Marriage Isn't the Economic Panacea—So Stop Shaming Unmarried Moms

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/gender/shaming-unmarried-moms




This month brought the latest hand-wringing over high-profile single parents, this time advanced by Keli Goff at The Root. Goff had a bone to pick with Evelyn Lozada, the 37-year-old unmarried star of "Basketball Wives" who has announced that she’s pregnant. The problem with this arrangement, Goff lamented, is that Lozada’s pride in her pregnancy sends a message that out-of-wedlock births are just fine. She went on to argue that single parents — poor or wealthy and regardless of any other life circumstance — simply can’t do as well at raising healthy, upwardly mobile children as a two-parent home.

Pundits and researchers vigorously debated this topic in 2013. The goal for most — whether affiliated with conservative outfits such as the American Enterprise Institute or centrist ones such as Third Way — seemed to be to persuade the public that maintaining the stigma around unmarried parenting is a path toward combating low educational attainment, joblessness and other social ills related to poverty.

I heard plenty of arguments along the lines of Goff’s this year, but there is one message I wish had broken through more often: correlation is not causation. Do children who grow up in homes with married parents tend to do better in terms of schooling, jobs and financial security when compared to their peers from single parent homes? Yes. Has anyone proven that this is because of marriage itself as opposed to other factors — such as the higher likelihood that people who are established in well-paying careers will opt for and stay in a marriage and so already have a step up as parents? Has anyone looked at other stable, two-adult arrangements — a mother and grandmother who live together and raise a child from birth until she goes off to college, for example — to see how that child fares compared to a peer from a married, “intact” family? These explorations would deepen a conversation that’s been superficial and moralizing for too long.

Stalled Conversations

In the spirit of hoping for better research into and higher quality debates about family relationships in the new year, let me review the top three examples of how the conversation stalled in 2013.

[LuvNewcastle]

1. I think it's too risky for a single person to totally go it alone

and raise a child and work. Raising a kid is hard work, and too much can go wrong if a parent has to raise a kid entirely by themselves. It doesn't matter what gender the parents are or if they're even romantically involved. It doesn't even matter if the child is biologically related to the parents. All that matters is that the parents love the child. The parents don't even have to live together, but I think it's too damn hard for most people to work and raise a kid all alone.

The root of this issue, I think, is lack of women's services and family planning. Women need to have access to all the birth control they need and access to abortion services. They need counseling about what are the optimal situations to bring a child into the world and what are the most difficult situations. When women have the care they need so that they're able to properly plan when they give birth to children, most of the other problems can be avoided.

[Squinch]

2. I agree with the need for women's services, but I couldn't disagree more that a single woman can't

raise a child well by themselves.

There are hundreds of thousands of great men and women in the world, going about their business, who were raised by one parent.

And there are plenty of sociopaths going about their business who were raised by two parents.

Many women choose to have children on their own.

Many men raise children alone for a host of reasons.

Dick Cheney was raised by two parents.

Barack Obama, effectively, was raised by one.

[sufrommich]

4. Well said. nt

[LuvNewcastle]

5. I'm not saying they can't, just that they probably shouldn't.

It's really too much for one person, and it isn't the best situation for the child, either. It's fine if there's a support network there; Pres. Obama was raised as much by his grandparents as he was by his mother. His grandparents were pretty much the same thing as parents. They loved him as much as any parent would, I'm sure, and the situation worked just fine. But a mother or father with a latchkey kid is at a serious disadvantage, and so is that kid. Any single parent needs help and any kid needs as much love and supervision as two or more people can provide.

There are exceptions to every rule, but I believe that the best situation for the parent and the child is a two-parent (or guardian) home or network of support.

[Squinch]

7. Clearly, it isn't too much for one person, and examples abound that refute the statememt

that raising a child is too much for one person.

From your post, what you really seem to be saying is that a strong support network is very helpful in raising a child.

Yes, of course.

I would disagree that his grandparents were the same as parents. They were grandparents. Like the grandparents of many children being raised by single parents.

And to say that single parents "probably shouldn't" raise children is ignoring reality. Often some have to, and often others choose to. The children they raise, on the whole, are just as productive and successful as children raised by two parents.

Maybe it would be too much for you, and it is not something I chose for myself, but to say it's too much for any one person, clearly and provably, simply isn't accurate.

[LuvNewcastle]

10. Yes, I'm saying that a single parent needs a strong network of support.

I didn't say that a child needs the traditional nuclear family to be raised well, just that any parent should have other dependable people to help raise the child. And you and I differ about grandparents. I guarantee that my maternal grandparents who helped care for me loved me every bit as much as my parents. Not only were they as good as parents, in my case, they might have been better. And any single parent who works needs help raising a child unless they're doing something wrong for the child in the process. It's a plain fact.

