Thursday, January 10, 2013

A Note on Single Mom Spinmeisters

One thing that is part of the new spin (here and here) on our high and rising illegitimacy rate is the trend that even though born to a single mother, the child has both biological parents in the home. The old canard that a single mom can raise a kid the exact same as two parents, while still pushed by some zealots, has lost its lustre. The few single moms of the '50s + '60s that created the later life outcomes of children for comparison in studies done in the '70s + '80s were mostly widows and existed in an entirely different world than 21st century America. That '80s + '90s propaganda is out the window and not applicable to today. I've written on bastards before here. The parenting that supports this new spin falls flat if you consider the timing and type of parenting that shapes an individual. The crucial personality and values parenting occurs probably when dad and mom have put the child through an unstable living arrangement and a split.
The new spin says a family is formed despite the lack of a wedding contract, which is different than just being raised by a single mom, but there's a giant catch: how long does that unstable set up last? The spinmeisters want to deny the value of a solid marriage and elevate the alternative arrangement of cohabitation as a positive for children that eliminates the negatives associated with illegitimacy. These are the same pundits who are blank slatists and believe any child can be shaped into a doctor or nuclear physicist. If these bastard children grow up with mom and dad under the same roof but not married, what are the chances the mom and dad are together after 5 years, 10 years, 15 years? Are they lower than your average child born to married parents? While many illegitimate kids grow up with one parent present 100% of the time and a loose connection if any to dad, I'll concede that, yes, some of these children grow up with parents who eventually marry and some of these kids grow up with mom and dad together for a few years. What value is a few years of a family unit of two parents to children for these blank slatists who pray at the altar of nurture? Minimal.
What is more important: being there for the 0-2 years of changing diapers, feeding, playing, cuddling, some behavior conditiong but mostly basic needs or the years after that where the hard parts come in? Most of these child development experts will say that a child can't form long term memories until age 3. If a child born to married parents has a 70% chance of mom and dad being together after 10 years, but an illegitimate child only has a 30% chance (I don't know actual numbers; I'm not Dalrock), then this is a huge gap for years 10-18, where difficult right and wrong lessons and the teenage years are in play. Not to mention the stress of the break up on a child in that lead up to the split. If the chances of intact family scenarios are drastically different after even 5 years, this is huge for personality, social norms + mores training and general, mental well being. I know my son responded to me far earlier than I ever thought, but would you rather have dad there to change diapers, bottle feed a baby and be present when a kid is in a swing or bouncy seat, sleeping 18 hours a day or when the kid is starting to talk, interact and learn what is acceptable? How helpful is having two parents in the home compared to one when a child first goes to school? My mom was great and was prepared for my adjustment to school, but my dad still handled the first few times I got into trouble, when I had to stand up for myself and even the playground fights that I got into. While both parts of early childhood presence have value, teaching right and wrong are far more important than changing a diaper. My argument is that a dad is more important beyond that infancy stage when these spinmeisters are trumpeting that at least the 'family' is together for a part of the time. It's human soul development, not just childhood management.
This is all new spin and excuse making for the horrible homes that many parents are creating for children. The pundits want to cover for the bad choices adults make with little thought given before their actions that affect children far into the future. "Oh, it's OK they aren't married, they at least live together. Pay no attention to how many of them are separated after year 3 because still, they were together at time of birth!", repeat the writers of the NY Times, the Atlantic, etc. Even the professor quoted in the Time article says, "Marriage is an achievement that you enter into when you’re ready. But in the meantime, life happens". Being both a husband and dad, I can say holy shit that is stupid and childish to say. They are denying reality of what we all know to be true. It is rough enough for a kid to go through a divorce. What about the kid who had two parents under one roof but never quite husband and wife who eventually split? The message is you, little kid, weren't even a good enough reason for us to get married. Now add in a period of dad coming and going, and then the eventual split. It is barely better than straight up single motherhood and an incredibly poor comparison to a married couple. These pundits and spinmeisters are just shoving more paper, more propaganda and more crap into reader's faces to cover for the dysfunction that is all around us.

3 comments:

odinslounge said...

They're just fooling themselves. If 1 is good, 2 must be better, but they'd never admit that.

PRCD said...

Bastardy will be the absolute death of this civilization. Over half our kids are bastards, and I've never seen a kid from a broken/divorced home succeed unless he/she developed a major interest in religion.

The bastards will outnumber us, vote accordingly, and continue to be subsidized and things will break apart.

When you see our trajectory, you realize that past collapsing civilizations must have seen major die-offs simply because people had gotten used to the government giving them everything.

PRCD said...

PS, thanks for turning off captcha.