Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. has world’s highest rate of children living in single-parent households (2019)

pewresearch.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 124 posts

Re: U.S. has world’s highest rate of children living in single-parent households (2019)

#71

Post by pxmpxm »

svggrfgovgf wrote: post #24

Not surprising. A part of the cultural war in the US (in 1992) was that it was fine, even encouraged, for a woman to be a single parent. The controversy started between Dan Quayle and Murphy Brown (a fictional character that decided to become a single mother). The MSM at the time was extremely supportive of Murphy Brown's position. Here's an editorial by the Brookings Institution from 2012 about the controversy. http…

LBJ's Great Society created, arguably intentionally, a very steep economic incentive to break up two parent households for people in poverty - the "baby momma" phenomenon didn't just come out of nowhere.

Re: U.S. has world’s highest rate of children living in single-parent households (2019)

#72

Post by wtallis »

Supply5411 wrote: post #36
wtallis wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not merely suggesting , you're asserting that there's widespread evidence of a serious problem, without pointing to any.

Got me, I totally made up this brand new social idea that men need fathers. It's so new and cutting edge that nobody has ever researched it or looked into it.

I see that your account is barely two weeks old, so in case you're new here, please take notice: this forum has standards [0]. You're posting in a manner that violates quite a few of the rules. Using snark and playing dumb to evade any risk of serious discussion will earn you a ban in any thread, with or without the context of your obvious undercurrent of bigotry.

As for this specific comment: you're still only pointing to hypotheses rather than evidence. And there are enough really obvious counterarguments that there's no way to pretend you're trying to engage in serious conversation.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: U.S. has world’s highest rate of children living in single-parent households (2019)

#73

Post by Supply5411 »

t-writescode wrote: post #64
Supply5411 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is AB different from AA or BB? Is this a trick question?

It's definitely not a trick question. I'm more than confident you don't mean to imply that a child gains benefit specifically because a biological man has an outie and a biological woman has an innie and because innie and outie go together and that that's the "love" that only a man and a woman can have together in that particular "arrangement" and that, again, a child benefits from that. So, since a child's life isn'…

It sure seems like a trick question, because it seems like you want me to define man and woman in a way that you can say "ha gotcha." Instead, I'm leaving the definition of man and woman to you, and only requiring that you know there is a difference. "AB" doesn't refer to the genital configuration, but it is a required component of the arrangement. Whatever a man is to you, in addition to having a penis, that's "A". Whatever a woman is to you, in addition to having a vagina, that's "B". If you don't see how that's a unique arrangement, then I'm afraid I can't continue to explain it while also assuming your interactions are in good faith.

Re: U.S. has world’s highest rate of children living in single-parent households (2019)

#74

Post by clipsy »

anon291 wrote: post #62
autoexec wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're confused. Just because there is an advantage in one area that does not make something optimal. Moms and dads are great. What actually matters tho is that children are exposed to men and women who love and support them so that they can learn from them and from the dynamics of their relationships.

Okay. So you don't believe having both male and female parents is an advantage over having same sex on s anymore? I'm not talking about optimal. I'm talking about better than the alternative. All else being equal, should we prefer to place a child in sate custody with a mother and father or to same sex parents. By your statement on it being advantageous above, I'd say we should prefer mom and dad. But now you're cont…

> So you don't believe having both male and female parents is an advantage over having same sex on s anymore?

No.[0]

[0]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2023/03/06/kids-rais...

Re: U.S. has world’s highest rate of children living in single-parent households (2019)

#75

Post by defrost »

brnaftr361 wrote: post #66
defrost wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We went from cultural conventions dating back to the Roman empire at least and upheaved them in large part. Reading well regarded works such as The Roman Family (1992) https://books.google.com.au/books/about/The_Roman_Family.htm... strongly supports that in Roman times, just as today, there was no single concept of family. While the “nuclear family” was central, divorce was common, as was remarriage, resulting in b…

Does it specify the latter, Christianized Roman Empire, or is it more of a generalized account? And does it retell of the common Roman, or of the Roman elite? These tales may be radically different, from what I understand. I expect the Christianized Romans would have had more laborious conventions such as we see with the Catholic Church in the middle ages. But I'm extrapolating.

The Roman Empire is commonly considered to be the four centuries of post-Republican state of ancient Rome (27 BC) until more or less the adoption of Christianity as the state church in 380 AD and the "fall" of the Western Roman Empire during the following 80 years or so.

Your "latter Christianized Roman Empire" was the dag end of a rotting corpse .. you might be thinking of the Byzantine Empire (aka Eastern Roman Empire)

Republican Rome and to a much much greater degree Empire Rome were not entirely homogenous, the Empire integrating many cultures (such as the Arabian divisions building Roman forts in Britain) .. much as modern USofA does with it's large latin and many other demographic populations.

The Roman Family picture would need to be broken down almost as much as the US Family picture - I suspect the single parent rates in the US might vary considerably by ethnicity .. although it's interesting the the article linked above (IIRC) suggests that Christian V. non Christian rates are more or less the same.

Re: U.S. has world’s highest rate of children living in single-parent households (2019)

#76

Post by jsndidneske »

If i got married and she didnt work i would lose per month 800$+ in childcare costs, 550$ in cash assistance and our combined foodstamps would effectively drop by like 100-150$ over our household amount(hers and mine before marriage).

if i got married to a normal earning woman id lose 2500$ in benifits total a month. This includes 560$ towards rental assistance.

