Red Mosquito

harmless wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Robot sex is an abomination.

Robot love is queer.

I thought robot love was the reason why the asterisk was added to LGBTQ*.

Green Habit wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:TLDR version is single parents suck and are killing the American Dream.

My TLDR solution: contraception, contraception, and more contraception.

It's a little more nuanced than that as the research is about economic mobility of kids that grew up poor. Single parent kids do not do very well on this as compared to kids from a two parent home. It's pretty interesting stuff but you have to keep in mind that the research is looking for contributing factors (correlation) and not trying to state causation.

Between this and the future of work paper you linked to, it becomes pretty clear who the next generation's winners and losers economically are going to be.

surfndestroy wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:TLDR version is single parents suck and are killing the American Dream.

My TLDR solution: contraception, contraception, and more contraception.

It's a little more nuanced than that as the research is about economic mobility of kids that grew up poor. Single parent kids do not do very well on this as compared to kids from a two parent home. It's pretty interesting stuff but you have to keep in mind that the research is looking for contributing factors (correlation) and not trying to state causation.

Between this and the future of work paper you linked to, it becomes pretty clear who the next generation's winners and losers economically are going to be.

Probably should not be in the Feminism thread.

broken iris wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:TLDR version is single parents suck and are killing the American Dream.

My TLDR solution: contraception, contraception, and more contraception.

It's a little more nuanced than that as the research is about economic mobility of kids that grew up poor. Single parent kids do not do very well on this as compared to kids from a two parent home. It's pretty interesting stuff but you have to keep in mind that the research is looking for contributing factors (correlation) and not trying to state causation.

Between this and the future of work paper you linked to, it becomes pretty clear who the next generation's winners and losers economically are going to be.

Probably should not be in the Feminism thread.

I put it here first as the article always stated single motherr families are the biggest detriment to mobility. Then I read the research and the research was single parent families.

detriment is an odd word to apply to a single mother or single father in terms of upward social (and/or financial) mobility...

I haven't read much the article yet - and I will read it - I'm also interested enough in the study to try to wade through at least some of it - but I'm already wondering if snd is misinterpreting or at least mis-stating what the study or the article is saying?

to me it appears that the word detriment is being used to mean 'blame'... which I find weird, because unless some parent - either a woman or a man - willfully decided to have and raise a child singly (or adopt, etc) rather than as part of a couple, how is blame playing a role?

and I acknowledge this comment as well:
keep in mind that the research is looking for contributing factors (correlation) and not trying to state causation.

but how does that jibe with: TLDR version is single parents suck and are killing the American Dream.
unless it was meant as sarcasm?

malice wrote:detriment is an odd word to apply to a single mother or single father in terms of upward social (and/or financial) mobility...

I haven't read much the article yet - and I will read it - I'm also interested enough in the study to try to wade through at least some of it - but I'm already wondering if snd is misinterpreting or at least mis-stating what the study or the article is saying?

to me it appears that the word detriment is being used to mean 'blame'... which I find weird, because unless some parent - either a woman or a man - willfully decided to have and raise a child singly (or adopt, etc) rather than as part of a couple, how is blame playing a role?

and I acknowledge this comment as well:
keep in mind that the research is looking for contributing factors (correlation) and not trying to state causation.

but how does that jibe with: TLDR version is single parents suck and are killing the American Dream.
unless it was meant as sarcasm?

The research is regarding income mobility of kids raised in a poor family. It was able to focus in on the contributing factors preventing mobility. Single parenthood was the number one factor, followed by a few others tied to single parents.

If income mobility, everyone has a chance to make something of/for themselves is the American Dream then the research shows that single parents kill this dream for their kids. I'm a single parent, I'm not looking down on them. That was my TLDR synopsis from the article and research.

The research found the five leading contributing factors were;
1. Family structure, including % of single parent families in a community.
2. Racial and economic segregation
3. School quality
4. Social capital; voting rates, volunteer rates...
5. Income inequality

I thought the article was saying that people with less upward economic mobility tend to come from single parents (correlation), not that single parenthood induces lower upward economic mobility in children (causation).

broken iris wrote:I thought the article was saying that people with less upward economic mobility tend to come from single parents (correlation), not that single parenthood induces lower upward economic mobility in children (causation).

The article is about contributing factors (correlation). However, when there is such strong correlation I think causation has to be looked at. I think everyone looking at the research would have been surprised by the findings. Single parenthood is not something that would have even registered as a factor in my guesses.

surfndestroy wrote:I think everyone looking at the research would have been surprised by the findings. Single parenthood is not something that would have even registered as a factor in my guesses.

Really? It wasn't a surprise to me at all, and that's why I game a semi-snarky response to the article in the first place. It's an issue of pure financial math: the fewer earners and more dependents you have in a household, the more difficult it will be to devote resources outside the household.

Green Habit wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:I think everyone looking at the research would have been surprised by the findings. Single parenthood is not something that would have even registered as a factor in my guesses.

Really? It wasn't a surprise to me at all, and that's why I game a semi-snarky response to the article in the first place. It's an issue of pure financial math: the fewer earners and more dependents you have in a household, the more difficult it will be to devote resources outside the household.

Two parent poor has the same limited financial resources as one parent poor. Why does a kid from a poor two parent family have better chances than a kid from a poor single parent family? Is it just due to any additional time with their kids a two parent family may be able to provide?

Even though I'm the poor one in my neighbourhood, I think it's been very beneficial to my son to see two parent families as the norm. To see households where one, if not both parents are university educated. Where asking your kid to achieve scholstically is the norm. Where my values are reflected all around him. Where on the whole, hard work is rewarded.

