Comments on: I’m Going to Get On My High Horse

By: Overincorporated Fulton

Overincorporated Fulton — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 03:11:33 +0000

I have lots of problems with this thread. I should qualify my complaints with the fact that I’m the child of a single parent.

First of all, Erick, not unlike your party’s efforts to outlaw abortion even in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the life of a mother, your few tolerable exceptions to the two-parent setup ignore those who are brave enough to stand up to abuse, mental and otherwise, who choose to leave their spouses. It’s not only through abandonment and death that a woman (or man, for that matter) can find a righteous path to single parenthood. One of the most responsible things that a parent can do is remove their children from a dangerous situation…just because it is a choice doesn’t mean they set out to make it from the beginning. You don’t even mention these people.

Mike Hauncho: Single parents are not bad parents but they do limit the amount of growth their children can have.

This is highly offensive to single parents who make every attempt possible to provide for their children in a well-rounded way. To patently state that single parent households, no matter how innocently formed, are inferior, is your opinion and I find it to be contrary to my experience. My recommendation: you think two-parent households are so much better? Then live in one. Leave the rest of us alone.

And DougieFresh: my single mom would box your ears for the disrespect you’ve done yours. “Single parenthood IS inferior to a two parent household. Just because there are anecdotes about someone who had a success at it does not negate that fact.” Just because you tell anecdotes about not getting to play football with your father doesn’t negate the fact that single mothers raise successful and yes, believe it or not, fully functional kids on their own when circumstances require it.

You should all pay more attention to your own families and avoid becoming a 51% statistic if you’re so darned concerned about it.

By: rebelyelp

rebelyelp — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 23:59:20 +0000

Selfish? So just because you don’t like single women chosing to be objectively pro-life, you get to talk out your ass about what a bad parent they’ll make. Have you ever met someone who’s a single mother by choice? Didn’t think so. Try concentrating on things you actually know something about — deadbeat dads, abusive husbands, etc…..

By: Ronin

Ronin — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 23:00:04 +0000

With statements like this:

“The bottom line is that a two parent household is ideal”

I would want to deal in facts. Based upon what evidence did you arrive at this conclusion? Your own experience and those immediately around you? Is that sample large enough to make a blanket statement for which a policy should be created?

Furthermore, what definition of ideal was used in said study (or your own anecdotle observations)? If your perception of ideal works for you, then proceede in finding a spouse and procreating. If it doesn’t work for someone else, is it your right (or the Government’s right) to deny them of this opportunity?

I think I clearly stand in the premise that Government has absolutely no business in this arena. Is it not odd that those who speak the loudest about minimal government interference are the first to suggest mandating personal behavior once they find something they don’t like. Why is that? Why doesn’t someone call them on it? (Could it be because if you do you are branded a liberal and summarily dismissed?)

By: griftdrift

griftdrift — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 21:51:19 +0000

Well not to spin us off on a biology tangent but you are correct in a certain aspect. Richard Dawkins calls it the Selfish Gene. We do have a “selfish” urge to procreate. It is what passes on our genes with whatever subtle adaptations that have occured thus continuing survival of the species. Evolution at its most basic.

By: DelicateFlower

DelicateFlower — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 21:44:20 +0000

Erick says repeatedly that it’s *selfish* for people to choose to be single parents. When isn’t it selfish for people to have children? Most married couples I know have children because they think it would be fulfilling or fun or because it’s something they have always wanted to do, etc. I’ve never heard a reason for it that wasn’t to some extent selfish. Oh, also, I know they aren’t as common, but I wonder if this rant also applies to people who choose to be single fathers?

By: spaceygracey

spaceygracey — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 21:27:29 +0000

Right on LauraLib, right on sister. Financially and reproductively free at last! Whew… talk about a long time coming.

By: tribalecho

tribalecho — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 20:32:20 +0000

Yeah. That abusive father is simply sublime.

By: elephantgirl

elephantgirl — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 20:25:53 +0000

The bottom line is that a two parent household(with one man, and one woman—I hear the liberals starting to scream) is ideal. There are always going to be examples of bad fathers and bad mothers or a child who is raised in a single parent environment whether it be by a mother or a father that turns out to be a rocket scientist, but these are the exceptions and not the rule. A family was designed to have a mother and a father because the sexes have different strenghts and weaknesses that are necessary to raise a child and to be good partners to each other.
Of course there are single parents who are in that situation because of circumstances beyond their control and they should be commended for going at it alone. Anyone who actually read the original post and processed it would realize it was not aimed at people in those situations.
It is selfish to intentionally put a child in a one parent household. I am the child of divorced parents and I believe it was selfish for my parents to put me in a household of divorced parents. Children deserve the advantage of having two parents and there are few things more important.

