Matt Bruenig wrote a really good reply to Kearny's book. The problem with Kearny's book is that she makes a number of big mistakes in her analysis. Mainly, piling everyone into the same bucket is the critical mistake. Kearny does not distinguish between the quality of the relationship between parents and the demographics and socioeconomics of each family. It turns out that in the US there are very high rates of poverty among two parent families due to the incredibly terrible US social benefits for families compared to other countries and lack of labor unions, etc. And there is no comparison between children whose parents divorced due to an acrimonious relationship, which resulted in a more stable home life in the single parent household versus parents who stay together for the kids or religious reasons but have a horrible relationship and are always fighting.
Exactly. We should be giving government support to traditional two parent households instead of single parent households. This would incentive responsible decision making instead of irresponsible decision making. But oddly enough, those who make good decisions in life are forced to financially support those who don't.
Sweet forced birthing and marriage the party of freedom strikes again!
If people agree to stayed married will you throw in a Walmart basement arsenal?
Kinda crazy that two people can make more money than just one. And that two people can divide up parenting duties between each other rather than having just one person do it.
I'm not married to my partner of 10 years, so I guess our 2-year-old is screwed...the way these "studies" repeatedly confuse correlation and causation is infuriating.
What a shock that this thread is filled with both sides of the political aisle blaming the other for the premise in this article. God forbid both sides recognize there is shared blame and any solution must be a shared solution. This absolutist "has to be the right, has to be the left" mentality is to blame for the situation our country is in on many, if not all, fronts.
As others have said, this is a poverty issue more than a wedlock issue. It has little to do with political leanings. People in poverty are usually not politically active because their energy is spent surviving.
You have some serious mental issues if you actually believe what you just posted.
I think in fairness Obama spoke out about the negatives of single parent homes. A fair criticism might be that he did not use his bully pulpit often enough on this issue, but that is a difficult standard to measure.
I am the product of a difficult divorce. The problem was that my father was a really abusive and violent guy who engaged in all kinds of vices which were not conducive to family life and it was a blessing when he left. He was very well known in track circles. The problem wasn't the government, or Democrats or Republicans or social policy or the absence or presence of religion - he simply wasn't a good family person by any definition. It was a blessing when he abandoned the family even though poverty hit very hard. I am not sure how anything like this can be legislated or regulated but one can speak out about the culture and values which at times drive this behavior. I have empathy for Kennekuk Jack above and his desire to do the right thing. That is what matters, although outcomes certainly can be trying and uneven.
Right back at you, Roger. It definitely sounds like you went through a difficult situation. For what it's worth, your post gives me hope that my kids can recover from this experience and grow into well-adjusted articulate adults. Thanks for sharing your story.
What a shock that this thread is filled with both sides of the political aisle blaming the other for the premise in this article. God forbid both sides recognize there is shared blame and any solution must be a shared solution. This absolutist "has to be the right, has to be the left" mentality is to blame for the situation our country is in on many, if not all, fronts.
Agreed. Just because having an enemy makes you feel better does not mean that the political dynamic of "picking a sports team" actually fixes anything. Instead it just selfishly props up egos and shows the cowardice of trying to elect someone to go kick ass for you instead of doing the ass kicking yourself.
Which, speaking of, I know plenty of kids from married parent households who are just as messed up. Nobody wants to talk about how the problem may not be socioeconomic status, but instead the reason for having kids in the first place. There are now multiple generations of parents who considered their kids as pets or accessories, but are shocked to find out that their kids actually had individual wants and needs.
It's a fair question. I'm going to try to answer in a way that is honest while still trying to be kind to my ex. I certainly don't want to give any ammunition to the guys on here bashing women, because that is 100% not who I am or what I'm about.
The marriage had been struggling for a while. I felt alone and unappreciated, and I think the same was true for her. I tried my absolute best, but I see areas where I could have been a more emotionally supportive partner. I am certainly not without fault in that regard.
We had very different views about the value of work and were rarely aligned financially. She quit her job a few years into the marriage and refused to find long-term employment. I earned the vast majority of the money, did most of the domestic labor, and carried more than my share of parenting responsibilities (60/40 split if I had to put a number on it). I had always dreamed of being a good husband and father, but I felt like the partnership was very one sided and was not what I wanted.
There was a history of verbal/emotional abusive that went back to when we were dating. There are only so many times you can hear "F you" or be sworn at and still feel affection for someone. When my daughter asked, "Why do you let mom talk to you that way?" I realized my kids were seeing more than I thought they were and that we were modelling a relationship that I would not want for them.
I had/have a female friend she accused me of having an affair with. There absolutely was not an affair, but I will admit to feeling validated/seen/heard in a way that I never did in the marriage. I should have been more forthcoming about this friendship, as it made it very difficult for my wife to trust me thereafter.
