"The nuclear family"

[Lagmonster]

As some of you know, I have some 'discussion lunches' with my friends. Today the subject was so heated that I thought I'd unleash it here and see what you all thought.

A lot of controversy has been raised as to whether single or same-sex parents can raise children as well as a male-female couple can, assuming that each is equally nuturing and caring. So, we were discussing the 'optimal family'. Our group seemed to divide up thusly:

1 - You need a male and a female influence to raise an emotionally healthy child.
2 - A single parent can raise a child, with a bit more effort, as well as a couple can.
3 - Only the quality of the individuals mattered, not their gender or how many of them there were, so the discussion was useless.

What do you all make of it? Do you believe that one 'parenting' group is better than others, or all they all as good as the other, or something else entirely?

[Companion Cube]

IMO, single parents are capable of raising emotionally adjusted children, but the process is easier with a two parents.

[Queeb Salaron]

1 - You need a male and a female influence to raise an emotionally healthy child.

Respectfully disagree, which is a nice way of saying "bullshit." There was a legal case in Florida where DSS took away three EXTREMELY healthy children from two gay parents. All documentation on the emotional, mental, and physical health of these children indicated that they were HEALTHIER than most kids adopted by straight parents, and indeed at least as healthy as children still with their biological parents. There is no evidence to support the theory that gay parents raise emotionally unhealthy children, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

2 - A single parent can raise a child, with a bit more effort, as well as a couple can.

Well, ok, but apply this point to point 1. If a child only has one parent, you would theorize that the child would be emotionally unstable. In this case, because the child is emotionally underdeveloped, the child has NOT been raised as well as a couple could raise it, so either point 1 is disproved again, or point 2 is. Or both.

3 - Only the quality of the individuals mattered, not their gender or how many of them there were, so the discussion was useless.

Absolutely. Parents who preach "tolerance" (as much as I hate that word) will breed tolerant children. Parents who are bigoted will raise bigoted children. (Those are both very broad statements, and in no way do they apply in all scenarios.) It is the ENVIRONMENT, not the NATURE OF THE PARENT, that determines a child's health. Parental competence has more to do with a child's health than the political / social / religious views or affiliations of the parents.

What do you all make of it? Do you believe that one 'parenting' group is better than others, or all they all as good as the other, or something else entirely?[/quote]

[SyntaxVorlon]

First off I think that you need to weigh genetic and social characteristics.
Genetically people are born with their sexuality, which is based on certain prenatal hormone levels and the part of the brain which releases sex hormones.
Socially, parents provide the outline for the child's life, abusive parents have children who become abusive parents most of the time, and a child's later sexual partner, men and women often choose partners who are most like the parent they were most oedipally attracted to.
Same sex couples will raise children who are like their parents and attracted to them, and thus they will likely become very emotionally stable.
It works in much the same way for single parents, though due to normally economic reasons for single parenthood, they have the problems of having enough money.

[Stravo]

As a parent I must say that I happen to think that while gay and lesbian couples can parent as well as anyone else, I do beleive that there is something to be said for a male and female rolemodel for a child.

A boy looks to his father to know what it is to be a man...for good or ill. A boy looks to his mother as a model for his future wife...for good or ill. The old saying is that we men tend to become our fathers and marry our mothers.

A girl looks to her father as a rolemodel for her husband...for good or ill. A girl looks to her mother as a basis for her own womanhood..for good or ill. Now with these basics set, you have to wonder whether children raised in a single sex environment will be sufficiently able to create a rolemodel from the other parent. I don't know the answer to this question but I find it difficult to believe that it would be the same as a man and a woman. Men and women are different, fundamentally so from the way we look at things and talk. Gay men are men first then gay. They are not women nor do I think that gay men want to be women so you have to wonder where the balance is when a boy or girl is looking for their role model on the female side of the equation.

Now does this mean that gays should not be parents? No. I would much prefer a gay couple raise a child than have it raised by the state or shuffled around foster homes. At least with a gay couple the child is getting the one thing every child needs, love.

I'm just talking about the ideal situation.

As to single parents, it FUCKING PISSES me off when women (or men) say that they can raise their kid just fine without a daddy. My experience with single mother children are that they lack somethign fundmental in the way they grow up. Many of the ones that went to school with me as youngsters grew up to become drug dealers and worse. (Now we have the intermediary factor of economic development, alot of these kids in Washington Heights grew up poor, but the ones that had a dad in the house usually didn't turn to that lifestyle.)

This movement marginlizing fathers has produced a generation of FUCKED UP kids. Now we see the commercials on TV trumpeting the importance of dads after years of single mothers being portrayed as saints and why do you need a man? Well, the fact that your kid is holding up a liquor store might be the reason why you need a dad.

