~*~*~
*Yes! Cam made it to school today!* Now back to blogging ...
I've been meaning to get back to a topic that came up last week in the comments section of my Who Let The Angry Traditional Family Mob Out? post last week, specifically the importance of a two-parent family in the life of a child.
Let's get a few disclaimers out of the way ...
1. When I use the term "two-parent family" in this post, that is a broad description. In my world that means two active (more than every other weekend) adults.
2. A two-parent family is not gender specific.
3. A two-parent family does not require that both parents live under the same roof.
OK! Now that that's out of the way ...
Data indicates that children from a two-parent, married, biological household do the best - "best" most often measured by progress and performance in school, delinquency, substance abuse, depression, employment, and early or casual sexual activity. Recent (but controversial) data also indicates that children born to lesbian couples do just as well, if not better, than the rest of the population.
That said, the social science on child welfare overwhelmingly shows that economic resources are the main determinant of child well-being. Speaking in general terms, the median adjusted per capita incomes for single-parent households is half that of married households and in cohabiting families, the median adjusted income is 65 percent of that of married households. Are there exceptions? Absolutely! But the majority of the population falls within these "norms"
Looking at the above information, it would follow that children from a single parent family, having the same economic resources as a two-parent, married biological family, should fare as well as their peers living in a two-parent, married biological family.
I get that.
The problem?
That is seldom the case.
When I got pregnant with Cam (an unplanned pregnancy) I knew that I was going to be a single parent. Of course I didn't have any idea how much of a single parent I would end up being, but I did know that Cam's father would likely not be around much. I was 30 years old. I was working for a large corporation making just under $40K/year.
I knew this wasn't an ideal situation, but I was financially stable. I would be fine. Being a single parent wasn't that big of a deal. My child would do well - even thrive - without a father around.
Nine months later, when I was headed home from the hospital with 30 staples in my belly and a 10-lb, screaming, crying, shitting machine in my arms, reality hit me right up along side the head. I felt like a butterfly on the grill of a semi-truck.
My single-parentness was magnified by the fact that I had no family within 2500 miles (I was living in Maryland at the time) and no significant social support network in place - something I hadn't considered when I knew I didn't need a second parent to help raise my son.
The first year was hell, and the second year was even worse.
The large corporation that I was working for sold off its Environmental Health & Safety division - the division I worked for. I had to apply for a job with the corporation that acquired my division. A job that came with significant financial incentive, but required that I move half-way across the country with an 18-month old. A job that would pull me away from the minimal social support network I developed in Maryland.
But it's all about economic resources, right?? Wrong!
Look, I'm not stuck on some silly notion that a two-parent family must consist of a married, mom and dad who are biologically linked to their child. That is pure nonsense.
Being a parent is a complex, selfless and seldom rewarding endeavor most of the time. Bringing a child (or continuing to raise a child) in a two-parent family allows for sharing of the muck rather than drowning in the muck - it can be the difference between a child surviving - and a child thriving.
Setting out to be a single parent is selfish - I was selfish - even if you are emotionally and financially stable. Fortunately for the kids, sometimes it works out anyway.
*Yes! Cam made it to school today!* Now back to blogging ...
I've been meaning to get back to a topic that came up last week in the comments section of my Who Let The Angry Traditional Family Mob Out? post last week, specifically the importance of a two-parent family in the life of a child.Let's get a few disclaimers out of the way ...
1. When I use the term "two-parent family" in this post, that is a broad description. In my world that means two active (more than every other weekend) adults.
2. A two-parent family is not gender specific.
3. A two-parent family does not require that both parents live under the same roof.
OK! Now that that's out of the way ...
Data indicates that children from a two-parent, married, biological household do the best - "best" most often measured by progress and performance in school, delinquency, substance abuse, depression, employment, and early or casual sexual activity. Recent (but controversial) data also indicates that children born to lesbian couples do just as well, if not better, than the rest of the population.
That said, the social science on child welfare overwhelmingly shows that economic resources are the main determinant of child well-being. Speaking in general terms, the median adjusted per capita incomes for single-parent households is half that of married households and in cohabiting families, the median adjusted income is 65 percent of that of married households. Are there exceptions? Absolutely! But the majority of the population falls within these "norms"
Looking at the above information, it would follow that children from a single parent family, having the same economic resources as a two-parent, married biological family, should fare as well as their peers living in a two-parent, married biological family.
I get that.
The problem?
That is seldom the case.
