2 parent families and 1 parent families

[bejeezusWC]

this was touched upon on a thread recently; and is something I have been torturing myself with, as a SP

What is the thinking around children becoming much more successful/happy when raised in a 2 parent family as oppossed to in a single parent family?

Is it very much better for the children, because it is considered better to have the male influence in the house AND the female influence in the house???

Or is it the presence of 2 parents??? eg how are same sex couples expected to fair at raising kids??

Or is it a load of bollocks?

What should the male influence and the female influence be? If a parent shows that there are no such things as "male" and "female" jobs and both show that men can do the cleaning and women can fix things (for example) then that is really positive. If however, the male and the female continue to reinforce the stereotypes - well, is that a problem?

I think a child needs a parent or parents who love them and bring them up in a happy environment, who enforces boundaries, who shows them right from wrong and who encourages and believes in them. Money is not important (but helps). It is about having the right attitude as a parent.

I don't know

There is research, is there not, that proves mum and dad is best?? Is it about stability?.security? The extra time and attention? Money? Really??

I'm sure DM readers and the Conservatives will tell you what they think is best and wheel out a whole load of statistics to back it up.

I'm sure money, time and attention help. But on the other hand, a well off family may delegate childcare to a nanny - which is a whole new thread or even send their child packing to boarding school. What role the parents then?

Is married better than long term co-habiting - given all other factors being identical? Parental education, house location, time spent with children - or does marriage have a special something?

Or is it all bollox and a child can have a perfectly good outcome with a single parent, 2 divorced parents who co-operate or even 2 same sex parents?

I think positive role models are far more important, if a SP is the only role model then even if they are an excellent one It would not be ideal.

Lots of excellent role models is what matters, be they parents or GP's, DP's sex does not matter but perhaps a different type of quality role model would be an advantage to DC.

And TBH, I don't think there must be much research done on same sex couples.

If you are going to say a mum and dad do best, you have to look at all the other factors involved. Cause and effect. A traditional family probably has a lot of advantages over other types of family - but that does not mean they are wrong or bad. I don't think married or non-married makes a difference - if all other factors are equal. A child in a long term co-habiting couple should have the same life chances as a child in a long term married couple - given all other factors being equal.

I know 1 person who has 2 lesbian parents. He seems perfectly fine and has had a good life. I'm not sure if he missed a male role model - whatever that is.

There is lots of research on same sex parents

I can't find the studies, but I seem to remember the sex or sexuality of the parents didn't matter, just the number - 2 were better than 1, but 3 were better than 2, 4 better than 3, etc. Basically the 'it takes a village' thing was spot-on. The more people a child can look up to and feel loved by, the better they turned out; not surprising really.

So - how do you define a family? I think Ecclesvet has it spot on.

I know there was a recent longitudinal study released in the US on how children of same sex couples fared that concluded (within the limits of the study as I don't think the numbers were massive) that children of lesbian couples fare as well if not better in some areas than children of traditional married parents? Can't link on phone sorry.

There is an excellent book by Susan Golombok called, 'Parenting: what really counts?' It's a review of all the scientific evidence on what children need for healthy development, and it looks at divorce, single parenting, same sex parenting etc. It's a fairly dry book, but short and really accessible.

Inevitably, there's a lot of 'it depends'. Take my own situation: I was raised by a single parent and it's very obvious to me that we paid a price. I was one of three children, my mum worked FT, we were latchkey children, and there simply wasn't enough parental resource to go around. In many ways my mum was amazing, but I did have a pretty lonely and stressed childhood. You would think that having siblings would have helped, but actually we were locked in rivalry for her scarce attention.

It was not ideal. However, it was better than life would have been had my dad stayed (almost psychotically violent, chaotic alcoholic).

I am now a lesbian parent. My children have plenty of male role models (not least an involved father, albeit not in the home). My understanding is that the weight of the evidence is that children are not psychologically disadvantaged by having same sex parents.

I reckon it's much more about resources than about structures. Children need plenty of time, attention, love, stimulation from parents who are not stressed, distracted, depressed or at war with each other. It's harder to give that if you have just one parent (but there are many, many brilliant single parents). It's also harder to give that if there are two parents in conflict with each other. It's harder to give that if you are unemployed, if you have no extended family support, if you have mental health problems, if you live in a war zone...

