NationStates Jolt Archive

Don't yell about my sucky poll just yet. Note that it's a public poll, and allows multiple choices.

If you vote the joke option, you are obliged to make at least one joke. Iz new rule!

A lot of people seem to find something wrong with a single parent bringing up a kid or kids.

I don't make that sweeping judgement. But I'm interested rather than hostile, in just what they find wrong with single parenthood. To me, it seems to work great in some cases, not in others. It's kind of an "all eggs in one basket" situation: if a kid has only one parent and that parent is crap, they've got it pretty bad. On the other hand, they're half as likely to have one crap parent.

So I've phrased the poll to try to distinguish what people think is most missing in a child's life, when the child only has one parent. Is it a father? Or a mother? A parent of their own gender, or the opposite? Or is there some quality of "coupleness" which is essential to parenthood?

Yes, I'm talking about gender roles. It isn't the only issue in single parenthood -- there's the question of parents having the time for parenting, whether a single parent can afford to bring up kids, the vulnerability of the kids to the parent's death. There's a whole lot of issues, so feel free to discuss single parenthood more widely than what I could fit in the poll.

Of course anyone can answer, but I'm mainly curious about the motivation of those who reject single parenthood on principle. It's about the gender roles the kid is going to learn, right?

Don't yell about my sucky poll just yet. Note that it's a public poll, and allows multiple choices.

If you vote the joke option, you are obliged to make at least one joke. Iz new rule!

A lot of people seem to find something wrong with a single parent bringing up a kid or kids.

I don't make that sweeping judgement. But I'm interested rather than hostile, in just what they find wrong with single parenthood. To me, it seems to work great in some cases, not in others. It's kind of an "all eggs in one basket" situation: if a kid has only one parent and that parent is crap, they've got it pretty bad. On the other hand, they're half as likely to have one crap parent.

So I've phrased the poll to try to distinguish what people think is most missing in a child's life, when the child only has one parent. Is it a father? Or a mother? A parent of their own gender, or the opposite? Or is there some quality of "coupleness" which is essential to parenthood?

Yes, I'm talking about gender roles. It isn't the only issue in single parenthood -- there's the question of parents having the time for parenting, whether a single parent can afford to bring up kids, the vulnerability of the kids to the parent's death. There's a whole lot of issues, so feel free to discuss single parenthood more widely than what I could fit in the poll.

Of course anyone can answer, but I'm mainly curious about the motivation of those who reject single parenthood on principle. It's about the gender roles the kid is going to learn, right?

What poll? You should make it multiple choice. :D

What poll? You should make it multiple choice. :D

Boom boom.

I think this video best explains the reasons why a single parent inevitably going to ruin a child's life...

MotherhoodParenting and the Authority behind Motherhood (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU)

2 cannibals are sitting in the desert, eating a clown. One cannibal turns to the other and asks, "Does this taste funny to you?".


Personally, I'd tend to think there'd be some sort of balance missing. That may be lessened if the child has an older sibling of the opposite gender to the parent, but that's one potential problem I see with single parenting.

Not to say I have anything against single parents. They can do just as good a job raising kids as a couple.

I generally don't favour single parenthood as a matter of principle or because I believe it's inherently wrong, but I just believe there is a reason why all children have two biological parents - for them to have two, not one parents.

Plus, single parenting is hard, both on the parent and on the child.

I think this video best explains the reasons why a single parent inevitably going to ruin a child's life...

MotherhoodParenting and the Authority behind Motherhood (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU)

*brutally murders Skalvia with an ax*

I think this video best explains the reasons why a single parent inevitably going to ruin a child's life...

MotherhoodParenting and the Authority behind Motherhood (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU)

I concur... but I still fucking hate you :headbang:

According to current psychological thinking, there is a developmental need for a mother and father figure in a childs life. IMO they don't need to be the actual mother or father, they just need someone to be there.

From the parents point of view, I would not want to be a single parent. It would be a very stressful job and there would be no break unless you have parents or someone who can help care for the children when you need a break. It would probably also make disciplining them alot harder which ultimately leads to the number of ratbag kids of single parents.

From a childs point of view it would be a confusing situation, and undoubtedly they do get alot of shit from their classmates about it which is just going to cause more problems.