[Squinch]

13. Th question, though, is whether a single mom or dad can raise an emotionally healthy

child. You are saying, "they probably shouldn't."

Your grandparents are examples of a good social network. They actually support the idea that it is perfectly possible for a single mom, or single dad, to raise a healthy child, and a good outcome is even more likely when that strong social network is present.

No one is arguing that they don't need a good social network, and good childcare they can rely on. I am arguing that single parents can raise emotionally healthy children as well as two parents, and they usually do.

[LuvNewcastle]

19. We've been talking past each other this whole time.

We really don't disagree. Like I said in an earlier post, a parent can raise a child with another parent (loosely defined) living in another home. That, essentially, would be a single parent, but I don't think of it as such. When I think 'single parent,' I think of someone who has a child completely on their own. When you say single parent, you mean someone who has a child in her home but has an extended network who helps take care of the child. It's a difference in definitions.

[Squinch]

21. I am glad we agree. My problem with a blanket statement like "single parent families aren't

as good" is that it is often used in OTHER arenas to dance around the idea that only the upstanding Christian nuclear family is valid. From THOSE people, it shows a terrible lack of respect for the children raised by single parents and the parents themselves.

[sufrommich]

14. Then you're making the same argument

the article makes.

[SoCalDem]

24. Barack Obama had THREE parents

his mother (sometimes) and his grandparents..always

[Squinch]

25. He had a mother and a great set of grandparents. As do many children of single parent homes.

ETA: Love the sig line photo!

[alarimer]

8. But we also lack a true social safety net

If this country invested in pre-school and child care the way many European countries do, I don't think it would be as much of an issue. As well as parental leave, single-payer health care, etc.

I think most of the issues are economic. Single parents usually lack the financial resources that others have. But we aren't going to invest in those things we all need because conservatives assholes (including Democrats) run this country.

[LuvNewcastle]

12. I agree with that.

A combination of expanded women's services along with a strong safety net would go a long way toward fixing most of these problems. So many parents spend so much time busting their asses just trying to survive that their children sometimes get neglected in the process. That's got to change.

[LittleBlue]

3. I think most of us know that two parents is the optimal situation

Single-parent households just won't be as good for the child as two-parent households. Doesn't mean all two-parent households are superior, but the data seems to show single-parent kids are more at risk for psychiatric problems and addiction.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/single-parent-kids-more-at-risk/

In the spirit of hoping for better research into and higher quality debates about family relationships in the new year

In other words, yell at the researchers until they change their conclusion that two-parent households are best. God you gotta love political influence on science/statistics.

[LuvNewcastle]

6. I agree on all points.

[Squinch]

9. OK, here's me yelling at the researchers:

First, the article says that the numbers of children with psychiatric problems are miniscule in both two-parent and single-parent households. But then it says this:

"It included 65,085 children living with a single parent - mostly their mothers - and 921,257 living with two parents. It did not distinguish between widows and divorcees or parents who had never married. It also did not gather details of how bitter the divorces were or at what age the children were when the families separated."

So the increase in problem could be from a host of issues other than the fact of single parenthood per se.

Children who lose a parent early to death experience profound psychological difficulties. That whole group is, by definition, put into the single-parent group, but those children's difficulties likely stem from loss of a loved one rather than from the single-parent status.

Children who experience the fallout from bitter divorces, by definition, are from "two-parent families" as we are using the term. And yet, they are lumped in with the single-parent families in this study. These children also experience a higher incidence of psychological difficulties.

The data seems to have been manipulated in illogical ways to have come to this conclusion.

[redqueen]

17. Excellent analysis.

Thank you.

[mythology]

22. No children of divorced parents aren't from two parent homes

Nor should they be considered as such.

The article in the original post is largely wishful thinking and trying to persuade through pointing to the political opponents of those she's trying to convince. She references a Fox News panel and some anti-same sex marriage group in an effort to say that the people reading should agree with her because otherwise bad people win.

She attempts to undermine the argument that marriage confers a host of socio-economic benefits merely by asking the question of why way the causal relationship goes. But she provides zero evidence to support her contention that the evidence should go toward people who have better socio-economic situations are the ones who get married.

[Squinch]

23. Again, as I said below:

The death of a parent and the enduring of the bitter divorce of your parents are two of the most damaging results that children from two parent families can experience.

Yes, in real life, children of those divorces are often raised by only one parent after the divorce. But we are talking about the design of the study that Little Blue linked to that said that children of one parent families have more emotional disabilities.

I we are going to ask, "is it better to have a child on your own, or as part of a two parent family" you can't take the worst experiences that a two-parent family can throw at a child and call them the results of growing up in a one parent family. Death of a parent, and the bitter divorce of both parents are two of the worst experiences that a child can have that result from being born into a two parent family.

