Are children more successful when raised in 2 parent households? (1 Viewer)

[Hamish Howl]

Yes, provided the two parents aren't dysfunctional.

Then you're better off with one.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Question: Assuming it is better for the child, what is the solution?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Define “successful”.
Then produce the data to support your post vis a vis your definition.

There are is a mountain of evidence that at a population level, children raised in 2 parent households are more successful:

• Educational Success: Children from stable, two-parent families are more likely to excel in school, achieving higher grade point averages and attending and graduating from college Children First: Why Family Structure and Stability Matter for Children. They also tend to have fewer behavioral problems, leading to lower rates of school suspensions Do Two Parents Matter More Than Ever?.
• Economic Stability: Two-parent households often have greater financial resources, leading to lower risks of poverty and material deprivation for children The Family Factor: How Two-Parent Homes Drive Social Mobility - Profectus Magazine. This economic stability translates into better opportunities and increased upward mobility for these children The two-parent privilege and how it helps families escape poverty.
• Social and Emotional Well-being: Children in stable, two-parent families tend to experience fewer behavioral and psychological problems The Power of the Two-Parent Home | Clearly Reformed. They also demonstrate better emotional health and are less likely to engage in risky behaviors compared to their peers from single-parent families Child Well-Being in Single-Parent Families - The Annie E. Casey Foundation.

It is important to note that a stable, 2 parent household could be 2 parents of the same sex and is not limited to 2 parents of the opposite sex.

 

[Redress]

There is plenty of evidence.

Your dogmatism lies in your trying to cast doubt about it.

Maybe you are not aware of this, but same sex marriage is pretty new in the US, so getting apples to apples comparisons of child outcomes is not possible yet.

Also, have someone explain to you what "dogmatism" means, as you clearly are unaware.

 

[Gordy327]

Traditional man-woman parents provide the best outcome for children. Which is why it has evolved in every human culture in every part of the world.

That's nice. Prove it! There are plenty of man-woman parents who are actually lousy parents. Gender does not determine parental or nurturing ability.

 

[Mika-El]

All things being equal, do you believe that children are more successful when raised in stable, 2 parent households?

I believe that all the data to date can not prove definitively one way or the other for the simple reason the role of "parent" is wide open as to who does it and what impact such a person can have on the children they parent. We also know you can have two parents in a home that is quite stable but one is not around ever and that may have a negative impact. I think there are too many variables at play to come up with any accurate generalizations to the question you ask.

 

[Mika-El]

You are not understanding the research you are sourcing. Marriage has a huge influence on stability in a relationship, and the study you reference deals with children in unmarried households.

Again like the initial question parenting may or may not be helped by marriage relationships. There are too many variables at play I think to make generalizations as to whether married or unmarried parents make the best parents but I would argue and I am sure you would too, that whether someone is married or not, if the relationship of the parents is negative or violent, that causes serious problems whether they are married or not. Children learn from their parents and immediate environment adulys crucial behaviour as to respect, anger control, etc.

 

[Ethel2]

There are is a mountain of evidence that at a population level, children raised in 2 parent households are more successful:

• Educational Success: Children from stable, two-parent families are more likely to excel in school, achieving higher grade point averages and attending and graduating from college Children First: Why Family Structure and Stability Matter for Children. They also tend to have fewer behavioral problems, leading to lower rates of school suspensions Do Two Parents Matter More Than Ever?.
• Economic Stability: Two-parent households often have greater financial resources, leading to lower risks of poverty and material deprivation for children The Family Factor: How Two-Parent Homes Drive Social Mobility - Profectus Magazine. This economic stability translates into better opportunities and increased upward mobility for these children The two-parent privilege and how it helps families escape poverty.
• Social and Emotional Well-being: Children in stable, two-parent families tend to experience fewer behavioral and psychological problems The Power of the Two-Parent Home | Clearly Reformed. They also demonstrate better emotional health and are less likely to engage in risky behaviors compared to their peers from single-parent families Child Well-Being in Single-Parent Families - The Annie E. Casey Foundation.