So, I suppose it is ideal for both parents to be present, but if that is not possible then they need both a male and female authority figure in their lives that loves them.

*brutally murders Skalvia with an ax*

Hey, he told me too, lol...

Don't yell about my sucky poll just yet. Note that it's a public poll, and allows multiple choices.

If you vote the joke option, you are obliged to make at least one joke. Iz new rule!

A lot of people seem to find something wrong with a single parent bringing up a kid or kids.

I don't make that sweeping judgement. But I'm interested rather than hostile, in just what they find wrong with single parenthood. To me, it seems to work great in some cases, not in others. It's kind of an "all eggs in one basket" situation: if a kid has only one parent and that parent is crap, they've got it pretty bad. On the other hand, they're half as likely to have one crap parent.

So I've phrased the poll to try to distinguish what people think is most missing in a child's life, when the child only has one parent. Is it a father? Or a mother? A parent of their own gender, or the opposite? Or is there some quality of "coupleness" which is essential to parenthood?

Yes, I'm talking about gender roles. It isn't the only issue in single parenthood -- there's the question of parents having the time for parenting, whether a single parent can afford to bring up kids, the vulnerability of the kids to the parent's death. There's a whole lot of issues, so feel free to discuss single parenthood more widely than what I could fit in the poll.

Of course anyone can answer, but I'm mainly curious about the motivation of those who reject single parenthood on principle. It's about the gender roles the kid is going to learn, right?

The problem with the poll is the word "always". In none of the situation you mentioned will any of those combos ALWAYS be good.

That said, all things being equal, I believe two parents are generally better than one -- if only because that means more than one opinion and more than one parent to be approached with a problem. However, that does not mean that there are not phenomenal single parent homes nor does it mean that every two parent home is paradise. And I don't particularly care if both parents share the same gender either -- two loving parents are two loving parents.

It's best for a child to have two parents that care for them and work together to raise them. However, it is better to have one good parent than two dysfunctional parents, or one good parent living with a dysfunctional/abusive other parent.

Single parenthood is very difficult, but single parents are absolutely capable of raising children successfully.

I have a question for people who believe two parents are better than one: does that mean three are better than two? Four better than three?

According to current psychological thinking, there is a developmental need for a mother and father figure in a childs life. IMO they don't need to be the actual mother or father, they just need someone to be there.

OK. You don't find the mother more important than the father, or vice-versa?

(I must admit I found the damn sucky poll hard to answer myself. Massive assumptions there)

From the parents point of view, I would not want to be a single parent. It would be a very stressful job and there would be no break unless you have parents or someone who can help care for the children when you need a break. It would probably also make disciplining them alot harder which ultimately leads to the number of ratbag kids of single parents.

Ah, my feeling on that is that the parents are single for the same reasons their kids are (disproportionately) ratbags. They're too selfish to be either a partner or a parent.

Why is the disciplining a lot harder? In a sense, the child is more dependant on the single parent, that should give the parent MORE control, hmm? They can't play one parent off against the other.

So, I suppose it is ideal for both parents to be present, but if that is not possible then they need both a male and female authority figure in their lives that loves them.

OK, thanks for a serious reply.

I have a question for people who believe two parents are better than one: does that mean three are better than two? Four better than three?

Whatever floats your boat. You've heard the old chestnut, "It takes a village to raise a child..." Well, a network of loving and capable adults would be a very good thing.

The problem with the poll is the word "always". In none of the situation you mentioned will any of those combos ALWAYS be good.

Oh, that's not the only problem with the poll. ;)

That said, all things being equal, I believe two parents are generally better than one -- if only because that means more than one opinion and more than one parent to be approached with a problem. However, that does not mean that there are not phenomenal single parent homes nor does it mean that every two parent home is paradise. And I don't particularly care if both parents share the same gender either -- two loving parents are two loving parents.

You're looking at it from the kid's point of view, excellent.

This idea of "more than one opinion and more than one parent to be approached with a problem" is just what I'm wondering. On the one hand that might mean an uncertainty about whether either is right (kinda bad) but on the other it gives the kid some choice in how to approach challenges.

I have a question for people who believe two parents are better than one: does that mean three are better than two? Four better than three?

