to rather intensely dislike Harriet Harman?

[grovel]

Naggy and bossy at the same time. And so tribal.

There's a big difference in parenting a cute 3 year old boy to patenting a 15 year old moody teenager - some mothers find it easy but an awful lot struggle. That isn't a criticism ( it's hard when there's two of you ) it's just the way it is.

Because of course, the only male role model available is a father? Is that what you mean, Doris? What happens if a son is born to a lone mother, or a lesbian couple, or the father dies after the child is 'raised'?

when people talk about the poor outcomes for children from single parent families, they forget some important qualifiers:

Firstly, once you factor in income and primary carer's level of education, there are no differences.

Secondly, there is no guarantee that the outcomes for many of the children who do fare badly would be any improved if the parents had stayed together. Indeed, in some cases they may actually be worse.

I can't imagine why HH felt like she had to point out that the presence of a father isn't always a benefit to the child. I mean it's not like we still, 20 years later, have people who regard single mothers as man haters who have kicked out their children's fathers for selfish reasons and are splitting their time between keeping these wonderful fathers away from their children and sponging off the state? Surely only an idiot could think that most of these mothers chose to be single parents? No-one could be castigating these women and citing them as the main cause of all society's ills?

And quite a lot of research exists to show that it is better for a child to have no male role models than it is to have bad ones.

Maybe some of the poor outcomes arise because poor-quality fathers are allowed to continue to have contact with their children. Perhaps those children would do better without those fathers.

Hang on there, SGM! Why should these men, these poor men who are excluded from their homes at the whim of a woman (sez Doris), who is probably annoyed by some tiny issue like not being able to have her nails done or something? Why should these men then be supposed to pay for their children?

That's the great thing about Dads. They kick a football around with you, teach you how not to be a hooligan, and also the vast majority of them a brimming with contacts for apprenticeships.

Peanuts, I think you're being very arrogant to think you're going to be able to cover all that by yourself, y'know.

I brought my 2 boys up as a lone parent, very successfully I might add.

Does that make me exceptional? I rather think not, just responsible.

Which is more than can be said for the twat man i was 1st married to.

Shoot, I knew my niece's position on the footballl team was useless... And damn, being a wimmin, I can't kick a ball in a straight line... :( Definitely won't be able to get him into foootball club, or boxing or get him his first job... I'm such a failure. :(

goes to get spray paint Come on, mini-peanut... Lets go graffiti the old railway...

As long as a child has love, stability, ( and money helps ) he'll be fine. It's just hard on your own.

I on't think you can say that it's harder to raise children if you're a single parent simply because the converse is that it is easier if there are two of you - and that's simply not true. In many cases - and I'm one of them - I found being a single parent far easier than being in a couple.

Parenting as a couple is only an advantage when that couple is working well together as a family unit. And given the rate of family breakdown and divorce in this country, that's simply not as common as people would like to believe.

Yes, I think that too. Trauma caused by change has got a lot to do with it. The two do not have to go together.

Anecdotally, my DC's nursery manager has said the same thing after 25+ years' experience of watching children from all backgrounds.

I would think hardly any posters really know Harriett Harman. Its all public image

What would you say if a man said the best way to do things was to have fathers raise children on their own, let the mother give birth then take the child from her and send her on her way?

To me that sounds like some kind of dystopian nightmare. As does the idea that women can raise children better without men around.

I'd say that was ridiculous.

It's irrelevant though, as that's not the equivalent of what she said.

What would be the equivalent?

The equivalent TartyDoris would be single parent families headed by men, where the man has taken up the role of primary carer post separation. Thats the only way it can happen because men cannot gestate.

Safs point - and mine - is that it is better to have no father around than a bad one, and that it is better for a child to be raised by one parent than two warring ones. Nothing controversial in that, is there?

Not many men are single parents (8% in fact), let alone ones who are pushing the mothers to one side. Indeed, of the 8% of male lone parents, 12% of those are widowed so became single parents by default rather than choice.

Men aren't campaigning for better paternity rights or for childcare or for more flexible working. We hear a lot about access to children after a split but we see little evidence of campaigns for them to have more time with their children before a split.

Perhaps this is why women are leaving so many relationships in the first place!

There are far more single mothers out there who would love to have an involved co-parent than there are those who are actively pushing the father away. And of those women who are pushing the fathers away, a lot of them will have good reason for doing so.

So what are people saying that it is better to have a good parent (with the ideal being two good parents) than to have a bad father? does this apply to mothers as well or does bad fathers have some additional influence bad mothers don't have?

To the OP YANBU you can dislike an individual all you like just people don't have to agree with you about it.