A hopeful finding for single mothers (Cornell: you dont need dads just the government)

Cornell U News ^ | FOR RELEASE May 6, 2004 | Contact: Susan S. Lang

[Behind Liberal Lines]

Basically, this article boils down to a statement that children don't need fathers as long as the mothers get sufficient money...and I think we all know where that money is supposed to come from. Yep, the taxpayer.

Ithaca is the City of Evil

[freedumb2003]

Cornell -- no reason at all to suspect any agenda here. Just remember the Liberal Credo: Draw your lines, then plot your points.

[Amelia]

What mattered most in this study, Cornell researcher Henry Ricciuti says, is a mother's education and ability level and, to a lesser extent, family income and quality of the home environment. He found consistent links between these maternal attributes and a child's school performance and behavior, whether the family was white, black or Hispanic.

I would be willing to bet that further studies would show that single mothers are more likely to be deficient in education, ability level, family income, and quality of the home environment.

In fact, studies have already shown that the majority of children living in poverty are living in single-parent homes.

I also notice that the average parent in this study gave birth at age 20 or 21. Many of the problem students I teach were born to single mothers when the mothers were 14-16 years old.

[jocon307]

This just in:

"Mothers can be a positive influence in their children's lives..."

[momfirst]

I also notice that the average parent in this study gave birth at age 20 or 21. Many of the problem students I teach were born to single mothers when the mothers were 14-16 years old.

I tend to agree with you here. Generalizations, of course, but even at age 20 most have finished high school, maybe even some college, thusly are not only more educated, but have better grounding in themselves than those that may have quit school to be a mother at a young age.

Also, those that did finish school of some sort are more likely to be self-sufficient and not depend on government assistance. Those of the younger group are most likely the ones that are exsisting on welfare, have little self-worth, and have begun a vicious cycle of dependence.

There are the pros and cons of single parenting, ones better equipped for the job will obviously do it better. IMHO

[GovernmentShrinker]

Just be careful not to lump all single mothers into the taxpayer-supported category, and don't forget the significant number of married parents who are living on the dole, and making no serious effort to get off it). As a 43 year old, single-by-choice professional female, I've got all my embryos sitting in a freezer for a few more years, so I can be absolutely sure of being able to provide well for my children, financially and otherwise. Oh, and yes, boys do need fathers, so I won't be having boys.

[thoughtomator]

This study is prima facie BS. The damage that the absence of a father does to any male child's development is self-evident.

[GovernmentShrinker]

And 20-21 is still VERY young to be having children, whether single or married, in a society where even minimum financial security is hard to come by without a college education and/or several years' training and experience in a solid trade. Let's see the studies of children of single mothers who gave birth in their 30s and 40s, vs. the children of married couples who had them in their 30s and 40s. I'll bet the outcomes for girls vanish entirely, and the outcomes for boys are only slightly worse than for boys from two-parent homes.

[Amelia]

As a 43 year old, single-by-choice professional female, I've got all my embryos sitting in a freezer for a few more years, so I can be absolutely sure of being able to provide well for my children, financially and otherwise.

Gosh, don't wait too much longer! Financial considerations aren't the only ones....

I had my children in my late 20s - early 30s, so they are almost grown now, but I can't imagine staying up all night with a sick baby or chasing toddlers at my age. (Those two things are also difficult, but obviously not impossible, without another parent as "backup".)

[TnMomofTwo]

Stories that overgeneralize like this one do absolutely nothing positive, IMO. What seems to happen instead are knee-jerk "all single moms are lazy welfare mooches". It should go without saying that ALL children are better off with in a loving two-parent home....unfortunately, that just isn't the reality for everyone. Some single parents (moms AND dads) have to make the best of the hand they've been dealt and try to raise healthy, educated, productive children in spite of cirumstances.