Lock 'er up!

surfndestroy wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:I think everyone looking at the research would have been surprised by the findings. Single parenthood is not something that would have even registered as a factor in my guesses.

Really? It wasn't a surprise to me at all, and that's why I game a semi-snarky response to the article in the first place. It's an issue of pure financial math: the fewer earners and more dependents you have in a household, the more difficult it will be to devote resources outside the household.

Two parent poor has the same limited financial resources as one parent poor. Why does a kid from a poor two parent family have better chances than a kid from a poor single parent family? Is it just due to any additional time with their kids a two parent family may be able to provide?

Even though I'm the poor one in my neighbourhood, I think it's been very beneficial to my son to see two parent families as the norm. To see households where one, if not both parents are university educated. Where asking your kid to achieve scholstically is the norm. Where my values are reflected all around him. Where on the whole, hard work is rewarded.

Yes, the additional time can be very important, as it means less spent on daycare. But the multiplication of incomes, no matter how meager, also matters. Two people on minimum wage can afford things together more than one person can. And this can go beyond two in some circumstances. That's why a lot of people have roommates in high COLA areas.

Generally speaking, your second paragraph sounds good.

On another note, GFYS Mike Huckabee.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/h ... eir-libido

Rand Paul must think he's blown everyone's mind this morning with his simplification of the single parent / poverty "issue" we have in this country.

Marriage is obviously the answer to this societal ill.

It's so much easier to blame poor people for their own economic instability than to blame the capitalist system which creates the systemic conditions for their economic instability (which one participates in).

harmless wrote:It's so much easier to blame poor people for their own economic instability than to blame the capitalist system which creates the systemic conditions for their economic instability (which one participates in).

Take it to the economy thread.

Like you guys did?

harmless wrote:Like you guys did?

Be the better person here, harmless.

In this calm and well-reasoned piece from the Wonkette bashing Bristol Palin's rant about Wendy Davis:

http://wonkette.com/540268/bristol-pali ... l-about-it

there are the following lines I don't quite get:

Bristol: Gosh, children are sooo inconvenient, huh? I’m glad my mother didn’t put motherhood on the shelf when she was elected to City Council, then became our mayor, then Governor. Oh sorry – I mentioned my mother… Have you liberals gone into a tail spin of hate already? Did I lose you?

You know what your mother had, just like Wendy Davis did? A husband who took primary responsibility for the childraising during the times she needed to focus on her career. And you know what that is, Bristol? That’s great.

Bristol: I know you would rather think about Wendy Davis, so let’s get back to her. She’s more your type of woman. She left her kid, husband, made it into a false “made-for-tv-movie-type-tale” and then demanded that Texans have the right to kill babies. That’s the woman you libs can really get behind!

Let’s just remind everyone here: the kids Wendy Davis “left” were in high school and college, which is about the time any self-respecting woman with means will GET THE FUCK OUT, especially if she had her children really young and missed a bunch of her youth and the important foundational career years. We would have gotten the fuck out when our son hit high school, but we didn’t have an awesome ex-husband to be all like “cool yeah,” so instead we just started ignoring our son completely while playing Sudoku 12 hours a day except for that year we were getting our Master’s.

Is the author suggesting that any self respecting woman not financially dependent no her husband should get a divorce once her kids are in high school to focus on herself? Surely this is not some twisted view of Feminism...

broken iris wrote:In this calm and well-reasoned piece from the Wonkette bashing Bristol Palin's rant about Wendy Davis:

http://wonkette.com/540268/bristol-pali ... l-about-it

there are the following lines I don't quite get:

Bristol: Gosh, children are sooo inconvenient, huh? I’m glad my mother didn’t put motherhood on the shelf when she was elected to City Council, then became our mayor, then Governor. Oh sorry – I mentioned my mother… Have you liberals gone into a tail spin of hate already? Did I lose you?

You know what your mother had, just like Wendy Davis did? A husband who took primary responsibility for the childraising during the times she needed to focus on her career. And you know what that is, Bristol? That’s great.

Bristol: I know you would rather think about Wendy Davis, so let’s get back to her. She’s more your type of woman. She left her kid, husband, made it into a false “made-for-tv-movie-type-tale” and then demanded that Texans have the right to kill babies. That’s the woman you libs can really get behind!

Let’s just remind everyone here: the kids Wendy Davis “left” were in high school and college, which is about the time any self-respecting woman with means will GET THE FUCK OUT, especially if she had her children really young and missed a bunch of her youth and the important foundational career years. We would have gotten the fuck out when our son hit high school, but we didn’t have an awesome ex-husband to be all like “cool yeah,” so instead we just started ignoring our son completely while playing Sudoku 12 hours a day except for that year we were getting our Master’s.

Is the author suggesting that any self respecting woman not financially dependent no her husband should get a divorce once her kids are in high school to focus on herself? Surely this is not some twisted view of Feminism...

I read the article, and the only thing I can assume the author is suggesting is she has the social acumen of a teenager.
wtf?

I can only apply the idea of 'getting the fuck out' to 'any self respecting woman' if A) a marriage is being held together for the benefit of the children, B) if the husband is physically violent (and that would be regardless of all other considerations, including any benefit to children, actually) or C) the marriage was a mistake, and in that case, there's no need to determine if you're financially dependent on your significant other regardless - if it's a mistake, that's what it is, and using anyone for financial gain (or scholastic achievement that allows for financial gain) is pretty despicable as well - although I know this isn't an uncommon thing to happen - using someone for their cash, but I don't think it's restricted only to women. in fact, I know it from experience, myself so