I can see where you are going with this, but before you start let me stop you. When deciding on the correct number for a committee meeting or something similar, having say three people in the group can be a problem, groupthink enters and there may not be enough new ideas to tackle a problem(s) so you would say we need five it is better than, three you could continue with this and say why not 18 that is better than five or maybe 22 or 25. The problem then becomes that you have to many ideas, to many people talking so that some may get lost and groupthink also sets in. So to say add more parents you start to get to many 'parents' the child will have other influences in their life aunts and uncles, grand parents school teachers maybe other children’s parents but there is a limit on 'parents' and two is most probably the maximum.

I think that while it may be alright to have a single parent (my own son has something similar as he lives with his mother, and grandparents, he still sees me quite often and thus I am a father to him) I think a child does need both a male and female influence on them. I do not know about girls (as I never have been one) but I think boys need both in their lives. Perhaps some females on here could give their opinion on if girls both need a mother and a father, I am trying to think if I had a daughter and she had no major female influence how would she cope in the world especially when she begins to enter adolescence maybe some guys would know exactly what type of advice she might need, everyone is different and just because I couldn't bring up a girl on my own (without female advice)doesn't mean another male could.

I think that it is important for children to have a loving, supportive household. That should do it.

You're looking at it from the kid's point of view, excellent.

I generally do think about kids in a "kidcentric" fashion -- somewhat because of my own experiences but mostly because teaching (if you're truly good at it) puts you in a position where you have to think about what's best for the child and also how a child is likely to react to any given situation.

This idea of "more than one opinion and more than one parent to be approached with a problem" is just what I'm wondering. On the one hand that might mean an uncertainty about whether either is right (kinda bad) but on the other it gives the kid some choice in how to approach challenges.

It certainly teaches how to negotiate with both parents, as well.

Ah, my feeling on that is that the parents are single for the same reasons their kids are (disproportionately) ratbags. They're too selfish to be either a partner or a parent.
That quite possibly plays a part as well in many cases... However I wouldn't generalize it quite that much. Especially in NSG. ;)


Why is the disciplining a lot harder? In a sense, the child is more dependant on the single parent, that should give the parent MORE control, hmm? They can't play one parent off against the other.
Not as many opinions on how to discipline the child. When i was a young'un, my Mum would give in if I threw a tantrum, my Dad would not. Once my father made a stand my mother would. Thus, They had a united front against me and they got their way...
Also, if my Dad was been unreasonable in his punishment my mum would step in and save me from whatever evil he had planned for me.

Of course, sometimes it was the other way around aswell. Ultimately it was fairer and I got punished when I deserved it.


OK, thanks for a serious reply.
Don't expect them too often...

Well, if a girl has two female biological birth parents, in the sense that there is no male in the equation, is it alright, in terms of poll voting, to include one of them as the father?

Well, if a girl has two female biological birth parents, in the sense that there is no male in the equation, is it alright, in terms of poll voting, to include one of them as the father?

Gee, and what about birl-goys, whose two transexual parents have some cunning scheme to keep the kid from knowing their own gender?

Sheesh, I dunno. Just click some stuff, or not, and explain your choice.

I think the best combo is a father, an uncle, and Joey.

The idea of two parents is so that one can stay home and take care of the kid while the other works because good food, good homes, and a lot of good stuff in general are not free. Sure, the sun is, but houses aren't, unless they were in some radio-active gang-infested neighborhoods where all the local scientists work in meth labs.

Two parents: one works and the other stays home. Doesn't really matter which one does what.

one parent: you've got to be home to take care of the kid and still be able to work.

That's why two parents are usually better than one. It's easier to divide vital responsibilties and have all the needs met without it really being very taxing to either party. It's like a rock band. It's easier to make a rock and roll song when you have different people playing different instruments than one person playing drums, lead guitar, bass, singing, and possibly rythem guitar at the same time.

nothing wrong with it morally; and why ONLY two, 'parents'?

more then one is because parenting and gainful employment, not to mention household maintainence, are EACH a 'full time' job.

if someone has the energy to keep up with more then one, more power to them.

i'm just glad i've never had any kids, or had to live with and raise any. other then myself of course.