It is important to note that a stable, 2 parent household could be 2 parents of the same sex and is not limited to 2 parents of the opposite sex.

I actually knew that. My post was a question for Uncensored just to see how he defined “successful” since so many of his posts are warped.

 

[Mika-El]

Actually, humans evolved in situations where the “village” helped in child rearing and where families tended to live in multi-generational family units.

Two parent nuclear families being a societal “norm” is a relatively new evolutionary concept. And not seen universally around the globe - even to this day

I’m not convinced the idea of a 2 parent nuclear family is actually what is best, by ANY stretch.

I think it’s actually counterproductive and stressful and financially straining.

For the sake of brevity your comments are based on lengthy observations and studies by social scientists including anthropologists and others and so your comments certainly are part of a larger understanding of the question and raise important factors. You get to the crucial issue of how what we do know is isolated family units lacking social support groups as you say will find stress from finances, etc., more intense and harder to cope with.

Your comments come from years of studying different societies with ranging degrees of sharing parenting in the society. Interestingly I found some very fascinating studies how climate, i.e., harsh climate can impact on the ability of a society to be more collective and sharing including in regards to parenting and this in turn leads to specific problems from isolation of families into small units disconnected from others and how those societies where the collective was kept together and not isolated from the harsh climate meant a higher likelihood of survival which of course on very basic level makes sense but did not just have to do with hunting, defending against predators, building places to live, looking after children while others hunted. Common sense I guess but quite forgotten in modern isolated societies. Today we isolate in the midst of over population and condensation at the same time a very complex phenomena that leads to specific kinds of mental illness, crime andf other illnesses.

 

[BirdinHand]

For the sake of brevity your comments are based on lengthy observations and studies by social scientists including anthropologists and others and so your comments certainly are part of a larger understanding of the question and raise important factors. You get to the crucial issue of how what we do know is isolated family units lacking social support groups as you say will find stress from finances, etc., more intense and harder to cope with.

Your comments come from years of studying different societies with ranging degrees of sharing parenting in the society. Interestingly I found some very fascinating studies how climate, i.e., harsh climate can impact on the ability of a society to be more collective and sharing including in regards to parenting and this in turn leads to specific problems from isolation of families into small units disconnected from others and how those societies where the collective was kept together and not isolated from the harsh climate meant a higher likelihood of survival which of course on very basic level makes sense but did not just have to do with hunting, defending against predators, building places to live, looking after children while others hunted. Common sense I guess but quite forgotten in modern isolated societies. Today we isolate in the midst of over population and condensation at the same time a very complex phenomena that leads to specific kinds of mental illness, crime andf other illnesses.

Yeah, something has to give. I don’t see this path as really long term optimal or sustainable.

Parents are dancing as fast as they can to try to keep pace in an ever increasing financial stress, etc type of environment AND people are less geographically bound than they were previously.

In my peer circle, most of us are not “from here”. We moved to tho area for jobs/higher education and then jobs. And where we physically live in the greater metro area is predicated upon property values, schools, proximity to jobs/commutes, etc.

That’s a big shift in society. And a relatively new phenomenon. The “natural” “village” disappears in those circumstances.

 

[Integrityrespec]

The more pertinent poll question is: What can we do as a society to ensure all children have the support they need to become successful adults?

Framing the issue as a poll question about two-parent households oversimplifies the realities families face today. It's a nostalgic narrative that ignores broader social and economic shifts. There has been an increase in financial insecurity and family structures are changing. Instead of clinging to idealized versions of the past, we should focus on policies and community investments that support all families.

I think you may be missing the point. Is a two parent household better for the development of the child. Pretty simple. There are lots of variables and there are those that rise to great heights despite coming from a troubled or disfunctional family setting. And sometimes even the best two parent families with all the advantages fail to get it right. We are talking about the ideal situation to get the best outcome.

