I couldn't agree with you more. When you've taught public high school for 20 years, you tend to view society through a different lens--a lens that is arguably a bit more accurate than the one that people who simply have a gut feeling use. Raising children is tough work--and at two people are necessary to do the job right. Yes, I know there are a lot of single parents out there who've done a great job under circumstances that were out of their control. My experience is that those parents rely on an extended, dependable social network to help them out--and that they would have preferred to have a second parent to help them out.

There are, unfortunately, many more single parents who don't do such a hot job. They rely on unreliable people who drift in and out of their children's lives; they rely on public institutions to do their work for them; they even rely on their own children.

The definition of two-parent household is definitely one worthy of further expansion, however. It might be two relatives who share duties, the parents could be gay, heck, it could even be two long-lasting friends who help each other out.

bravo!! I believe you have hit the nail directly on the head; it takes more than 1 person to raise a child. That does not however mean that it has to be a married couple. It can be 2 friends, multiple family members, lovers of varying gender identities...it takes more than 1 and there is no reason to think that only a married couple qualify. Out of wedlock births are not the problem; births by people without an invested support system are.

Although a child raised with an unconventional support system is probably better off than a child raised by a single mom and the state, a child raised by both of his or her parents is going to have the biggest advantages of all, generally speaking, and is still the ideal situation.

I understand what you're saying, and certainly in today's society with it's legal and social definitions, you are correct. However, I think frannyblue's point was that "convention" needs to be expanded, so that the social laws/mores and legal structure are made to support what we define as unconventional now.

Another example of this kind of thinking: Statistically, gay people have higher rates of depression and suicide. Is this trend inherent to gay people, or do we set them up for failure since our legal system undermines their status, and society defines gender roles in such a way as to exclude them from fitting into convention?

Similarly, if we work to define "family" and "parent" more broadly and set up our legal system to support families, plural, as opposed to only 1 kind of family, who's to say that biological parents would be ideal; As a person who is adopted, I can definitely say that it is totally possible for 2 unrelated people to love and raise a child, and quite well.

Until we define parents as people committed to raising a child, instead of depending on superfluous status in regard to people's gender, preference or couplehood we will be undercutting the possibility of a new level of parenthood, that of community parenting.

gdooley:

I understand what you're saying, and certainly in today's society with it's legal and social definitions, you are correct. However, I think frannyblue's point was that "convention" needs to be expanded, so that the social laws/mores and legal structure are made to support what we define as unconventional now.

Similarly, if we work to define "family" and "parent" more broadly and set up our legal system to support families, plural, as opposed to only 1 kind of family, who's to say that biological parents would be ideal; As a person who is adopted, I can definitely say that it is totally possible for 2 unrelated people to love and raise a child, and quite well.

Until we define parents as people committed to raising a child, instead of depending on superfluous status in regard to people's gender, preference or couplehood we will be undercutting the possibility of a new level of parenthood, that of community parenting.

You say you understood where I was coming from but your post indicates that you do not. Your theoretical musing are not going to take away my importance to my child, I don't give a flying fuck how morally evolved you think that point of view is. Society does not want me to be in my child's life and would prefer my wife to be a ward of the state and for me to provide a paycheck for my child(or not.....there is always taxes) but have no real influence in his life(I am an evil heterosexual male, after all, what possible positive influence could I have?) but it ain't gonna work like that, see?

Pogue, I was with you after your first post, but you lost me with your second.

The absolute best situation for a child is: to be raised by two loving biological parents who live in the same home and treat one another lovingly and respectfully. This is not to say that there are not other scenarios that can raise a well-adjusted, happy child, but the optimum situation is the one that I have identified.

I have read many of these postings. It seems to me that the battle between those who blame the women (why would a man get married, it's such a bad deal, they are all unreasonable sluts, the laws are stacked against men . . . ) and those who blame the men (they all suck; they are useless and unemployed; they won't commit; they leave and take all the money with them . . .) have totally missed the point. The point isn't what's better for the woman versus what's better for the man, it's what's better for the child.

Forget about your selfish construct about how the world is stacked against you because you are a man or because you are woman. Think about how the world is stacked against those kids who don't have a mom and a dad, but rather have a "baby mama" and a "baby daddy."

And, don't have kids until you have married a man(woman) who is reliable, trustworthy, stable, and nice.

Emmajane:

Pogue, I was with you after your first post, but you lost me with your second.

The absolute best situation for a child is: to be raised by two loving biological parents who live in the same home and treat one another lovingly and respectfully. This is not to say that there are not other scenarios that can raise a well-adjusted, happy child, but the optimum situation is the one that I have identified.

I have read many of these postings. It seems to me that the battle between those who blame the women (why would a man get married, it's such a bad deal, they are all unreasonable sluts, the laws are stacked against men . . . ) and those who blame the men (they all suck; they are useless and unemployed; they won't commit; they leave and take all the money with them . . .) have totally missed the point. The point isn't what's better for the woman versus what's better for the man, it's what's better for the child.

Forget about your selfish construct about how the world is stacked against you because you are a man or because you are woman. Think about how the world is stacked against those kids who don't have a mom and a dad, but rather have a "baby mama" and a "baby daddy."

And, don't have kids until you have married a man(woman) who is reliable, trustworthy, stable, and nice.

The way I see the issue(as outlined in this thread at anyrate) is that being raised by both natural parents is the most ideal circumstance, an unconventional support system is second best, and single mom ward of the state is least ideal. Where some of us seem to part company is where some seem to think the first two options are equally ideal. I think that mindset is detrimental to any male who wants to be sure of the fact that barring death or ending up in jail, he is going to have a major influence in his child's life. The way things are going now, many men are driven from their children's lives, sometimes because they deserve it, but often on a whim. I fail to see how that is in the best interest of the child, or of the father.

I completely agree with post the message in the article and the author of this thread.

I became a single parent legally when my daughter was 6 years old, though her father (my ex-husband) truly never engaged in parenting. He almost completely disappeared after our divorce. I can say categorically that, as hard as I have worked to be everything a parent could possibly be, my daughter NEEDED her father. There is a good reason why it is biologically impossible to bear a child alone. Fathers are important to children, and I will never be convinced otherwise.

Before anyone criticizes, I am NOT advocating fathers who are abusive to either children or their mothers. But I have also seen some women choose to divorced the fathers of their children, and then proceed to try to lock those men out of their kids' lives for no good reason. I would have been very happy to have my ex-husband in my daughter's life, if only he had cared enough.

Now in my 40s, I have seen some never-married friends wrestle with the decision to have a child on their own. I can honestly say that I have never recommended the idea. I offer this opinion only when asked, but I think it's critically important for every woman considering single parenthood by choice to understand that it is INCREDIBLY difficult to be a single parent, raising a child alone, and to be an effective parent. It is a lonely, sometimes scary, job if you are doing it correctly.

Bringing a child into this world is a sacred responsibility. Thinking of it as anything less than that has disastrous consequences for children and society alike.