There is a reaosn why the basic family unit is a mother and father plus young uns since the dawn of time...it works.

Now, does this mean that a mother father family is a cure all and always perfect, hell no! Dysfunctional families abound, BUT is it the ideal to have that, yes I do beleive it is. I try my best to be as involved in my daughter's life and be a part of her emotional growth. I do not view myself as a cash machine that throws money at her problems, pays for her schooling and clothes and thinks thats all you have to do to be a father. Fatherhood is just as sacred and vital as motherhood.

[Queeb Salaron]

Sidenote: Does anyone find the term "Foster Home" to be rather amusing? I mean, what exactly does that kind of environment foster? A sense of distrust? Ephemerality? Disassociation? Unwantedness? Hardly the kind of values that I'd like to foster in little kids.

[Companion Cube]

Sidenote: Does anyone find the term "Foster Home" to be rather amusing? I mean, what exactly does that kind of environment foster? A sense of distrust? Ephemerality? Disassociation? Unwantedness? Hardly the kind of values that I'd like to foster in little kids.

I find it ironic, at least.

[Ignorant twit]

Frankly I think this arguement is a statistical one. The AVERAGE child in a two parent home will be better raised than the AVERAGE child in other circumstances. Like any other set of bell curves there will be some overlap where individual 1 from set A will be better than individual 2 from set B, even if set A is better on average than B is on average. The best single parent will undoubtably be better than the worst set of parents, but I'd still expect the average two parent household to perform better than the average single parent household.

Frankly looking at such indicators as who ends up in jail I see a very clear indication that having two parents is better on average than having one. I don't see enough data to make an intelligent comment about gay parenting.

[Queeb Salaron]

Frankly looking at such indicators as who ends up in jail I see a very clear indication that having two parents is better on average than having one.

Hmm, see, that little piece of statistical data is a little warped. The AVERAGE single-family household is located in a statistically crime-laiden area, and the AVERAGE crime-laiden area is inundated with single-family households.

[Ignorant twit]

Hmm, see, that little piece of statistical data is a little warped. The AVERAGE single-family household is located in a statistically crime-laiden area, and the AVERAGE crime-laiden area is inundated with single-family households.

I see, and a possible explanation couldn't be that places with a higher than average incident of single families give rise crime. Thus wherever you have single parent households there will be a rise in crime?

Frankly this doesn't change the nature of the problem. A dual parent household is better able to migrate OUT of these crime infested areas before they have children, if not afterwards. Urban flight is very real phenomena, when a place takes a turn for the worse people who can get out, and thus making life better for their families, do. People who can't get out reap the rewards.

If nothing else two parents have twice the man-hours of a single parent to devote towards their familial responsibilities. Where a single parent has to pay the bills and raise the child (or pay some one else to) with a 24 hour day; two parents have 48 hours and do not have twice the costs.

[Wicked Pilot]

I would say that all things being equal the home with a strong male and female influence will produce the better child. Of course, this is all things being equal, an assumption in which the world does not always follow.

[UltraViolence83]

I think that "extended families" may be somewhat more healthy to live in, of course you must take in the current social climate around the household, however. In Italy (and I'm sure many more places around the world) they're not as "independantly minded" as we Americans are. I've seen people on TV in foreign lands interviewed on what they think of our culture, and aside from the "kill all those yankee pricks" statements were some people mentioning that they feel that Americans are lonely people; we don't live in a house with say 5 other family members. Living in such close promiximity to so many other people doesn't give a kid much room to wallow in his/her thoughts. This may or may not have something to do with our plague of school shootings, since members of an extended family seem to communicate better. Those countries in question also have lower depression/suicide, divorce, and the aforementioned school shooting rates.

[UltraViolence83]

Then again, the nuclear family was successful in the '50's, so perhaps it is because we are just sick fucks?

[InnerBrat]

I know it's going to sound like I'm just reiterating Stravo, but it's slightly different:

Not just as role models, men and women have different parenting styles of parenting, and it's possible both contribute to a child's well being. however, a bad father is much worse than no father at all. In single sex (either homosexual or single parnet) situations, I would merely recommend, for example, an aupair/ babysitter/ uncle of the appropriate gender have a look in occasionally, to fill in any gaps left by the absense of a father/mother.

As to single parents, it FUCKING PISSES me off when women (or men) say that they can raise their kid just fine without a daddy. My experience with single mother children are that they lack somethign fundmental in the way they grow up ... This movement marginlizing fathers has produced a generation of FUCKED UP kids.

There is a reaosn why the basic family unit is a mother and father plus young uns since the dawn of time...it works.