=^^=
.../\...

The idea of two parents is so that one can stay home and take care of the kid while the other works because good food, good homes, and a lot of good stuff in general are not free. Sure, the sun is, but houses aren't, unless they were in some radio-active gang-infested neighborhoods where all the local scientists work in meth labs.

Two parents: one works and the other stays home. Doesn't really matter which one does what.

OK, a materialistic reason for two parents.

To infer from that an opinion about the preferred gender of a single parent: you find them equally good, for girls and boys.

Because the "stay-home" parent is clearly going to be the one doing more parenting, and you see it working either way.

I take it that both parents having part-time jobs and being part-time stay-home would be satisfactory too, if they could make enough money that way ?

I have a question for people who believe two parents are better than one: does that mean three are better than two? Four better than three?The more the merrier. There should be a whole community to support the children. That way even if they have two crap parents, they can go to the neighbours for proper affection and support.
A single parent with good neighbourly relations might very well be preferable to two parent that are isolated from the community.

The best families are two-parent families, and the worst families are one-parent families.

Does that mean all two-parent families are better than all one-parent families? Heck to the no.

What about no parent families, the rare case where one sibling has to take care of the others?
Or is that something that only happens in TV series and anime?

I think that it is important for children to have a loving, supportive household. That should do it.

Doubt I could have put that better.

It's a sad fact that children cost money; while the initial purchase cost is deceptively low, they invariably come with a lot of very high running costs spread out over 18 years or longer; while this is an admirable lifespan when compared to most automobiles, their fuel efficiency leaves much to be desired. Thus a pair (or larger group) of adults can pool their resources to share the running costs of the child, resulting in a better overall quality of life for everyone involved.

Coming from a single parent family, I can say the answer is yes, to pretty much everything. My father died when I was four and my mother finally remarried when I was 17, so the period in between my male role models were limited.

Now, don't get me wrong, my mother did a wonderful job raising the two hellions she was left with by herself without a college education. I think it says a lot that out of all my cousins, only my sister, myself, and ONE of my cousins managed to complete college (With me getting my MA and soon to be moving to my PhD), and out of my cousins (all of whom were raised in two parent households), only my sister and I managed to move further out than 30 miles away from the nest. She wound up in Portland and I live in Japan.

That said though, when I finally started noticing girls as something other than just annoyances, I didn't have anyone to really turn to that I would feel comfortable with talking about both my own puberty and how to approach said girls. My mother, bless her heart, was slightly biased on the subject after all. ;)

My sister on the other hand also had some issues in missing out on a male presence. Her experience with guys was limited to her one-year-older and much geekier brother, something I'm sure has still colored her view of men in general.

So in general, I'd say my sister and I turned out pretty damn good, but I think that we did miss out on a few things that would have made our lives easier if our father had lived. So while I think that two parents are USUALLY for the better, it is by no means certain that a single parent family is destined for failure, but I do think that things will be slightly rougher for them.

well my two cents is that in society there is a generally negative viewpoint of singleparents but imo society's problem with singleparenthood (that is, the opinion of the average joe in the street, not some sociologist/psychologist) is the stereotypical view of a single parent, not the psychological damage that may or may not be wrought upon a child with only one parent. In Britain today there seems to be a stereotypical view of single parents, single mothers in particular, as chavs who get pregnant as soon as possible to get a council house and who neglect their children. That is why I think singleparenthood is seen as a bad thing by the majority of society. I dont think many people look at it from the viewpoint of psychologists or sociologists tbh.

In my view theres nothing wrong with having one parent, two parents, gay/lesbian parents or vampire parents. The important thing is the love and how the children are raised by the parents.

Joke: A looooooooooooooooooooooongcat is fine too.

I choose two parents. Economically two parents are better than 1. One can work, while the other can establish a solid home life. Gender in this doesn't matter. Life partner A home, Life partner B working. Choose Mum, Dad, whatever as A and B. Economics is only 1 part of it though. The emotional and social part is much more important.

Economics affects the emotional and social though.I think 2 stable parents are much better than a single parent. A stable single parent is better than a dysfuntional couple though.