It's like saying, "let's see how republicans and democrats differ in their opinions, but we're going to count he farthest left liberals as republicans for the purpose of this study."

[Squinch]

16. On reflection, I'll say this about the research:

BOTH of those groups, the families who experienced the death of one parent, and the families that experienced a bitter divorce, should be included in the two-parent household group.

Both of those groups began as two parent households. Both are examples of how two parent families can go terribly wrong and emotionally scar a child.

You can't say "which group is better?" and then conclude "so we'll take the households that experienced the worst of what a two-parent family can throw at a child, and put those households into the one-parent family group."

[LittleBlue]

18. I'm the product of one of those families

My mother died when I was young. It put immense strain on my dad and the family as a whole.

I've had misfortune to see both and from my experience, two-parent families are much better. My dad had the same strain as any other one-parent household. No way should my family be in the two-parent group considering half my childhood was one-parent.

[Squinch]

20. I am very sorry about your mother.

And yes, your father had the same strain as a one parent household, but he also had a great deal of ADDED strain because you were once a two-parent family, and you all had to deal with a terrible loss.

If your father was a single parent to begin with, those factors would not have been present.

And yes, if you had only had your mother, the trauma would have been that much greater. But if we are talking about the design of the study, children who lose an only parent are already represented in the one parent group.

This study does not account for those added, and enormous, difficulties that your family had to endure because your mother died.

[LuvLoogie]

27. Except that the research was based on children "living with"

one parent or two parents. What you are talking about is a different study. Also, every zygote starts with two gamete donors. How much of a parent either donor becomes is to be determined. You can set up all kinds of controls, but you would never get your study done.

But all other things being equal, children living with two parents will have the advantage in getting their needs met. You only need to look at it logistically in terms of survival.

[Squinch]

28. They are implying that children who have lost parents or have lived through their

parents' bitter divorce have a higher incidence of emotional difficulties because they have one parent, and not because of the death or the divorce.

Yes, I know what I am talking about is a different study, but that different study is the one that would actually tell us if a one parent or a two parent household is better for a child.

As it stands now, the study does not support or disprove the accuracy of your statement: "children living with two parents will have the advantage in getting their needs met.


All this study tells us is that children living with one parent, when you include those who have witnessed their parents' bitter divorce or the death of their parent, tend to have more emotional difficulties.

[LuvLoogie]

29. Who needs a study?

--As it stands now, the study does not support or disprove the accuracy of your statement: "children living with two parents will have the advantage in getting their needs met.--

I don't reference any study. I use the logical application of cause and effect.

[Squinch]

30. And my position, which I doubt I can convince you of, is that there is no evidence to

support the idea that a two parent family is necessarily better for a child than a one parent family.

What that study DOES suggest is that, if there is an advantage, it is at best very small.

You must forgive me for not taking your gut feeling as evidence.

[LuvLoogie]

31. It's not a gut feeling; it's reason.

The evidence is all around you. If you want to gather empirical data as evidence, then be my guest. Have fun setting up enough examples where each and every variable is equal except for the one vs two parent household.

Time is linear. It's as simple as man-hours versus mouths to feed. No shame. Just math.

[Squinch]

32. I see evidence all around me of single parents raising happy, great kids, and

I see plenty of troubled two-parent households, some of which are troubled because of the interaction between the two parents.

The correct study wouldn't be hard: single parent households that have always been single parent, and two parent households that have always been two parent.

Not sure what the linear nature of time has to do with your argument. Or shame. Or math.

[LuvLoogie]

33. There are 24 hours in a day, and, for humans,

time runs in one direction. Mouths fed= number of mouths to feed divided by man-hours available to feed mouths. One person has 24 man-hours per day. Two people have 48 man-hours per day. Advantage: two parent household. No shame. Just math.

[Squinch]

34. Again, not a very compelling argument. By your logic, rich parents are better parents than less

wealthy ones.

And by that logic, parents of one child (one mouth fed) are better at parenting than parents of three children (three mouths fed).

None of that, obviously, is true.

So we'll just have to disagree.

[LuvLoogie]

35. If you'll recall, all other things being equal...

two rich parents have the advantage over one rich parent. You insert the variable of whether one is a good parent or not. Two good parents have the advantage over one good parent. It's math.

[Squinch]

36. I believe that is the question that hasn't been answered: are two parents

by definition better for the child than one?

The math of 1+1=2 does not really provide the answer to the question. Though I do see that you keep applying it and saying that two are better than one.

[LuvLoogie]

37. Advantage does not determine outcome, only probability.

In parenting, all other things being equal, two parents have the advantage over one parent in meeting the needs of the child.

[Squinch]

38. *sigh* Have a lovely day.

