One of the words that’s become utterly void of meaning in the last few years because of its overuse and misuse is privilege. White privilege, male privilege, able-bodied privilege, gender privilege, heterosexual privilege, even hot privilege. In these contexts, privilege is a stain, a kind of original sin meant to guilt the offending party into repenting for it at every twist and turn in their life. “Check your privilege” became a common refrain of the past decade. What all of this has done is confuse and undermine the idea of real privilege—real advantage that some situations produce over others—which, of course, really exists in this country.
In the medical community, it's taken as fact that disparities in health outcomes are due to the stress of racism. I've always felt that conclusion was based on flimsy evidence, and none of the research controls for two parent households. I would be incredibly interested for this researcher to apply her work in the healthcare field. I think she would have something very important to contribute.
I'll just note that the economist Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse was arguing exactly all of this in the early 2000s: https://ruthinstitute.org/product/love-and-economics-it-takes-a-family-to-raise-a-village/. But she's Catholic and conservative, so she was ignored. Glad to see that someone who cannot be labelled and ignored in the same way is now showing what everyone knew all along. I really appreciate Dr. Kearney's honesty and bravery. Barring a continued movement to cancel the cancellers, her career is probably in jeopardy now.
Now, one thing that was not discussed: Is it just a matter of having "two parents"? Or is it a matter of having a mother and a father? And is it a matter of having a biological mother and father? All of these questions will impact in turn the questions of same-sex adoption and surrogacy. Investigating such would involve defining what are "good outcomes" for children, and that is going to get into some very touchy value-laden realms of inquiry.
Not any comments on my biggest take away from this article. Globalists sent all the good paying blue-collar jobs overseas leaving an entire generation (or two) of men without jobs thereby making them unattractive partners in parenting. This coincided with women's empowerment and equal footing in white-collar jobs. (surprise, women don't actually want blue-collar jobs.)
Wisdom from my father>> you don't get respect, you earn respect, you don't make money you earn money. What happens to a human when he is just given something he did not earn, he begins to feel he is owned or has earned it. Slowly we have devolved back to class warfare explained by some to mean if you have more than me I deserve to get some of it. We have become a simplistic writhing mass of people divided into the oppressed and the oppressor. It is a much easier life for some to exist as an oppressed. What happens to creativity when they are the majority?
Bari: (I preface this with, I LOVE your interviews and commend you and the Free Press – HUGE fan) That said, this interview was borderline ready for The Onion or The Babylon Bee. Is this breaking news? Hello! McFly?! Children benefit from having two parents!? Stop the press!
And your poor guest, who on more than one occasion had to spit out the unthinkable – Conservatives may have had this right all along - A structured, traditional family, with two parents (ideally one male, one female) creates economic opportunities and a stable society.
As Dennis Prager has said on more than one occasion about ‘studies’. Either they confirm the obvious, or they’re wrong
No surprise to me. I was a hearing officer for child support in 1992 to 1993 and even back then, I saw the decline in marriage. Why do women need to marry a man who is less than perfect, when they can get the government to provide support and take over the man's role of providing financial support?
Prior to the late 60s, most people refused to take advantage of government programs, even though they were eligible. It was considered shameful. There was a Marxist movement in the late 60s, Cloward–Piven strategy, that encouraged everyone to take advantage of government assistance programs. They knew that the government was overpromising. These Marxists hoped that the overload of people making demands on the government would cause the system to collapse so that a new system could be imposed: guaranteed minimum income. [EDIT - my original description of this strategy was incorrect; however I think some radicals seized on this strategy as a way of bringing about social collapse].
Well, we are almost there. Society is breaking down and the Marxists (and fellow travelers) are in control of major corporations, media, and academia.
Good post. The real crisis which was pretty much ignored by Kearney, is that this dependency you write about has become multi-generational. Once that sets in it's really hard to shake it; it becomes entrenched in the lifestyle and the expectations for the man is set. It's made still worse by the housing projects that concentrate this sub-culture, this mentality. It also creates a deep-seated corruption of values. Very sad.
Great interview. Anybody who has raised children knows it is blatantly obvious and pure common sense that a two parent household is much better for children than a one parent situation (excepting abusive situations of course). Yet the Left went ahead and condemned that belief, as it does with so many other truths. Why do we let them get away with it?
I'm curious what role parental age plays in this. Ie, holding socioeconomic class constant, I would think a child born to a (single) mother who's 40 would fare better than he would if the mom had him at 20. I wonder if the researcher looked at whether age (and thus maturity) trumps - or can overcome - other disadvantages associated with being a single parent (stress, income instability, etc.)