In regards to gender. I will put a preference to a man and a woman. The reason for this is twofold. 1. Society has hang ups about same sex relationships. This will affect the child. I'm not saying this is fair, but it is relevant. 2. There are some things that a boy will have problems telling his Mum, and a girl will have telling their Dad.

If there is only 1 parent, I will put a preference to it being the Dad. Reason being is there are so few Male role models in a childs early development. Look at child care centres, kindegarten, primary school, most places that cater for very young children. The staff are nearly all women. Without a Dad, there are so few male role models. Without a Mum, there are still quite a few female role models.

the only reason single parenthood is in any way bad is because it is more work for the parent. if the parent is capable then there is no problem. there are two parent families where one does all the parenting. there are also two parent families where neither does an adequate job of parenting. the 'need' for both male and female role models is bollocks.

Don't yell about my sucky poll just yet. Note that it's a public poll, and allows multiple choices.

If you vote the joke option, you are obliged to make at least one joke. Iz new rule!

A lot of people seem to find something wrong with a single parent bringing up a kid or kids.

I don't make that sweeping judgement. But I'm interested rather than hostile, in just what they find wrong with single parenthood. To me, it seems to work great in some cases, not in others. It's kind of an "all eggs in one basket" situation: if a kid has only one parent and that parent is crap, they've got it pretty bad. On the other hand, they're half as likely to have one crap parent.

So I've phrased the poll to try to distinguish what people think is most missing in a child's life, when the child only has one parent. Is it a father? Or a mother? A parent of their own gender, or the opposite? Or is there some quality of "coupleness" which is essential to parenthood?

Yes, I'm talking about gender roles. It isn't the only issue in single parenthood -- there's the question of parents having the time for parenting, whether a single parent can afford to bring up kids, the vulnerability of the kids to the parent's death. There's a whole lot of issues, so feel free to discuss single parenthood more widely than what I could fit in the poll.

Of course anyone can answer, but I'm mainly curious about the motivation of those who reject single parenthood on principle. It's about the gender roles the kid is going to learn, right?

I have a major problem with single parenthood. I understand that sometimes a parent dies. I also understand that some parents are so bad that a child should not be around that bad parent. ALso, we have those situations where a parent deserts the family. However, the majority of single parents are folks who are separated and both parents are pretty much ok when it comes to the children. It is this last group that I have a major problem with.

I think that at the very least, the children of this sort of family grow up exposed to the idea that it is acceptable to leave your mate and go it alone or with a stepparent.

I do not think that this is good for strong families. I think that children should be brought up with the udnerstanding that parents should be committed to each other as demonstrated by good communication skills and compromise. If we do not do this then we are a disfunctional family and that is not the ticket to happiness.

Children should learn that the decision to bring a new life into the world and whom you will choose as your mate is not a decision to be taken lightly or left up to chance. I think that this is important not just to our children but to our society as a whole because strong families are the building blocks of a strong society.

Now there are plenty of times when it ok to be a single parent. Sometimes you have situations where a parent suffers from a drug or alcohol problem or other mental illness that makes them a bad influence or danger to the children. Clearly, it is not in the best interest of a child to be subjected to all of that. Also, we have situations beyond the single parent's control such as the mate dying or deserting the family.

All of the children of a parent that deserted them at a young age in my family have problems. Now some of these children grew up to be hardworking and decent, but there are still some problems there.

I do not think that it is a good idea for a parent to desert a child.

I am opposed to any parent who enters parenthood by mistake. This is a very important decision to make and your child is going to role model off of you to some extent and I would not want to lead my child by a poor example so I would not act like that. However, we all know that the other parent can change after becoming a parent and if this other parent is unable or unwilling to reform themselves, perhaps it is best to not have the child around the other. However, I do not think that merely falling out of love with the parent is a good enough excuse to become a single parent. It has to be something huge that has a negative impact on the child. If a court would grant shared custody without supervised visitation, the couple probably should not have split up in the first place.

the only reason single parenthood is in any way bad is because it is more work for the parent. if the parent is capable then there is no problem. there are two parent families where one does all the parenting. there are also two parent families where neither does an adequate job of parenting. the 'need' for both male and female role models is bollocks.