[TnMomofTwo]

Stories that overgeneralize like this one do absolutely nothing positive, IMO. What seems to happen instead are knee-jerk "all single moms are lazy welfare mooches". It should go without saying that ALL children are better off with in a loving two-parent home....unfortunately, that just isn't the reality for everyone. Some single parents (moms AND dads) have to make the best of the hand they've been dealt and try to raise healthy, educated, productive children in spite of cirumstances.

[EGPWS]

The damage that the absence of a father does to any male child's development is self-evident.

However with current societal standards in place, it's getting tough to acknowledge a child's deficient development since standards have devolved to the point that the likes of "Jack the Ripper" are seen as, in a worst case, borderline damaged.

[Amelia]

There are the pros and cons of single parenting, ones better equipped for the job will obviously do it better. IMHO

I still think Barbara Defoe Whitehead's article from the Atlantic Monthly entitled "Dan Quayle was Right" is one of the best studies/articles I've seen on this subject.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Or a full-time live-in nanny, which I expect to have. But honestly, I have a LOT more mental and physical energy now than I had in my 20s. That, coupled with some serious longevity trends on both sides of my family, leaves me unworried about the prospects of having children in my late 40s or even early 50s. A college friend of mine just told me that her 52 year old aunt adopted an infant from a foreign country last year -- she's busy, but enjoying it very much, and wouldn't do it differently if she had it to do over.

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

Nothing like a study to control the data to make the argument come out to what you want. Just ignore the real world.

Go to most any American city and look at the black community where the "Great Society" has wrought its most harm. Most of these so called families are run by women who have children the communal way, by several wandering fathers. These neighborhood are overrun with out of control young males who have no adult males to teach them responsible behavior. The result is most of America's violence comes from these neighborhoods. White males in the form of cops have to intervene when young blacks cross the line. Imagine if the government stopped subsidizing these neighborhoods and white cops didn't come into the neighborhood any more, the neigbhborood would either self-destruct or get "religion" and change its behavior. By themselves, women can't do it.

[FITZ]

What mattered most in this study, Cornell researcher Henry Ricciuti says, is a mother's education and ability level and, to a lesser extent, family income and quality of the home environment.

You're right --- there are many other factors --- certainly a child growing up with a 14 year old drug user who has a different boyfriend in the house every night is going to have less success than a more educated older woman who gets up and goes to work every day and avoids having a social life and spends some time going to church. I know one woman whose husband was dead set against ever having kids --- even though as a lawyer his income was good --- when she accidently became pregnant he demanded she get an abortion, she refused and he took off and did not pay child support. She was college educated, worked, sent her child to private schools, didn't date or remarry and her daughter is doing very well --- no problems. She knows who her father is, has met him but has no relationship with him and is probably better off not knowing or caring about him.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

City of Evil bump.

[Psycho_Bunny]

What the article's really saying:

"Study Finds Single-Parent Children Can Tie Their Shoes As Well As Children In 'Traditional Families'"

An ability to add is not a judge of character.

This "study" was all about agenda.

[henderson field]

"...being a single parent does not appear to have a negative effect on the behavior or educational performance of a mother's 12- and 13-year-old children..."
Yes, they have to wait until they're at least 17 to turn into criminals. It is a fact that children of single parents regardless of gender have higher crime rates than children in traditional two-parent families. Cornell used to be a great university. Now it has soiled its reputation.

[momfirst]

The damage that the absence of a father does to any male child's development is self-evident.

I think everyone needs to clarify "the absence of a good father", not just any father. As one example above with the man that didn't want any kids. By far boys are much more well adjusted with a single loving mom vs. one that stays with the abusive father. This is one issue that gets left out of the mix. The boys that are subjected to a household containing negative-influencing fathers are way more likely to grow up to be criminals than those where the mother has taken the initiative to do it on her own than subject the children to a "father's" wrath. Likewise, the mothers that take on various different boyfriends in an attempt to find the perfect one. Doesn't do any good there, either.

So if the clarification would be "good father", I would agree, but that doesn't seem to come into the equation in these statements.