And when i start working ill lose 500$ a month and probably 250$ in food stamps.

But if i just dont work i can raise my son like a parent should. Which is first priority.

E, Maryland. A town with slightly lower than average rental costs,, but great livability statistics. We have a two floor, two bedroom apartment with listed price of 720$.

Re: U.S. has world’s highest rate of children living in single-parent households (2019)

#77

Post by Supply5411 »

wtallis wrote: post #72
Supply5411 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Got me, I totally made up this brand new social idea that men need fathers. It's so new and cutting edge that nobody has ever researched it or looked into it.

I see that your account is barely two weeks old, so in case you're new here, please take notice: this forum has standards [0]. You're posting in a manner that violates quite a few of the rules. Using snark and playing dumb to evade any risk of serious discussion will earn you a ban in any thread, with or without the context of your obvious undercurrent of bigotry. As for this specific comment: you're still only point…

It sounds like you're upset that I am pointing out the obviousness of thing you're requiring evidence for, and you're jumping to my use of sarcasm as a technical rule break to threaten reporting me.

I'll make my point without sarcasm then: Asking for proof that "men need fathers" is so common sense and obvious that denying it suggests to me that there is no evidence that you would accept. If you're serious and actually want me to find you studies, please describe, in detail, what evidence would change your mind. I want to have a clear understanding of the requirements and goal posts before I make effort towards that. If you don't want to do that, then unfortunately I can only conclude the question was in bad faith.

Re: U.S. has world’s highest rate of children living in single-parent households (2019)

#78

Post by t-writescode »

Supply5411 wrote: post #73
t-writescode wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's definitely not a trick question. I'm more than confident you don't mean to imply that a child gains benefit specifically because a biological man has an outie and a biological woman has an innie and because innie and outie go together and that that's the "love" that only a man and a woman can have together in that particular "arrangement" and that, again, a child benefits from that. So, since a child's life isn'…

It sure seems like a trick question, because it seems like you want me to define man and woman in a way that you can say "ha gotcha." Instead, I'm leaving the definition of man and woman to you, and only requiring that you know there is a difference. "AB" doesn't refer to the genital configuration, but it is a required component of the arrangement. Whatever a man is to you, in addition to having a penis, that's "A".…

Alright, so it's not genitals, cool, cool and it's somehow "gender"-based that makes love across genders to be interesting.

Which philosophy of thought do you follow where gender would have an impact? Is this an argument about dominant / submissive? breadwinner / caretaker? Something else?

Re: U.S. has world’s highest rate of children living in single-parent households (2019)

#79

Post by Supply5411 »

t-writescode wrote: post #78
Supply5411 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sure seems like a trick question, because it seems like you want me to define man and woman in a way that you can say "ha gotcha." Instead, I'm leaving the definition of man and woman to you, and only requiring that you know there is a difference. "AB" doesn't refer to the genital configuration, but it is a required component of the arrangement. Whatever a man is to you, in addition to having a penis, that's "A".…

Alright, so it's not genitals, cool, cool and it's somehow "gender"-based that makes love across genders to be interesting. Which philosophy of thought do you follow where gender would have an impact? Is this an argument about dominant / submissive? breadwinner / caretaker? Something else?

>Alright, so it's not genitals

I said genitals is "a required component of the arrangement." It's just not the whole thing.

Re: U.S. has world’s highest rate of children living in single-parent households (2019)

#80

Post by brnaftr361 »

defrost wrote: post #75
brnaftr361 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it specify the latter, Christianized Roman Empire, or is it more of a generalized account? And does it retell of the common Roman, or of the Roman elite? These tales may be radically different, from what I understand. I expect the Christianized Romans would have had more laborious conventions such as we see with the Catholic Church in the middle ages. But I'm extrapolating.

The Roman Empire is commonly considered to be the four centuries of post-Republican state of ancient Rome (27 BC) until more or less the adoption of Christianity as the state church in 380 AD and the "fall" of the Western Roman Empire during the following 80 years or so. Your "latter Christianized Roman Empire" was the dag end of a rotting corpse .. you might be thinking of the Byzantine Empire (aka Eastern Roman Emp…

I wasn't really thinking of any particular era, I have some vague familiarity with the concept of pater familias and famiglia as a "body of slaves". This, I reckon, aligns with the Christian family modal that I'm most familiar with, perhaps with less extreme connotations of ownership depending on who you ask.

My presumption is that the later Roman empire, despite its collapse, did inform the later customs of Europe, particularly in religion if only due to incidental diffusion. And by that dint also affected the custom of marriage, divorce and perhaps more importantly the status and autonomy of women, though I've all but forgotten precisely how this all played out. And I may very well be mistaken.

I would also posit that it has less to do with religion and more to do with [perceived] female autonomy, value, mobility, economics, and the abatement of the stigma of divorce. The religious aspect having only been the foundational institution of the customs which have been carried (somewhat steadily) forward for nearly 1500 years let's say - a tradition which has suffered a colossal usurpation in society's working memory.

I think it's important to note that women with children are not necessarily unbounded as are women without, I think it would be difficult quantify pre- and post-divorce expectation shifts, but I believe it would be an incisive question. But if the expectations aren't grounded in reality the decision weighing process would lead to poorer outcomes.

Post reply on HN