Jokeshopbeard said:

Right, so if this ACTUALLY is an issue worth looking at, what are we gonna ACTUALLY do about it?

You know, stuff that ACTUALLY works, not the lipservice that those cunts of politicians spend all day spouting.

---

Make a new law, if u have a baby with a woman, u HAVE to marry her. Or u go to jail

Ulfrick said:

Obviously having two people helping split the work of raising a kid is generally better than one. That being said, that doesn't mean that one person CAN'T do it just fine, or that two parents are ALWAYS going to do a good job of it.

I've met plenty of perfectly well adjusted and successful people raised by single parents. And plenty of completely fucked up people raised by two.

End of the day it's the quality of the parenting that matters the most. Is 2 mediocre parents really much better than 1 in most cases? In ideal circumstances they could fill in each others weaknesses, but it's just as likely they could enable each other and make things worse.

2 parents also means twice the chances of at least 1 being a shitty parent and doing serious long term harm.

So yeah "generally" 2 parents will have an easier time of raising kids. But that doesn't mean that single parent families are a "problem" in any way. And in many cases can be the preferable choice... a kid is better off being raised by 1 good parent, than by a 1 good parent and 1 abusive parent, or even 2 mediocre parents. And even a single mediocre parent is probably not gonna do much worse of a job than 2 mediocre ones would.

---

LogicaL Chaos said:

Jokeshopbeard said:

Right, so if this ACTUALLY is an issue worth looking at, what are we gonna ACTUALLY do about it?

You know, stuff that ACTUALLY works, not the lipservice that those cunts of politicians spend all day spouting.

---

Make a new law, if u have a baby with a woman, u HAVE to marry her. Or u go to jail

---

CHeifM4sterDiezL said:

i agree dee the rising cost of big macs is like the crux to this whole thing

---

CookieCrumbs said:

Lots of things have to change in order for American families to be better off.

It's not the principal that hurts children so much. On the contrary children that grow up with two parents or one parent and an aunt or uncle or grandparent available of one sex turn out as average as other children. The issue is the amount of time a single parent can dedicate to their child while still providing for them.


You already divide the parent time in half and then make that one parent work twice as hard. It destroys any solid guidance and remodeling a child might get from a parent.



Economy changing would improve everyone's lives. Especially childrens.

But no one wants to start a "think of the children" campaign for an economic revolution so guess we're just fucked.

---

Patlal said:

How do you prevent divorce though? That's the number one cause of single parenthood.

---

Patlal said:

How do you prevent divorce though? That's the number one cause of single parenthood.

---

moonrockmushy said:

I'm in favor of zero parent homes.  Having parents is modern day slavery.

---

You got me thinking... What would a society be like where we didn't have "parents", but rather all of the adult population took part in raising our young? Each child would be passed around at regular intervals, like a week or a month. The child would get a changing environment to grow used to - something I think is already becoming an asset in our society. Kids would all get all of the experience: everything from the loving nuclear family through to the shitty crack-addicted single parent.

As "parents" we would all get time off to pursue other interests - we would all have 18 years of child raising to do, but we could spread that out over the ages of 20-60 so we would only be parenting for half the time.