 

[SCrider]

All things being equal, do you believe that children are more successful when raised in stable, 2 parent households?

You need all of the above option.

 

[Josie]

Any home with love, structure and peace makes for a great household to raise children.

 

[lynnwinslow]

I think you may be missing the point. Is a two parent household better for the development of the child. Pretty simple. There are lots of variables and there are those that rise to great heights despite coming from a troubled or disfunctional family setting. And sometimes even the best two parent families with all the advantages fail to get it right. We are talking about the ideal situation to get the best outcome.

My point is that it's useless to be nostalgic about the good old days - which often weren't great for women and minorities.

Instead, we should be focusing on the ways we can, as a society, help children succeed right now.

It's like starting a poll asking which is better, McDonalds or a chef cooked meal. Nine times out of ten, it's going to be a chef cooked meal but a lot of people don't have access to that.

A better poll would be, what can be done to encourage people to cook tasty, healthy meals at home?

 

[Absentglare]

All things being equal, do you believe that children are more successful when raised in stable, 2 parent households?

A single parent is better than none. Two divorced parents is better than one unhappy household. Any number of parents greater than 1 is better than foster care.

What’s it matter? We take kids from single parents or whatever unconventional structure and we make the situation worse.

 

[Maidenrules29]

Traditional man-woman parents provide the best outcome for children. Which is why it has evolved in every human culture in every part of the world.

Not to mention that its simply the natural order of things.

 

[cpwill]

All things being equal, do you believe that children are more successful when raised in stable, 2 parent households?

In terms of the extent to which this is supported data, the answer is Yes, and that answer can be generally stored on shelves with other statements of similar surety, such as:

"All things being equal, children are more successful when they are loved rather than being raised as slaves by a narco-syndicate"

or:

"All things being equal, children are more successful when they receive a quality education, rather than being stored in dark closets for 18 years"


People get very upset about this, because it means a lot of us have made decisions about marriage that have negatively impacted our children, and nobody wants to think that A) Something they did because they really wanted to B) may have seriously harmed their kids. So, they lean into individual anecdotes or what-abouts.


That, however, does not change unfortunate reality. Yes - divorce harms kids. Yes - kids raised by single parents do more poorly on virtually every metric we have to measure performance. Married couples are more stable for kids than divorced couples.


People need to grow up and put others first - and they will find they are happier when they do so. One study found that a third of unhappy couples with new babies divorced, but of the two-thirds who persisted, 93% reported happy marriages. A 2002 report found that two-thirds of unhappily married adults who chose to stick it out reported happier marriages five years later.

Etc. so on and so forth. We never should have passed No Fault Divorce.

 

[Maidenrules29]

Traditional man-woman parents provide the best outcome for children. Which is why it has evolved in every human culture in every part of the world.

I dont think that there was ever an "evolution" of man/woman parentage culture. It started out that way eons ago and has de-evolved since then, to the point where we now have gay parents and grandparents raising kids.

 

[j brown's body]

There are is a mountain of evidence that at a population level, children raised in 2 parent households are more successful:

• Educational Success: Children from stable, two-parent families are more likely to excel in school, achieving higher grade point averages and attending and graduating from college Children First: Why Family Structure and Stability Matter for Children. They also tend to have fewer behavioral problems, leading to lower rates of school suspensions Do Two Parents Matter More Than Ever?.
• Economic Stability: Two-parent households often have greater financial resources, leading to lower risks of poverty and material deprivation for children The Family Factor: How Two-Parent Homes Drive Social Mobility - Profectus Magazine. This economic stability translates into better opportunities and increased upward mobility for these children The two-parent privilege and how it helps families escape poverty.
• Social and Emotional Well-being: Children in stable, two-parent families tend to experience fewer behavioral and psychological problems The Power of the Two-Parent Home | Clearly Reformed. They also demonstrate better emotional health and are less likely to engage in risky behaviors compared to their peers from single-parent families Child Well-Being in Single-Parent Families - The Annie E. Casey Foundation.