Susan Golombok has also done lots of research on same sex parenting. There is quite a lot of evidence now.

I have no idea what a longitudinal study is but, as i said sex of DP isnt important its the quality of the person that matters

Longitudinal study = following the same survey sample over time e.g. tracking children's development over 20 years.

But why is two better than one? Is it genuinely something missing? Or is it a result of societal values, which tell us at every corner "children need two parents in their lives." For example, I know DS is better off in a single parent family, than with an abusive father. Yet, whilst the two parent family is peddled as the norm, it's always going to put insecurity in single parents and their children. Thus, leading to children suffering compared to their two parent counterparts.

parents, ie the 2 people who the child comes from, in a stable loving relationship. parental love x 2.

there is the balance of two parents, two personalities, two parenting styles

children observe how adults interact between themselves and see an example of a relationship

a positive role model for each gender

it doesn't mean this set up always works and it doesn't mean other set ups do not work

Well, I think parenting is really hard work and it's easier for two people to do it without getting overstretched and overstressed, FrothyDragon.

But obviously that isn't the case if one of those people is abusive/neglectful/ selfish/lazy. Obviously also a single parent with a great support network and other loving adults involved in her children's lives will find it easier to do a great job than one who is isolated and unsupported.

So there are no absolutes here. As I say, I don't think structures are that big a deal, but resources are, and two parents tend to have more than lone parents (and I'm not just talking about money).

I was part of a group of single parents by choice who were interviewed and observed as part of a study someone at one of the universities was doing a few years ago. She chose single parents "by choice" because we tended to be older, more stable financially and emotionally than the wider group of single parents and allowed her to select specific educational/financial criteria and compare single vs double.

|from memory (sorry crap memory and referencing!) the single parent children fared slightly better in a number of criteria to do with self esteem, confidence, etc

Personally I think its important for both genders to have positive role models of both sexes growing up and that doesn't just mean a handy male to trot out for "fathers" day celebrations but also seeing your parent treat people with respect and not resort to lazy stereotypical comments of either sex in jest.

During WWII a huge chink of the population grew up in essentially single parent families and I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that there was a mass outbreak of unresolved issues beyond those caused by traumtic separation (like evacuation) or death.

Happy to be corrected if there has been research into the effect WWII on parenting.

I think that children need above all a happy environment. Whether that's in a single or dual parent or extended family or any other combination of family is entirely individual. Children don't imo need two parents. They only need love and stability.

One thing I can see is that the practicalities and logistics of raising children might mean that it might be easier if there are two or more people involved. However, there are very many mothers basically being single parents within a two parent set-up who are almost certainly more harried and tired than if they were single.

All in all, I'd say happiness is more important than anything.

My brothers are great husbands and fathers. I am convinced this is because they DIDN'T have their father around, because he is about the worst role model I can think of. They were raised by a single mother who taught them to be loving, responsible and considerate men.

And Kewcumber is great example of a well resourced single parent. Nobody could meet her and feel her child is disadvantaged.

It's all way more complex than the Daily Mail would like to suggest. The sooner we stop talking about normative structures and role models, and start thinking about what really matters to children and how it can be provided, the better.

Devora is on the money I reckon, makes sense to me

As stated before 1X quality role = good, 2 is better, 3 better, 4 better........

There is no definitive proof that a heteromonogamous couple-relationship is the 'best' way to bring up children. What the people who bang on about it really mean is that every heterosexual male is entitled to own a woman who services him domestically and bears and raises his children.

It is a very complex area because I think there are a lot of variables. As an example, DH and I have no family close to us. A SP with involved family is probably better for a child than our very small family.

There's just 16 years between me and my ds, I've raised him alone for 16 years. His father left and doesn't want to know.

I've had little support and next to no money and mental health problems.

I have a happy, confident, intelligent, socialised, cultured ds. I actively sought out role models.

The biggest problem he's had is certain sections of society labelling him as a write off because of this.

Fortunately it's made him more compassionate for other maligned parts of society.

We're happy.

In UK observational study after study shows that children do better with 2 married parents. But there is no consensus on why that happens. Clearly (as with all studies of this type) there are a lot of outliers, and population level studies do not predict success for an individual. And one could argue forever about what constitutes "proof".