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

Two-parent households should be a policy goal

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 291 posts

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#71

Post by User23 »

lokar wrote: post #30
a-user-you-like wrote: post #19

Nothing better than a father and mother in a stable, loving relationship for a child. Yes, let’s encourage this.

How exactly is that better the two mothers? Do you have evidence?

If you’re asking for strict double blind randomized trials then no of course not that research would be totally unethical. On the other hand we have a growing mountain of evidence that boys without fathers have comparably worse outcomes and so far as I know there’s no serious dispute.

Also, frankly, the suggestion that fathers are optional or even unnecessary is quite sexist. Just because we’re generally inured to anti-male sexism doesn’t keep it from being objectively wrong.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#72

Post by alduin32 »

jvanderbot wrote: post #44
lokar wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps as women have gained more financial independence they no longer need to adopt a submissive attitude towards men to survive?

Equating a marriage with "submission" is the first thing that needs to die if we're going to create more two-parent households. It is simply no longer the case.

A marriage does not equate to submission, but patriarchal issues in current marriages are still very much present.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#73

Post by dingi »

In other words, invest more in men. Years of neglection on their education and up bringing, downright ignoring the needs of young/adult males. And you wonder why the family situation is fucked up. This is a symptom of the end of western civilization. Populations are on the decline. If you don't have strong men, they will come from outside. Just don't expect them to hold on to your fucked up "values".

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#74

Post by cmcaleer »

matthewfelgate wrote: post #41
a-user-you-like wrote: post #19

Nothing better than a father and mother in a stable, loving relationship for a child. Yes, let’s encourage this.

Encourage how? Force unhappy couples together? You think that is good for the children?!

Sure, I guess that's one of the most uncharitable ways you could read it.

A more charitable and common sense way to read it would be to reduce stressors on couples with children, a huge one being childcare arrangement and expenses. Especially so if granny and granda aren't around or capable of helping. Tax credits, stuff like that goes a long way.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#75

Post by bunbunbun »

ajmurmann wrote: post #49
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #12

There was an excellent NYT article about this as well: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/13/opinion/single-parent-pov... > We are often reluctant to acknowledge one of the significant drivers of child poverty — the widespread breakdown of family — for fear that to do so would be patronizing or racist.

If we are concerned about poverty, maybe we could just give them money? I understand the fairly small child tax credit had a huge positive impact on child poverty.

The policy solution for poverty seems to be to punish the poor for not working hard enough

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#76

Post by version_five »

notpachet wrote: post #47
version_five wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Western society peaked in the 80s so maybe we should listen to some of the arguments from back then.

Things may look like they were working better in hindsight, but we just hadn't started choking to death on all of the unchecked externalities yet.

I'd say we're currently choking to death on the self actualization that came from living in a safe society where all our needs are met. That remains more pressing than any externalities, which tend to get addressed as they become dangerous.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#77

Post by digging »

jvanderbot wrote: post #42
lokar wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly is that better the two mothers? Do you have evidence?

I would be very surprised if GP thought that only father/mother combos are the best and instead was just agreeing with TFA.

It feels extremely unusual to me to specifically call out a mother/father relationship if they weren't intending to exclude queer relationships. A note for all readers: don't say "nothing better than a [straight relationship]" if that's not what you mean.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#78

Post by matthewfelgate »

giantg2 wrote: post #53
matthewfelgate wrote: post #23

The 1970s called; they'd like their arguments back! Arguing that children with married parents fare better, thus promoting two-parent families, is akin to suggesting that since blue cars have fewer accidents, everyone should drive a blue car. Pressuring dissatisfied couples to stay together or marry benefits no one. The article fails to provide actionable recommendations on promoting marriage.

"Forcing unhappy people to stay together or get married doesn't help anyone." I largely agree, but the idea of promoting two parent households isn't antithetical to your statement. You could have programs that are meant to ensure that couples get married for the right reasons, with the right skills, etc. It's likely a marriage prep/ed course would result in fewer divorces, just as drivers ed results in better drivers…

You want people to go to marriage school?!

Honestly what planet are you living on.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#79

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

NDizzle wrote: post #20
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #10

I don't think that's been sociologically plausible for many decades. Some things are easy to tear down and nearly impossible to build back up. In some circles, the mere suggestion that this should be a policy goal is insulting, as it hints that single-parent homes are inferior. Our government isn't really allowed to prefer one over the other, even if it would result in less misery. Furthermore, the tools that governm…

Single parent households are inferior, so why not spell it out?

Because the politicians who suggest any such policy, when it gets to the point where people demand they explain why they're proposing it, either has to come clean, or dissemble.

The latter is obvious lying and deflection, and that's a PR disaster. The former is an absolute shitstorm. Single-parent celebrities that have five different kids by four different baby-daddies go on talk shows and Twitter, start calling you a Nazi. Whatever passes for newspaper editorials now days start whining for the next 6 months that it's anti-inclusive and undermines diversity. Invitations at colleges to speak at graduation are rescinded, some of your campaign donors stop taking your calls even though the mid-terms are coming up in less than a year. LGBT activists then crawl out of the woodwork saying that what we really need aren't two-parent households, because anyone can be a parent. We just need two-plus income families, and that poly-amory is superior because it can potentially bring four or more incomes into the house. Only cis-bigots really want just two parents there.

And then you back off. Not a battle worth fighting. None of this, even if it worked, could be milked for votes in an effort to get promoted from the House to the Senate (or the White House). And since it would be attacked from day one with the possibility that it might fail, why even try? It's far from a sure thing. All we know is the correlation, not the causation.

Post reply on HN