Bullshit. Ever heard of the Grandmother hypothesis? the role of the father as the second parent is a relatively recent one. Yes, it's very difficult to raise a child on your own, but it's not impossible.

It's NOT the number/gender of your parents that matters, it's the quality of parenting you receive. My boyfriend's parents were separated, I have friends who lost a parent when they were very young, and they're doing fine as adults.

I'm not saying that single parenting is anywhere near as stable as biparental care, but before you start bashing women who make that choice (or have it forced on them), remember that they usually didn't choose to be knocked up and abandoned.

[Queeb Salaron]

*snip*

Is it me, or does that little tidbit sound a helluvalot like that senator from PA who says that gay parents ruin the chemistry of the nuclear family and violate the values of American culture?

::Sighs:: To each his own, I suppose...

[Wicked Pilot]

Is it me, or does that little tidbit sound a helluvalot like that senator from PA who says that gay parents ruin the chemistry of the nuclear family and violate the values of American culture?

That wasn't Senator Arlen Specter was it? As far as I know, he seems cool.

[Queeb Salaron]

That wasn't Senator Arlen Specter was it? As far as I know, he seems cool.

No no no... the other guy. Maybe he wasn't a senator, maybe he was a govenor. His name starts with an R. There was another thread on it. I'll look it up, hold on a minute or two.

EDIT: Ok, his name starts with an S. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

[Crazy_Vasey]

Hmm, in my experience single parent families tend to struggle a bit because well the parent has to work and if they're working there's no-one at home for the kid. Yeah you can get babysitters and what have you but it just isn't the same, in my opinion of course. Same applies to two parent families where both parents work all day and send their kid around the houses, my cousin has done that with her kids and to put it bluntly they're turning out to be absolute bastards. My mam has stayed at home and yeah we've struggled a little financially but I've turned out well I reckon and my brother while he's a bit of a cunt at times is not a tenth as bad as a lot of kids in this shithole of a town.

I have no stance on the gay/lesbian parents issue. I simply have no idea whether they could do a good job or not. There would probably be some issues with small minded adults and of course the kids at school would give them stick because that's the way kids are. I don't think that's insurmountable though.

[InnerBrat]

Same applies to two parent families where both parents work all day and send their kid around the houses,

*hand up*

Ummm... I'm fine.

And that child minder was an evil bitch, but I'm still fine. And I don't begrudge my parents on ickle bit.

[Stravo]

As to single parents, it FUCKING PISSES me off when women (or men) say that they can raise their kid just fine without a daddy. My experience with single mother children are that they lack somethign fundmental in the way they grow up ... This movement marginlizing fathers has produced a generation of FUCKED UP kids.

There is a reaosn why the basic family unit is a mother and father plus young uns since the dawn of time...it works.

Bullshit. Ever heard of the Grandmother hypothesis? the role of the father as the second parent is a relatively recent one. Yes, it's very difficult to raise a child on your own, but it's not impossible.

It's NOT the number/gender of your parents that matters, it's the quality of parenting you receive. My boyfriend's parents were separated, I have friends who lost a parent when they were very young, and they're doing fine as adults.

I'm not saying that single parenting is anywhere near as stable as biparental care, but before you start bashing women who make that choice (or have it forced on them), remember that they usually didn't choose to be knocked up and abandoned.

No where did I attack single mothers...I attacked the virtual beatification of single mothers and their plight. Case in point the infamous Murphy Brown episode where she makes them out to be saints and a truly viable alternative. I think if you ask most single moms they would rather have a hubby or man in their life to help them raise their kids.

Its not the single mothers, its the system and school of thought that decided that a way of parenting that is simply not as desirable as two parent home needed to be praised instead of trying to be corrected. Instead of tackling the harsher task of confronting why this is a growing phenomenon and how to try and stem the tide they have decided that "Hey, if we make it sound good and make these women out to be saints going it alone people may not notice how fucked this is." NOW members chime in "Hey, who needs a man anyway right?"

THAT is what I am attacking not the poor struggling single mom trying her damndest to bring up her child.

I'm attacking those who don't really give a shit and would rather say "Go sister, you're doing well, who needs a man, you can do this on your own." As opposed to someone who says "Let's work this out and try to make sure that something like this does not happen more often."

[Crazy_Vasey]

Well I can only speak from what I know and my uhh whatever you call the kids of your cousins are utterly lacking in discipline or respect. Then again they were in some private nursery which probably couldn't give two shits about the kids in there just the colour of their parents money. I'm not exactly an expert in these things and I have a bias to what I've seen work.