[gollygee]

11. I personally feel like the question of which is best is irrelevant

Because people's lives are too complicated. It isn't a question of having a child alone, or with a partner in a happy, stable relationship. It's a question of having a child alone, or not having a child at all. Or staying in an unhappy relationship with a child, or getting out of an unhappy relationship and going it alone hoping to someday find a happy relationship. Or getting into a relationship with someone you don't love because you're getting to an age where if you want a baby you have to have one then, or just having a baby on your own.

Everyone is dealing with a unique set of circumstances. Comparing a single parent in one set of circumstances to a couple raising a child in another set of circumstances doesn't make sense to me. No one is sitting down and saying, "Should I have this child alone, or in a relationship?" People are dealing with real life. Should people just find any relationship at all if they want a baby? I think it's probably better to just have a baby alone then enter into a relationship for that reason. To compare that situation to one where people meet, fall in love, are happy, and decide later to have a baby is not a real life comparison. Those aren't the choices available to her.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

15. Simple economics have lowered the marriage rate

I spent my elementary school years in a town dominated by two manufacturing plants. The jobs were the types of jobs that a high school graduate or even dropout could walk into and earn enough money for a down payment on a house in a few years.

My classmates were mostly children of factory workers. They all lived in single-family homes and had stay-at-home mothers. In other words, one industrial worker's income was enough to support a non-working spouse and children and buy a house and car.

A man who either owns a house or has saved up enough for a down payment looks like a much better marriage prospect than one who is earning $7.25 an hour at the convenience store while living with his parents, especially if the woman is in a similar situation and knows that even $14.50 per hour may not be enough to rent a decent apartment.

Add to that communities where a lot of the men are in prison due to harsh penalties for drug dealing or even possession. It isn't a racial thing. Only the drugs of choice differ, and the motivation is the same: trying to make money to get out of desperate poverty and through drug use, to escape one's depressing life for a short time.

My brother did a medical school clerkship in an impoverished town in northern Minnesota. He observed that the drug users were the people with nothing to lose. They felt that their lives were going to suck no matter what they did.

[Igel]

26. They've studied this every which way from Sunday.

And the answer is, "Yes."

Not 30 years ago. But now the population's been diced and sliced so many ways that it's clear.

If you're a single parent, on average your kids will do worse than two-parent families.

And not just two-parent families. Biological father/mother do better than step-dad/mother. Step-dad/mother do better than committed-unmarried man/mother. Committed-unmarried man/mother do better than boyfriend/mother.

Single mothers with good support networks do better than single mothers with no support networks. But still not as good as married parents. On average.

Why is the mother single? Widow? Divorced? Never married? Yes, there's a difference in outcomes. On average. Two-parent family is still better on average.

Does income matter? Sure. Income can improve the results of non-two-parent families. But you have to have a much better education or be a much better salaried single-mother for the difference to be neutralized. On average.


These are statistical generalizations and say very little (except probabilities) about any individual family. There are working-class single-parent families that do a better job with their kids than well-off two-parent families. They're just much less common. That's not a judgment. It's an observation. And a lot of the causes are fairly well understood--some are easy to follow, others are built into how our psychology evolved and are just givens. They're not just correlations in many cases, although some details are still argued. We can make the problem go away by redefining "good outcome." That's often specious and intensely ideological.

Only the occasional over-the-top pundit says that two-parents families are a "panacea." Most use generalizations which can be misread as exceptionless rules. Even the researchers involved would argue that while a happy two-adult family is the ideal the data say otherwise. In other words, "it's a statistical generalization."

The real problem is where the research runs into human psyches. For a whole bunch of reasons we don't like being told that we've made a decision that has a bad consequence or that a decision somebody else has made has placed a burden on us that we have to bear. And above all, we don't like being reminded about it: It hurts, and all hurts are intensely personal. Even if the intent of the speaker is intensely impersonal and you're just reading a published article about statistical probabilities researched 2000 miles away five years ago, it often still feels like a condemnation. And in some cultures--Southern US, for instance--the best defense against anything that might be an attack is a strong offense, objective reality be damned. The final possibility is to avoid the hurt by becoming indifferent to the source of the hurt, which usually just turns out to be a decision that has further bad consequences.

Even the NYC campaign last year that pointed out the statistical likelihood of certain things for the kids of teenage mothers created an uproar. Some wanted to deny the facts--there are no bad consequences. Some wanted to say the facts were offensive and shouldn't be mentioned--don't remind us. Many wanted to say that the problem was actually everybody else, that teenage mothers are fine and the decision is okay, but the real problem is the need to change all of society their kids come out okay--it's not the teenagers' responsibility but the moralizers'. The best defense is a good offense. And somehow the actual kids weren't the topic any more.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-citys-new-teen-pregnancy-psas-use-crying-babies-to-send-message/
http://www.clutchmagonline.com/2013/03/its-wrong-to-target-unwed-mothers/