I am not sure where I heard this but supposedly women are at a greatly increased risk of suffering from sexual problems if they did not get along well with their father. If the dad was not in the picture when a girl is growing up this would be bad for her sexual devellopment. Do not ask me for a source I totally forgot where I read or heard this.

It's a sad fact that children cost money; while the initial purchase cost is deceptively low, they invariably come with a lot of very high running costs spread out over 18 years or longer; while this is an admirable lifespan when compared to most automobiles, their fuel efficiency leaves much to be desired. Thus a pair (or larger group) of adults can pool their resources to share the running costs of the child, resulting in a better overall quality of life for everyone involved.

It is shocking how much kids cost. I think the average cost to raise a child to 18 is $250,000. This does not include college. A 4 year private university bill 18 years from now is expected to be around $500,000. If you have 2 kids and want to send them to a private university. Expect to shell out 1.5 million dollars!

If anybody is interested in my source, search on the internet for a calculator for the cost of college. My source for the average cost of raising a child to the age of 18 is the US Dept. of Agriculture if memory serves. I remember they told us about this average cost of raising a child to 18 business when I was in middle school sex ed. My parents and wife wish I was never exposed to that because they want me to get my spawn on.

Because they're the worst members of society there can possibly be, ever, esp. if teenagers. If I have to explain why this is so, you're a filthy liberal or something.

Coming from a single parent family, I can say the answer is yes, to pretty much everything. My father died when I was four and my mother finally remarried when I was 17, so the period in between my male role models were limited.

This is just the sort of anecdotal I was hoping for.

That said though, when I finally started noticing girls as something other than just annoyances, I didn't have anyone to really turn to that I would feel comfortable with talking about both my own puberty and how to approach said girls. My mother, bless her heart, was slightly biased on the subject after all. ;)

Well, I had a dad who only worked (roughly) school hours. I thought we were pretty close. But when it came to advice on how to approach girls, he was 110% fucking useless! Totally embarassed, actually made me feel quite ashamed to be getting those feelings.

My sister on the other hand also had some issues in missing out on a male presence. Her experience with guys was limited to her one-year-older and much geekier brother, something I'm sure has still colored her view of men in general.

You and her had no other male presence, uncles or like that?

So in general, I'd say my sister and I turned out pretty damn good, but I think that we did miss out on a few things that would have made our lives easier if our father had lived. So while I think that two parents are USUALLY for the better, it is by no means certain that a single parent family is destined for failure, but I do think that things will be slightly rougher for them.

OK.

Hmmm. I posted a message a while ago that never actually posted. I will summarize my lengthy rant by saying that single parents are ok or not for a child depending on the situation. If a parent deserts a child this is never a good thing. If the child dies, I think that the child can take comfort knowing that he was loved by the dead parent and does not feel the pain of being deserted. If one parent gose nutty or gets addicted to drugs or booze and is a danger and a bad influence around the child then obviously it is better that the child not be subjected to that.

However, parents who are both good parents do a disservice to their child by splitting up. Children need to observe their parents staying together despite the occassional fights and problems that face all relationships. They should not learn by observation that it is ok to leave your mate for minor things.

Parents do not have the luxury of being able to break things off with another person at a whim. This at the very least teaches the children by example that the person you decide to mate with (hopefully after marriage!) is a very important decision and that the decision to become a parent is a major committment.

Children should learn by observation that occassionally mom and dad have problems but that the important thing is that they work it out. Mom and Dad need to show the child how to have a successful marriage. I do not know where a child will learn these skills other than watching Mom and Dad. I think that parents should scream at each other in front of the children so tha tthey know that it is ok for moms and dads to get mad at each other and that this is part of good communication skills in a relationship. Kids should also see their parents engaged in some sort of making up behavior. I also think that it is ok for parents to sit down with the kids and say "sometimes moms and dads fight but that does not mean that we do not love each other, someday when you are married you might get mad at your husband but the improtant thing is to let them know how you feel and be honest with the other."

I do not think that it serves children to simply walk away from the other parent for any reason that does not involve abuse of anyone or any harm to the children.

What's black, white, and red all over?

Newspaper

Simple answer: it's not bad.

In my opinion single child families are worse than single parent families.

