https://x.com/ianvrowe/status/1976276565404115285?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
“Living in a two-parent family doesn’t advantage black kids that much.”
This is a stunningly false claim that defies both common sense and mountains of social science evidence.
Five years ago, I challenged Harvard sociologist who made the case regarding “The Myth of the Two-Parent Home.” The benefits are not a myth.
Attached is just one chart showing the massive differences in poverty levels of black children living in married households versus other family structure types, most notably single parents.
For a real discussion on this issue please consider having me and on to engage in a respectful debate with Ms. Cross and Ms. Martin. The indispensable role of healthy marriages in the black (or any) community as the foundation for future prosperity is too important to have such misinformation being propagated.
fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/power-two-parent-home-myth
As noted, it is absurd to deny the impact of an intact two parent family on children. Does this mean that single parent kids are doomed to failure, no it doesn't. Does it mean that they are at a disadvantage when compared to two parent families, yes.
4 comments:
As in studies of homosexual parenting, the comparison inevitably are made against bad heterosexual two-parent situations. I don't believe that in any apples-to-apples comparisons...even with single parents deeply involved with the lives of their children...can it be found that there isn't any advantage to having both mother and father in the lives of children.
I agree that comparing the worst of two parent (M/F) homes, to the best of single parent or gay homes is hardly an apt comparison. Also keep in mind that gay relationships have a much higher instance of domestic violence.
As a general principle, the situation that will most commonly provide children with the best outcomes is one with the mother and father in the home raising the children together.
Obviously, other arrangements can work, but the data seems reasonably clear on this as well as on the 3-5 behaviors that are highly likely to keep people out of poverty.
Would that be "hard" data? I'm not sure what makes "hard data" hard, but some will accept no less.
I guess it's hard enough, until proven otherwise. I tend to think that people's worship of "hard data" is proportional to now that "hard data" supports their preconceptions.
The problem now, is that the incredible scandal in academia is diluting the very notion of "hard data". With increasing examples of absurd or simply false peer reviewed studies, the very concept is being undermined.
Post a Comment