[Darth Wong]

Discussions of this nature quickly become heated because an attack on ANY kind of parenting method is invariably perceived as an attack upon parents who used it, and the children of such parents will become offended.

However, there are certain maxims which can be applied:

1. All other things being equal, two people can accomplish more than one person.
2. All other things being equal, a person staying at home is a more attentive and helpful parent than one who is at work.
3. All other things being equal, it is better for a child to have both male and female gender role models readily available (although a role model does not necessarily have to be one of the parents; uncles and aunts may suffice in that job).

The retort to claims about two-parent families and stay-at-home parents being superior is invariably constructed around the basic argument that all other things are NOT necessarily equal. This is often true. However, it does not alter the fact that these basic value relationships do exist. Yes, two shitty parents are not as good as one devoted one, but face it: two devoted parents are better than one.

It's a bit like saying that two hands are better than one, and having someone disprove the maxim by comparing a sickly weak two-handed person to a one-armed man who works out. It is entirely possible to prove the maxim wrong in particular cases, but as a basic principle, it still works because some other factor must exist in order to counteract it.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Also, this thread pisses me off. I thought it'd be about nukes and instead I get moral issues.

[Queeb Salaron]

I see, and a possible explanation couldn't be that places with a higher than average incident of single families give rise crime. Thus wherever you have single parent households there will be a rise in crime?

That's either circular logic or false-cause. I can't tell which. I mean yes, it COULD be an explanation, but I doubt it. I don't think single-parent households create criminals.

Frankly this doesn't change the nature of the problem. A dual parent household is better able to migrate OUT of these crime infested areas before they have children, if not afterwards. Urban flight is very real phenomena, when a place takes a turn for the worse people who can get out, and thus making life better for their families, do. People who can't get out reap the rewards.

Except that now we're seeing reverse urban flight, where the most valued pieces of property are in the city as opposed to the suburbs. In Boston, brownstone apartments on Commonwealth Ave. go for upwards of $1 million. This reverse urban flight (or Reverse White Flight, as it's been called) is also a very real phenomenon.

And what "rewards" are you talking about? If other people move out, the people who can't are still poor. In this case, single-parent households are still left behind when everyone else moves away. And it's not like the spaces created are left empty; they're all being filled by richer people. If anything, this creates a stark class difference, and THAT is what causes the level of crime.

Hmm... I think I might have hit on something there...

If nothing else two parents have twice the man-hours of a single parent to devote towards their familial responsibilities. Where a single parent has to pay the bills and raise the child (or pay some one else to) with a 24 hour day; two parents have 48 hours and do not have twice the costs.

AHHH!! TIME CUBE!! ONE 48-HOUR DAY!! AHHH!!!!!!

No, you're right. More parents makes raising children easier, yes. But no one's debating the contrary.

[Queeb Salaron]

All other things being equal, two people can accomplish more than one person.

Agreed.

All other things being equal, a person staying at home is a more attentive and helpful parent than one who is at work.

Well, yes... But parents MUST work. It almost seems as though you're falling into gender roles, Wong. It ALMOST sounds like "Children are raised better when mom stays home instead of having a career." ALMOST, but not quite. ::Knocks down the strawman he just created and sets it on fire.::

All other things being equal, it is better for a child to have both male and female gender role models readily available (although a role model does not necessarily have to be one of the parents; uncles and aunts may suffice in that job).

::Shoves his head in a pillow and screams furiously::
::Recovers himself::

Ok. Basically what you're saying is that a child should grow up to be influenced by both a male and a female role model, and that these don't necessarily need to come from within the immediate family. Sounds good, but you're forgetting something: Children from gay parents often come out as healthy, if not moreso, than the average child from a heterosexual couple. It's not the gender of the parents or role models that counts. It's their competance.

The retort to claims about two-parent families and stay-at-home parents being superior is invariably constructed around the basic argument that all other things are NOT necessarily equal. This is often true. However, it does not alter the fact that these basic value relationships do exist. Yes, two shitty parents are not as good as one devoted one, but face it: two devoted parents are better than one.

It's a bit like saying that two hands are better than one, and having someone disprove the maxim by comparing a sickly weak two-handed person to a one-armed man who works out. It is entirely possible to prove the maxim wrong in particular cases, but as a basic principle, it still works because some other factor must exist in order to counteract it.

I want to defend my last statement against this (very well-articulated) point. I would find it a tribute to bold-faced ignorance to argue that gay parents are a part of the "sickly weak two-handed" category. Maybe, to follow your metaphor, I'd put them in the "two left hands" category. It's not that they're any less capable, it's just that they're different. And they're just as effective, regardless of their gender. ::Shrugs:: So there you have it.