It is important to note that a stable, 2 parent household could be 2 parents of the same sex and is not limited to 2 parents of the opposite sex.

#2. Wealth can help with a lot of problems and it helps address #1 educational success.

 

[Ethel2]

Traditional man-woman parents provide the best outcome for children. Which is why it has evolved in every human culture in every part of the world.

There is absolutely zero evidence that a “traditional man-woman” household produces more successful children than a stable homosexual household.
That’s
Z E R O
But hey-don’t let the facts confuse you now. That’s never stopped you in the past.

“Most of the family outcomes are similar between sexual minority and heterosexual families, and sexual minority families have even better outcomes in some domains. Relevant social risk factors of poor family outcomes included stigma and discrimination, poor social support and marital status, etc. ”

Family outcome disparities between sexual minority and heterosexual families: a systematic review and meta-analysis - PMC

The number of children in sexual minority parent families has increased. This systematic review aims to synthesise the evidence of disparities in family outcomes between sexual minority and heterosexual families and to identify specific social risk ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[ALiberalModerate]

#2. Wealth can help with a lot of problems and it helps address #1 educational success.

I believe that studies have found that even when you control for differences in wealth and income, kid's still do better on average in a 2 parent home.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Yeah, something has to give. I don’t see this path as really long term optimal or sustainable.

Parents are dancing as fast as they can to try to keep pace in an ever increasing financial stress, etc type of environment AND people are less geographically bound than they were previously.

In my peer circle, most of us are not “from here”. We moved to tho area for jobs/higher education and then jobs. And where we physically live in the greater metro area is predicated upon property values, schools, proximity to jobs/commutes, etc.

That’s a big shift in society. And a relatively new phenomenon. The “natural” “village” disappears in those circumstances.

Americans actually move less than they used to. https://www.axios.com/2024/09/01/americans-moving-less-post-pandemic

Arguably, people would have less financial stress if they moved to seek better opportunities at the same rates they did 50 years ago. I think the problem these days is that people are not as likely to be members of community organizations (like Rotary and so on), churches, and so on, so they are missing the community that goes along with that.

 

[BirdinHand]

Americans actually move less than they used to. https://www.axios.com/2024/09/01/americans-moving-less-post-pandemic

Arguably, people would have less financial stress if they moved to seek better opportunities at the same rates they did 50 years ago. I think the problem these days is that people are not as likely to be members of community organizations (like Rotary and so on), churches, and so on, so they are missing the community that goes along with that.

Interesting caveat mentioned in your article and that’s also represented in my personal experience - college educated.

In our circle? The “not from here” are individuals that moved to this region for college/jobs out of college.

My husband is from here - and he doesn’t have a college education. He’s always been here

I’m not. And the “not from here” all moved here from different areas for college and/or jobs after college and then stayed within the same @100 mile radius

 

[Phys251]

Not necessarily. I would think a stable family home is always the best option, whether it's 1, 2, or 5 adults.

Never understood why conservatives think the magic number is two. And they almost always imply a straight couple. A gay couple is perfectly capable of raising happy, healthy children.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Never understood why conservatives think the magic number is two. And they almost always imply a straight couple. A gay couple is perfectly capable of raising happy, healthy children.

They think the magic number is 2 because that is what a mountain of evidence now shows. That said, there is nothing to suggest that children raised by a gay couple in a stable long term relationship or marriage are any worse off than children raised by a heterosexual couple in a stable long term relationship. However, in either case, by virtually every measure, children are better off being raised by intact families (whether its an opposite sex couple or same sex couple) in a stable loving home than they are by a single parent in a stable loving home. As was pointed out earlier in the thread, men raised in a non-intact family are statistically more likely to go to prison than to obtain a degree from a 4 year college.