Posted on 05/30/2016 12:44:44 AM PDT by Olog-hai
Children whose parents are married have significantly higher self-esteem, according to research unveiled yesterday.
Teenagers of married couples were more confident than those in single-parent families or youngsters whose parents lived together in a stable long-term relationship, it found.
Overall, boys with married parents had the highest self-esteem, while girls with cohabiting parents had the lowest. […]
The study, from the Marriage Foundation, was based on data from 3,822 children polled in British Household Panel Survey. Harry Benson, research director at the foundation, said: “Conventional wisdom has it that child outcomes depend on parents staying together rather than marital status. This new finding shows that assumption to be false. In terms of self-esteem, teenagers living with parents who are together but not married are no better off than children living with lone parents. Family income makes no difference. Marriage alone provides the boost. A number of studies have shown that self-esteem is closely related to how secure people feel in their relationships.” …
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
That really, REALLY depends on your parents.
Well, Duh...
Nevermind how dysfunctional those parents were, the kids were better-functioning. This made an impression on me, when I married and had kids on my own. For now, my kids are teenagers and early-20's Millenials. However, they're mostly well-adjusted (well, a lot more well-adjusted than I was when i was their age :).)
hmm, I imagine that’s because they are “straight privileged”
Stop being a hater! /s
That is to say, the "stable, long-term, nonmarital cohabiting relationship" is a myth.
There is a “white privilege” angle to this as well, though it applies to whites less with each passing year as they devolve.
Not much, in Britain.
It is disappearing here in the US as well; the number of white children is dropping quickly, and many of those are born to unwed mothers who learned from gibsmedats how to game the system. On top of that, some of those born to married parents then watch them split up...
Even if they fight the feeling on the children's side is that they will stay together.
Even with a long term shack up that security does not exist.
Good summary.
In my opinion, our country is doomed (in anything like its current configuration) without a massive revival that ends the free-fornication experiment. The data is in: screwing around destroys the country. This is what the Communists wanted all along.
Thanks; it will end when there is no “safety net” that gives them a better standard of living than those working low-wage jobs (currently they end up in the same boat, but the latter are more tired).
I agree. When there are no consequences for poor choices, you get more poor choices, and once you start "helping" people, it's difficult to stop.
Self-interest (on the part of government officials/employees) and sentimentality will probably keep the handouts coming until the money runs out.
In the individual case. But the article is making the case that in population studies, marital status can be treated as an independent variable and that children from intact parents benefit from that marriage.
So, in that sense, it "really, REALLY depends on your parents" ... It depends on whether or not they're married.
We shouldn’t assume these are “poor choices”; at this point they are “career choices” by people with limited (or no) skills to offer employers. The left operated under the assumption these were “choices” and flooded urban schools with birth control, and it did nothing; as these “youths” approach high school graduation (often still illiterate), this was a way to get housing and free stuff - the start of their “careers” breeding clients for government education, social workers, and other services. They made their deal with the Devil, and traded their offspring for a life of leisure as part of the “poverty industry” (which lucratively employs many at the taxpayers’ expense).
Those are very good points.
One countermeasure I’ve seen that is having an impact is just letting these people into colleges with no expectations (basically continuing the charade longer); they’ve bred less and later...
That’s very interesting. I wonder if the British have tried this with their “Asian” population.
I don’t know; they probably have the same problem as France and Spain (where regardless of education opportunities are limited). Many of these socialist countries include employment for life, and there are simply not enough job openings to accommodate young people. Here in the US companies just toss their older workers when they cost too much (skirting anti-discrimination laws in the process); if the government didn’t turn a blind eye to it they’d probably send the job overseas rather than replace the older workers with a younger person at half the cost...
Marriage is a wonderful thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.