When I got pregnant with Cam (an unplanned pregnancy) I knew that I was going to be a single parent. Of course I didn't have any idea how much of a single parent I would end up being, but I did know that Cam's father would likely not be around much. I was 30 years old. I was working for a large corporation making just under $40K/year.
I knew this wasn't an ideal situation, but I was financially stable. I would be fine. Being a single parent wasn't that big of a deal. My child would do well - even thrive - without a father around.
Nine months later, when I was headed home from the hospital with 30 staples in my belly and a 10-lb, screaming, crying, shitting machine in my arms, reality hit me right up along side the head. I felt like a butterfly on the grill of a semi-truck.
My single-parentness was magnified by the fact that I had no family within 2500 miles (I was living in Maryland at the time) and no significant social support network in place - something I hadn't considered when I knew I didn't need a second parent to help raise my son.
The first year was hell, and the second year was even worse.
The large corporation that I was working for sold off its Environmental Health & Safety division - the division I worked for. I had to apply for a job with the corporation that acquired my division. A job that came with significant financial incentive, but required that I move half-way across the country with an 18-month old. A job that would pull me away from the minimal social support network I developed in Maryland.
But it's all about economic resources, right?? Wrong!
Look, I'm not stuck on some silly notion that a two-parent family must consist of a married, mom and dad who are biologically linked to their child. That is pure nonsense.
Being a parent is a complex, selfless and seldom rewarding endeavor most of the time. Bringing a child (or continuing to raise a child) in a two-parent family allows for sharing of the muck rather than drowning in the muck - it can be the difference between a child surviving - and a child thriving.
Setting out to be a single parent is selfish - I was selfish - even if you are emotionally and financially stable. Fortunately for the kids, sometimes it works out anyway.
~*~*~
12 comments:
I agree with most of what you said however...When you extrapolate the following:
"Looking at the above information, it would follow that children from a single parent family, having the same economic resources as a two-parent, married biological family, should fare as well as their peers living in a two-parent, married biological family."
Your conclusion does NOT neccesarily follow at all.
Your conclusion disregards one important statistic which is hard to measure as do the statistics involving per capita incomes of the parents in question.
Lower incomes can be a result of a parent or parents being slugs who don't give a damn about working hard, succeeding in life and raising their own children.
It's easy to look at raw economic data as this study seems to have done, but it doesn't measure the whys of this economic gap or look into the reasons for it.
Maybe, children who don't succed are a result of bad parentng and the economic situation of the parent(s), is a symptom of the parent(s) being fuck offs in life and as parents.
Cheers Dana!!
Matt-Man, I actually agree with you - the extrapolation is a stretch.
It's really a chicken-egg scenario. Are people who earn less slugs (in general) and therefor not good parents? I'm not willing to go there ...
Dana: I'm not making a blanket statement on that by any means, but I am sure that in some, if not a significant number of cases, there is a correlation. Cheers Dana!!
So in conclusion, some parents are good and some are shitty. ;-)
Ya, but, but, did Cam get to school today?
I actually agree too. I had been waiting for this post and braced myself for the Karen-Matt-Man like showdown of opinions, but hey I can live with this. Showdown diverted. SO did Cam get to school?
And here I was, just coming over to find out if the taxi arrived and Cam got to school...
Jay hit the nail on the head though. It all comes down to the love and commitment made by the parent(s) toward their children.
People who make $250,000/year who are total douche-bags will raise douche-bag kids who will probably get in all sorts of trouble.
The same is true for families with little income who have love and care for their kids...
"significant social support network"
I think this is the most important and can be a variety of different people.
And did Cam get to school today or are you trying to not explode? Did the lack of "significant social support network" come into play?
As someone who has temporarily taken on the role of single parent, I am overwhelmed and exhausted and I know there is an end date to this.
I could not imagine doing this alone 24/7/365 without any end in sight.
However, I also think that one good parent is better than two shitty ones.
Parenting is dicey at best! I know I have not been the ideal parent by any stretch of the imagination and sometimes I really feel that parents get the shitty end of the stick....
Good parents, or bad parents are subjective terms that change with the individual environment.
Dana, I think you did the best you did with what you had at the time....
Great post. And I know several sets of loving lesbian parents. I think it's mostly about love. It is for me and I'm 44 years old!
With both Lisa and I very involved and committed to our kids success, it (parenting effectively) still has a mountain of challenges. There are days when we feel we're on top of our game and are doing everything right, and then there are others when we wonder why we're falling short.
I think it all comes down to comparing. Meaning, what are we comparing our self to? Who really sets the benchmark for what the ideal parent looks like?
I've never been a single parent, so I can only imagine the immense challenges it brings.
Post a Comment