However, that said a single parent can run into several problems. Well I say single parent, but what I mean is single influence. Those problems stem from the fact that the child will tend only to be taught one point of view. Then there's the mental and emotional strain of raising a child - everything is easier to cope with if you can share your pain with someone else (eg. the sleepless nights). Finally there's the cost which other people have already talked about.

I think this video best explains the reasons why a single parent inevitably going to ruin a child's life...

MotherhoodParenting and the Authority behind Motherhood (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU)

I loath you.

Pretty much all of the information I have seen on the subject suggests that the gender of a child's parents is immaterial, and that the more positive adult role models of any gender or familial relationship in that child's life, the better. Therefore, I went ahead and voted the "two is better than one" option, but that's obviously only true if the two are, y'know, GOOD parents. One loving parent is manifestly a great deal superior to two abusive parents. Two is really only superior insofar as two parents are generally going to be able to devote more time and attention to an individual child than one parent could.

As far as the gender issue goes, there is no inherent reason why one gender's influence is needed, except to enforce gender roles which I personally believe need no more enforcing. Yes, it's bound to be a little trickier for a single father to explain periods to his daughter, but, frankly, if that's the hardest challenge he faces as a parent, he's had it pretty freaking easy. (Further, I see no reason for the child's role models and confidantes to be limited to his or her nuclear family, anyway - there's no reason that that single father couldn't make sure his mother/sister/niece/aunt/female friend is available to help his daughter, too.)

Hmmm. I posted a message a while ago that never actually posted. I will summarize my lengthy rant by saying that single parents are ok or not for a child depending on the situation. If a parent deserts a child this is never a good thing. If the child dies, I think that the child can take comfort knowing that he was loved by the dead parent and does not feel the pain of being deserted. If one parent gose nutty or gets addicted to drugs or booze and is a danger and a bad influence around the child then obviously it is better that the child not be subjected to that.

However, parents who are both good parents do a disservice to their child by splitting up. Children need to observe their parents staying together despite the occassional fights and problems that face all relationships. They should not learn by observation that it is ok to leave your mate for minor things.

Yes, I agree with that. There must be some point, though, at which "occasional fights and problems" becomes such a state of hostility that the image of "coupledom" presented to the child is pathological.

Parents do not have the luxury of being able to break things off with another person at a whim. This at the very least teaches the children by example that the person you decide to mate with (hopefully after marriage!) is a very important decision and that the decision to become a parent is a major committment.

I don't see the "marriage" part of it as anything a sincere commitment by both partners couldn't achieve.

In fact, it's a bad sign if that commitment is only formalized by marriage, after the woman becomes pregnant. That to me reeks of a pretence of commitment and quite likely a marriage done only for the "respectability" of it, not an inward commitment.

Children should learn by observation that occassionally mom and dad have problems but that the important thing is that they work it out. Mom and Dad need to show the child how to have a successful marriage. I do not know where a child will learn these skills other than watching Mom and Dad.

Well, practice! Their own 'marriage' if and when it happens will be different from that of their parents, if only because their partner probably has a different image of it from their own childhood.

That said, I think the image of how a 'marriage' will be endures through the child's life. For better or worse, though ...

What's black, white, and red all over?

Newspaper

Do you have any idea how silly that looks?

Sucker! :p

Personally, i believe children benefit from multiple parents, the more the better (though i suppose there is a practical limit).
Of course, since one has only two biological parents, there is the question of who should be the extra parents. They could be:
- siblings of the biological parents,
- family friends,
- other persons of trust,
as long as all are living in the same household.
The same would go for foster parents, and adoptive parents.

My parents divorced when I was three years old. I lived with my mom, seeing my dad every other weekend. My parents never fought in front of me and they still get along great. They just realized that the shouldn't have gotten married.

I've never felt any different from people that live with both of their parents. My parents have always let me know that none of what happened between them was my fault and that they both love me very much.

I'm 20 years old now and I'm pretty well adjusted. So I don't think in all cases being a single parent is bad. It just comes down to parenting skills. In my opinion, my mom did a better job of raising me than some people I know who were raised by two parents.

single parents are seldom the only parental influence in their children's lives.

one can be a single parent and have both bio parents in the child's life.

one can be a single parent and bring a step parent into the situation

one can be a single parent and live with ones own parent(s).

a tiny minority of children are actually raised by only one person. its far harder on that one person than it is on the kids.