Which of these combos is better (or less bad)?
a) Married, both spouses 22, uneducated, combined income of $100K
Jennifer: My gut feeling (common sense) tells me that - PROVIDED the 22 year old parents are responsible, hard working, loving, and not on drugs, the 100k they don't have will make a difference only in that fact that they'll have fewer resources. Money can never replace the care/love/example/attention of a two parent (male and female preferably) house.
The thing that gets me is this is so obvious. If it wasn't so sad I would say this could be another episode of "Gen Z discovers". Maybe the easiest thing to hand across for the idea of two parents is redundancy. Two parents isn't just twice as good as one, it is a totally different category of value. If you lose one parent in a two parent home, through illness / injury, employment, or just a simple thing like being away from the home for work, it is a hardship, but it can be managed. If that happens in a single parent home, you are now in a situation where just about every option is a significant detriment to the child / children. In the catastrophic scenario, with no back up available the child will just be taken on by whatever family member or institution CAN take up the effort, regardless of whether it is a good situation or not. People can't seem to shut up about how much value there is in health insurance (or the system it supports) yet this simple thing, insurance that SOMEONE is there when a problem occurs seems to be just ignored.
Shocking news! Kids need two parents! Stop the presses! And of course, the solutions presented were really not solutions. Do more! What a concept. Of course no one looks back on who was right and who was wrong when the Right said the Great Society was destroying the family.
Steven - you're echoing my thoughts, while shaking your head at the same observations of the obvious. The only reason Ms. Kearney's report has any meaning, is to confirm what is common sense in most conservatives minds.
It's very much out of favor to judge politicians and others by their fidelity to their spouses. We are to believe that the obligations of one spouse to another is privately negotiated, can be of infinite variety and is none of my business. I am allowed to have no expectations on a person based on his or her marital status. There is one group of people for whom marriage is binding: all the rest of us. The taxpayer and the regulated employer is legally required to provide and structure benefits for spouses, and his objection to a marriage for any reason does not relieve him of this obligation. In short, marriage bind everyone except the married.
In the medical community, it's taken as fact that disparities in health outcomes are due to the stress of racism. I've always felt that conclusion was based on flimsy evidence, and none of the research controls for two parent households. I would be incredibly interested for this researcher to apply her work in the healthcare field. I think she would have something very important to contribute.
Social Justice Fallacies by Thomas Sowell talks about some of the same issues. He has become one of my favorite writers.
I'll just note that the economist Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse was arguing exactly all of this in the early 2000s: https://ruthinstitute.org/product/love-and-economics-it-takes-a-family-to-raise-a-village/. But she's Catholic and conservative, so she was ignored. Glad to see that someone who cannot be labelled and ignored in the same way is now showing what everyone knew all along. I really appreciate Dr. Kearney's honesty and bravery. Barring a continued movement to cancel the cancellers, her career is probably in jeopardy now.
Now, one thing that was not discussed: Is it just a matter of having "two parents"? Or is it a matter of having a mother and a father? And is it a matter of having a biological mother and father? All of these questions will impact in turn the questions of same-sex adoption and surrogacy. Investigating such would involve defining what are "good outcomes" for children, and that is going to get into some very touchy value-laden realms of inquiry.
Not any comments on my biggest take away from this article. Globalists sent all the good paying blue-collar jobs overseas leaving an entire generation (or two) of men without jobs thereby making them unattractive partners in parenting. This coincided with women's empowerment and equal footing in white-collar jobs. (surprise, women don't actually want blue-collar jobs.)
Wisdom from my father>> you don't get respect, you earn respect, you don't make money you earn money. What happens to a human when he is just given something he did not earn, he begins to feel he is owned or has earned it. Slowly we have devolved back to class warfare explained by some to mean if you have more than me I deserve to get some of it. We have become a simplistic writhing mass of people divided into the oppressed and the oppressor. It is a much easier life for some to exist as an oppressed. What happens to creativity when they are the majority?
Bari: (I preface this with, I LOVE your interviews and commend you and the Free Press – HUGE fan) That said, this interview was borderline ready for The Onion or The Babylon Bee. Is this breaking news? Hello! McFly?! Children benefit from having two parents!? Stop the press!
And your poor guest, who on more than one occasion had to spit out the unthinkable – Conservatives may have had this right all along - A structured, traditional family, with two parents (ideally one male, one female) creates economic opportunities and a stable society.
