be always available for their kids.

That sounds familiar.

I said none of those things...esp the straight part ... its like Burkha or Bikini ...nothing in between right. There are only Rich-Poor...

Aneways , there are enough hungry and abused kids...so clearly no one is saying one needs to be qualified. Lets take digs at responsible parents(straight or otherwise).

Originally posted by: pali001

I said none of those things...esp the straight part ... its like Burkha or Bikini ...nothing in between right. There are only Rich-Poor...

Aneways , there are enough hungry and abused kids...so clearly no one is saying one needs to be qualified. Lets take digs at responsible parents(straight or otherwise).

I'm not taking digs at responsible parents. Point is everyone is giving different definition of a responsible parent.

Nobody gets everything in life. So it's unfair to expect parents to provide everything to their kids. A single parent obviously has to do more work in raising a child, but if they have a less demanding job and sustainable income, along with a supportive family (like grandparents) to take care of the kid when the parent is away, I think it's a fair deal.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Would you be willing to cite these published peer-reviewed studies?

I can believe that such studies existed in the past. However, many experts have shifted their thinking and criticized such studies. Archaic beliefs that children need two parents pressured people to stay in unhappy marriages.

The other thing that people are pointing out is correlation is not causation and some of the data is flawed. Children of single parents do suffer in some aspects. But it is largely due to societal perceptions rather than being a single parent. Society would ostracize children born out of wedlock. People treat children of divorced parents differently. Thus, relationship status has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome. It's a false correlation.

Similarly, many single parents do struggle financially. In many countries, the children of single parents struggle due to lack of resources. However, in countries like the Nordic one that have a lot of childcare resources and free education, there is no difference. Once again showing that its a false equivalency between two-parent households and successful children.

I also find it extremely odd that you say your data is true for gay or straight parents, but have "marriage" listed as a factor. Gay marriage is still illegal in many countries. While gay people cannot adopt irrespective of marital status in many parts of the world, a large number of gay couples who adopt are not married. Marital status is actually irrelevant.

Completely dismissing happiness/life satisfaction is quite dangerous. Considering the high rate of depression and mental health issues in successful people, many psychologists and sociologists will say that focusing only on education, career, and financial success is dangerous. Happiness and satisfaction are not as fuzzy as they used to be. The importance of mental well-being has shifted a lot of research and effort into sociological well-being. The global happiness index is actually a well-researched and well-measured index based on multiple data points. Mental well-being is being added to annual physical checkups in many places. Happiness and satisfaction are still qualitative, but if you completely dismiss it in the data you are looking at - your dataset is highly limited.

The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study is one of the largest research undertakings in North America that focuses on children from fragile homes. However, the researcher is key to point out that there is a racial and economic bias in the data. The real questions aren't if single parents families are bad, but what kind of support do single-parent families need. There is plenty of data showing why marriage is NOT the reason why children with two parents are more likely to succeed.

The study you pointed out, the Princeton one, actually confirms that single-parent children fare worse. Trying to figure out a solution doesn't mean there isn't a problem to begin with.

There is also a U.K. one, without the racial/income imbalances in the U.S. study.

https://cls.ucl.ac.uk/cls-studies/millennium-cohort-study/

If you want a quick summary:

https://www.bbc.com/news/education-47057787

They start by claiming there is little to no difference but then state:

The children in the Millennium Cohort Study are assessed every year for basic skills such as numeracy and literacy.

On both the basic education skills and the outcomes, children in single parents appear to be worse.

"We measure their wellbeing levels, of depressive symptoms, of how they're feeling, their levels of anxiety and so on. And we tend to see they're also doing worse - also on that dimension," said lead researcher Prof Emla Fitzsimons, from the Institute of Education.

The difference appears to be the greatest among teenage girls:

• Of girls in a family with two parents in a stable relationship, 22% had high levels of depressive symptoms
• For girls living with a single parent, this rose to 27%

But how sure can researchers be, given the many financial challenges a single parent household faces?

Prof Fitzsimons said: "There is still a difference between the outcomes of children born to single-parent households, versus married or cohabiting, even when you taken into account they tend to be from poorer homes."

The para above shows correlation vs. causation is not the right argument here.

Even if it were, it is because one parent means a single income, whereas a dual-parent household usually bring either 2 incomes or 1 income with a stay-at-home parent. Society being asked to step in would mean other people picking up the tab, no? Government in loco parentis. It doesn't change the fact one person cannot do it on their own as much as two people could. Society is stepping in to fill the void.

Even the quality of life indices are better for dual-parent households acc to U.K. study.

There is also the risk of another partner coming into the pic. Yes, abuse levels are also higher in the single-parent group.

With re: gay marriage: the studies were done in mostly U.S. and Europe where at least cohabiting gay parents are not unusual.

@HearMeRoar you are drawing a conclusion the researchers of the Millennium Cohort Study and Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study do not want you to draw.

Yes, the data does show that there is a difference between single parents and two-parent households. But nowhere does the research conclude or state that single parenthood is bad for children. The ending to the BBC article is key.

"Neither Prof McLanahan nor Prof Fitzsimons think their research should change the complex decisions individuals make about how to raise their children.

But they are asking questions of wider society about what could be done to provide more support to parents taking on the difficult job of bringing up children on their own."

Instead of discouraging single parents or critiquing their choices, we should be asking ourselves how can we establish a society where the relationship or marital status does not affect the outcome of a child.

Because the data also suggests that children of poor people, immigrants, people of color, all suffer. Children born to WASP families are more successful. Does that mean only WASPs should reproduce? No. It means our society is flawed and we need to fix it. Why blame the single parent for society's flaws?