The final straw was a realization that I no longer had the energy or desire to work on the relationship and that it wasn't fair to either of us to stay together at that point.
That's it in a nutshell, although I might be being too kind to myself in this retelling. The divorce isn't final; however, we split custody 50-50, I'm renting a great house, and the financial impact---while onerous---isn't a crushing blow. As I said before, the kids seem to be handling it as well as can be expected. I found a great therapist who is helping me work through this and grow into a better, healthier version of myself. I'm sharing my experience in the hope that it might help someone else find the courage to leave a bad situation or put in the work needed to repair their relationship.
I'm a man with two young kids who had to make the difficult decision to file for divorce. I wish the author had dug into this idea and expanded on it a bit more, particularly the aspects of mistreatment and shared household responsibilities:
Kearney says she's not advocating that children live in a household filled with marital tension or where parents are unhappy or mistreating each other. As an economist, she sees marriage as a long-term contract between two individuals to pool their resources and share household responsibilities, including raising children. Two is greater than one. The genders of the parents are irrelevant.
I tell myself the kids will be better growing up in a stable environment at my house instead of living in a home filled with tension where the parents are modeling unhealthy relationship dynamics; however, I also struggle with the knowledge that they'll be financially disadvantaged, at least in the short term, until I can dig us out of the hole that we've been put in. I'm going to hang my hat on the fact that the kids seem to be adjusting as well as can be expected, but there are still times I wonder if this is the right thing and what the long-term effects on my son and daughter will be.
Anyway, thanks for the link, OP.
Why did you ultimately choose to exit the relationship? Just curious. Only if you feel like sharing.
Well, when women can do what they want, it turns out that many, especially lower middle class, don't want to get married, even if that decision leaves them in poverty.
Lol at “when women do what they want.”
So we should, what… force women into marriage? Create a demographic that relies upon men for survival?
Lets face it: this isn’t a one-party issue, look around you. It’s the country. Opportunities have been dwindling for a few decades now. And the average American male from middle America who still lives with his parents isn't exactly someone worth marrying, these days.
Somehow, the vapid, soulless, Instagram model or the bitter "boss bit!h" is? The extreme analogies can go both ways.
Not quite the same as what the article is talking about, but I've found that children of divorced parents tend to be "higher variance" than children whose parents stuck together. Some seem to be really succesful and well adjusted, while others are below-mediocre. The average is probably lower than married households, however.
This held true in my situation. There is a meme of two sons of an alcoholic father, one a wealthy businessman and the other a homeless drunk, and they both trace their outcome to having an alcoholic father. In our case, I'm the achiever while my brother isn't homeless but has struggled to stay employed. Sounds like I had a similar father to "rogermortimer"--violent, abusive, raging---except in our case we left him instead of him leaving us. My single mom then raised me and my brother, never remarrying. I think I turned my feelings into an "I'll show you, watch me now," sort of drive (running on pure hate??), while my brother felt like more of a victim, or depressed. I now live in an extremely wealthy town populated mostly by "limousine liberals" who espouse progressive ideals while living extremely traditional lifestyles--almost exclusively two parent homes, many of the mothers work part time or not at all. I am not aware of a single friend of my three children who does not come from a stable two parent home.
I strongly encourage anyone interested in this topic to read "Coming Apart" by Charles Murray, a great book on the hollowing out of the middle class and the wide differences in behaviors of the two ends of America (he limits this book to White America to avoid getting sidetracked by critics crying racism).
If you read the article, it's more to the point of lower income range women looking across the dating table at men from the same social circles and saying, "no thanks"!
It's far less about left v right and far more about economic status. I'm a Dem and have been married for almost 28 years. Everyone in my social circle is the same in that regard. I teach in a pretty low income, Trumpy area. Lots of single mom Make America Great types around here just like there are lots of single mom "welfare queens" as one of our former presidents referred to them living in black areas.
You know what the stable families around here tend to have in common? Income stability. Stable families tend to produce kids who graduate high school and pursue post secondary education (not just college, could be skilled trades). Unstable families tend not to do so well. I've been seeing this with my own eyes for the past 25 years.
The two parties will do and say anything to keep people from saying that money is always the key to any problems in America... and the world
I have no doubt as a population being in a two parent house has benefits. You are not reliant on one income, there are double the people to split chores, help with homework, etc. Where this analysis fails is with the assumption that as individuals that single variable still is the most important.
Person A is in a two parent house with both parents marginally employed and uneducated.
Person B is in a one parent house with a parent that makes a good living and was educated.
Neither is the ideal situation since even Person B may suffer from that one parent working long hours but on average person B will be better off.
I think the government should ensure equality of outcome by paying children of unmarried parents at least $100k per year adjusted every year for cost of living. It is unfair that these kids are disadvantaged. They didn’t choose their parents.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.