By: tribalecho

tribalecho — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 20:09:13 +0000

Right back to the Murphy Brown thing. Thanks you Rush.

By: commonsense

commonsense — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:41:47 +0000

So when an article notes a trend that is occuring on a macro level and then examines it that’s glorifying? Damn the media, damn them!

By: Pappy

Pappy — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:04:08 +0000

You are half right – undesirable women are increasingly able to support a child on their own if they so choose, as are women in general (I’m not talking about women dealing with divorce/abuse issues/absentee father). However, there is no evidence of an increase in the number of women who have more attractive alternatives – like marriage/cohabitation or any collaborative arrangement – choosing to go the single-parent route.

By: lauralibr

lauralibr — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:34:53 +0000

Intentional single parenthood is a bi product of a society of women who are now able to sustain themselves financially. So the only thing you have to blame is capitalism. Times have moved women in to a position of fianancial self sufficiency like no other period in our history. As a result women don’t have to stay in horrible useless marriages, or enter them in the first place.

By: Pappy

Pappy — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:20:56 +0000

Erick,
Isn’t there a deal out there today that needs killing ?

A “rash of articles” in the Times and AJC doesn’t mean there has been a significant increase in single-parent-by-choice households. It’s more likely that some Metro section editor or reporter needed a story and just happened to know a few women who fit this profile (ie – are unattractive/are unable to reproduce naturally/have no access to booze) and lie about why they want to stay single. I don’t see this as a trend at all.

By: ColinATL

ColinATL — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:15:48 +0000

I think it’s a perfectly fine thing to discuss the merits and pitfalls of choosing to be a single parent. My real question is with regards to this statement:

And I do think there should be laws prohibiting single people from adopting and I’m almost inclined to think single people should not have access to sperm banks.

Why do you believe the government should ever play a role in this decision? Awfully big brother of you, Erick.
Really, isn’t that what this whole thread is about, is whether the government (1) should get involved, and (2) is the government legally empowered to do so?
Personally, I think that a well-to-do individual can give a child a good home, especially if they can afford to hire a nanny. Should we institute a means test for prospective single parents?
The other thing I question is this:

The glorification of single parenthood by design and intention and the desire to be a single parent will be the death of this country.

Ridiculous & unsupported. What does that mean? Do you really think this is going to become some big national trend that will undo us all? You sound like the hysterical types who say things like “Letting gay people marry will destroy the institution of marriage!” Ridiculous & unsupported.
Do better, Erick.

By: spaceygracey

spaceygracey — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:47:04 +0000

Fox News? What’s that? And is it as relevant to America culture as the TWO clueless idiots household nowadays?

By: DougieFresh

DougieFresh — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:45:55 +0000

I grew up with a single mother (my parents divorced when I was very young) and I take no offense about what Eric said. Just because someone points to something that is unpleasant does not mean they are being insulting.

Single parenthood IS inferior to a two parent household. Just because there are anecdotes about someone who had a success at it does not negate that fact.

Choosing to put your children in a situation that is more likely to fail, with more stresses, less support is selfish and wrong. Raising children should be about the children, not a status symbol for the parent(s).

By: Rusty

Rusty — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:44:10 +0000

If 51 percent of the market believes marriage to be an inferior product, who are you to tell them they should invest in it? That’s bad business.

By: Erick

Erick — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:36:47 +0000

Definitely MySpace, spacey. It’s part of the evil plan by Rupert Murdock to get them locked in over there and then subject them to ritual rapings by Bill O’Reilly — as if American’s don’t get enough of that at 8pm M-F on Fox News.

By: spaceygracey

spaceygracey — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:29:30 +0000

Yes Erik, you said that in the original post. You’re repeating yourself. We get the point. But don’t fret. The poor, pitiful kids will no doubt find perfect role models on Peach Pundit. MySpace if not.

By: Erick

Erick — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:23:47 +0000

Thanks spacey. And Mike, bad form of me to include the NY Times article, which wasn’t really related to my basic point — that people should never set out to be single parents. And yes, it by in large has to do with selfishness. I don’t think single parenthood is good for any child, though it often can’t be helped.

But setting out to be a single parent by design and intention is very troubling to me.