As Dennis Prager has said on more than one occasion about ‘studies’. Either they confirm the obvious, or they’re wrong
No surprise to me. I was a hearing officer for child support in 1992 to 1993 and even back then, I saw the decline in marriage. Why do women need to marry a man who is less than perfect, when they can get the government to provide support and take over the man's role of providing financial support?
Prior to the late 60s, most people refused to take advantage of government programs, even though they were eligible. It was considered shameful. There was a Marxist movement in the late 60s, Cloward–Piven strategy, that encouraged everyone to take advantage of government assistance programs. They knew that the government was overpromising. These Marxists hoped that the overload of people making demands on the government would cause the system to collapse so that a new system could be imposed: guaranteed minimum income. [EDIT - my original description of this strategy was incorrect; however I think some radicals seized on this strategy as a way of bringing about social collapse].
Well, we are almost there. Society is breaking down and the Marxists (and fellow travelers) are in control of major corporations, media, and academia.
Good post. The real crisis which was pretty much ignored by Kearney, is that this dependency you write about has become multi-generational. Once that sets in it's really hard to shake it; it becomes entrenched in the lifestyle and the expectations for the man is set. It's made still worse by the housing projects that concentrate this sub-culture, this mentality. It also creates a deep-seated corruption of values. Very sad.
This is not news. This was highlighted by Barbara Dafoe Whitehead in her cover article in the Atlantic Monthly in 1993 “Dan Quayle was Right”
Great interview. Anybody who has raised children knows it is blatantly obvious and pure common sense that a two parent household is much better for children than a one parent situation (excepting abusive situations of course). Yet the Left went ahead and condemned that belief, as it does with so many other truths. Why do we let them get away with it?
I wonder what the impact of single parent homes has on the housing crisis. Seems like it might be one of the factors exacerbating the situation.
I'm curious what role parental age plays in this. Ie, holding socioeconomic class constant, I would think a child born to a (single) mother who's 40 would fare better than he would if the mom had him at 20. I wonder if the researcher looked at whether age (and thus maturity) trumps - or can overcome - other disadvantages associated with being a single parent (stress, income instability, etc.)
Which of these combos is better (or less bad)?
a) Married, both spouses 22, uneducated, combined income of $100K
b) Single, 40, educated, income of $100K
Jennifer: My gut feeling (common sense) tells me that - PROVIDED the 22 year old parents are responsible, hard working, loving, and not on drugs, the 100k they don't have will make a difference only in that fact that they'll have fewer resources. Money can never replace the care/love/example/attention of a two parent (male and female preferably) house.
The thing that gets me is this is so obvious. If it wasn't so sad I would say this could be another episode of "Gen Z discovers". Maybe the easiest thing to hand across for the idea of two parents is redundancy. Two parents isn't just twice as good as one, it is a totally different category of value. If you lose one parent in a two parent home, through illness / injury, employment, or just a simple thing like being away from the home for work, it is a hardship, but it can be managed. If that happens in a single parent home, you are now in a situation where just about every option is a significant detriment to the child / children. In the catastrophic scenario, with no back up available the child will just be taken on by whatever family member or institution CAN take up the effort, regardless of whether it is a good situation or not. People can't seem to shut up about how much value there is in health insurance (or the system it supports) yet this simple thing, insurance that SOMEONE is there when a problem occurs seems to be just ignored.
"Traditions" are solutions to problems we forgot. When we renounce a tradition (and mock and ridicule it), the problem it solved will reappear.
Shocking news! Kids need two parents! Stop the presses! And of course, the solutions presented were really not solutions. Do more! What a concept. Of course no one looks back on who was right and who was wrong when the Right said the Great Society was destroying the family.
Steven - you're echoing my thoughts, while shaking your head at the same observations of the obvious. The only reason Ms. Kearney's report has any meaning, is to confirm what is common sense in most conservatives minds.
How does a child living with a single mom and both grandparents make out? Does this situation help more often than not?
It's very much out of favor to judge politicians and others by their fidelity to their spouses. We are to believe that the obligations of one spouse to another is privately negotiated, can be of infinite variety and is none of my business. I am allowed to have no expectations on a person based on his or her marital status. There is one group of people for whom marriage is binding: all the rest of us. The taxpayer and the regulated employer is legally required to provide and structure benefits for spouses, and his objection to a marriage for any reason does not relieve him of this obligation. In short, marriage bind everyone except the married.