I think that if you're raised by a bad parent or parents it can be detrimental. I've seen people in single and two parent homes turn out badly, and I've seen the converse. I think while having two good parents would be ideal, it's not always possible. And I think that if one of the parents is a big enough deadbeat to leave their own child than that kid is better off without.

I'm in a situation where I'm being raised by a relative, instead of my real parents, a single relative at that. And while many may argue that it should have detrimental effects, not being raised by my biological parents, I think that because I was in a good nurturing envirionment where the focus was on school and good character, I turned out to be an alright person. I don't even want to think of what would have come to me if I had stayed iwth my biological parents.

In short, it isn't the amount of parents, it's the amount of quality, and if you have bad parents, chances are you'll get a bad kid.

Well, I had a dad who only worked (roughly) school hours. I thought we were pretty close. But when it came to advice on how to approach girls, he was 110% fucking useless! Totally embarassed, actually made me feel quite ashamed to be getting those feelings.
This indeed may be the case for some fathers of course, but at least your father went through the same experience, unlike my mother who never had to deal with it.

You and her had no other male presence, uncles or like that?

My family lived in Nevada, my father's family with all my aunts, uncles, and my grandparents lives in the Bay Area in California, about a 5 hour trip by car. I saw them at least twice a year, yes, but they were not really involved in day-to-day stuff. I remember one year my sister, who was in Girl Scouts at the time, had to attend a father-daughter dance. One of my uncles tried to make it over Donner Pass during a blizzard to take her to the dance, but got turned back. My sister went alone and just stood there for the most part.

It was little things like that, like learning how to tie a tie. I never learned till I finally looked it up on the Internet because I had no one to teach me, my mother never having learned how to tie a tie for obvious reasons.

Whatever floats your boat. You've heard the old chestnut, "It takes a village to raise a child..." Well, a network of loving and capable adults would be a very good thing.

Thank you. In the SCA, the saying is 'it takes a Barony,' but the principal is still the same. The more adults who care for kids and are willing to help raise them, the better.

It was little things like that, like learning how to tie a tie. I never learned till I finally looked it up on the Internet because I had no one to teach me, my mother never having learned how to tie a tie for obvious reasons.

Come to think of it, my dad couldn't tie a tie, either. I learnt that from my best friend who learnt it from his dad!

Father/daughter dance? That's just weird!

Well sir, I'm from a single parent family. Dad ran off with another woman when I was... 8 I think. I'm 18 now. I'd say I suffered heaps more from dad's leaving than from having a single mum. Day to day, there are no difficulties. Yeah, money can be a bit of a stretch sometimes, and mum hardly has a huge amount of time on her hands, but she's such a great woman she devotes whatever she can to proper parenting. Us three kids all chip in around the house, because we know we have to, and feel like we should. I'd say we have a healthier, more harmonious life than most twin parent families out there.

That being said, there are things that we miss. The house is never as clean and tidy as it would be if there were two parents: us kids try to help out, but its not on top of our priority list, so we often forget or ignore it. Mum doesn't get to have much of a life... working full time AND supporting three kids aint easy. I never learned about tying ties, or driving a car, or mowing the lawn, or shaving, or all those other "essential man skills". I had to try and nut them out myself. Not that any of it is particularly difficult, it just would have been nice to have some guidance, or somesuch...

Anyhow, mine is a limited sample. I know there are plenty of single parents with messed up families. Just as there are families with both parents who are screwed up. It depends entirely upon the person, and how much loev and care they have to give.

For all those who selected the "Two parents are always better than one", I would like to call bullshit.
I grew up with two parents, and the happiest day in my life so far was the day my mother finally told me she was going to leave my father. She had stayed with him mostly "for the children", because she believed that "children need two parents". That way of thinking is not only total bullshit, it's outright dangerous. Children need as many people as possible who love and care for them, parents, grandparents, friends and family. But children do not necessarily fare better with two parents, especially not if one of them is aggressive and abusive.

Children need love and care, not a set number of genetical relations around them. Anything else is doing the child in question a massive disfavour.