The Need For Intact Families

By -

The societal salience of two-parent households used to be obvious. Today, however, this social structure has been labeled reactionary, an antiquated norm from a bygone era. 

But there is no disputing the facts: children raised by both parents are far better equipped for the world than their counterparts from single-parent households. 

While inconvenient for some to hear, this is an empirical reality. 

Robert Putnam in his 2015 book, Our Kids: The American Dream In Crisis, takes this even further with his thesis that kids raised by a mother and father with college degrees have the best outcomes. 

His rigorous research, both qualitative (interviews and anecdotes) and quantitative (graphs and regression models) makes his conclusions hard to challenge. 

But, college education aside, we must concede the point: children from two-parent households are more likely to perform well in school and in their professional careers, and are less likely to become addicted to drugs and commit crime. 

What's more, children raised by both parents perform far better economically. There is myriad data to support this. Author William A. Galston once wrote that "the best antipoverty program for children is a stable, intact family." 

Certain paleo-conservative and traditionalist sectaries, it should be noted, will take the two-parent family to mean the "nuclear family," wherein mom stays at home and dad is the breadwinner. This is, in fact, reactionary and unrealistic. The perceived halcyon days of the 1950s are, whether they like it or not, long behind us. Today, dual-income households are the norm. 

This fact, however, does not diminish the overwhelmingly positive role that both parents play in a child's formative years. 

I am beyond fortunate to have been raised by two incredible parents. I am deeply saddened, however, when I think of all the children who were not so lucky. They started from a severe disadvantage. 

Gen-Z, some of whom are becoming parents now, must inculcate robust family values in their children. We need badly to return to a previous temperament that glorifies the two-parent model. 


Comments

  1. AnonymousJuly 10, 2024 at 8:37 AM

    Mom and dad are the gatekeepers for all the good and bad that flows through society. It's an evolutionary adaptation, which most animals also enjoy, that gives the offspring the best chance at survival and enjoyment. The nuclear family is not always perfect, but, still an important social institution upon which Western Civilization rests. Unfortunately, it is under assault today and must be defended. When one goes, the other goes too!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Examining Social Connectedness Abroad

By -
Image
  Non-Western countries are known to be more collectivistic and group-oriented, especially when compared to Western countries like Great Britain and America.  Lawrence Mead, my former professor and thesis supervisor at NYU, articulated this cultural difference in his 2019 book, Burdens of Freedom: Cultural Difference and American Power: ...Western culture is individualist, while non-Western cultures tend to be conformist. Westerners take action largely to fulfill personal goals and values, if necessary, changing the world to do so. In this sense, they live their lives from the inside out. In the non-West, by contrast, most people take their cues largely from without - from their immediate associates, higher authority, or tradition. They adjust to their environment much more than they seek to change it. They live their lives largely from the outside in.  Professor Mead is easily the most valiant and intellectually honest professor that I ever had the honor of taking. He received an enor
Read more

It's Embarrassing To Admit This...

By -
Image
  It's embarrassing to admit this, but... I really only started reading about two years ago. Before that, reading was the most mundane, yawn-inducing task I could think of. It wasn't fun or energizing; it was dull and torturous.  When I was in high school, I wasn't particularly scholarly, to put it mildly. While I did well, I didn't excel. Most, though not all, of what I read was required for my various classes. Though, now that I think about it, there were various poetry books and short stories I enjoyed. Lawrence Ferlinghetti's,  A Coney Island of the Mind;  Philip Schultz's,  Failure;  and Nikolai Gogol's,  Diary of a Madman  come to mind. I also enjoyed the dystopian works of Paul Auster.  Barring these few, but notable, exceptions, I did not read. This, in turn, effected my diction, and still does to a degree. I recall one particularly embarrassing moment in a mathematics class I took freshman year. On the first day of class - which is, of course, a pri
Read more

Comments Open to All

By -
Frank Filocomo So as to encourage dialectic, I have enabled commenting privileges to all, including those without Blogger or Google accounts.  So please, feel free to opine on my posts. I do not claim to have all the answers. I, like you, am just another inquisitive mind.  Ideally, comments will be thoughtful and substantive. That way, we can engage in a productive back and forth.  That said, I have always considered myself to be a free speech absolutist; censoring opposing views, or even speech I find to be utterly rebarbative, has never been my thing.  Trolls, too, will be welcome. I may later regret this... But the point of this blog, you see, is to encourage community. And community requires interaction. Therefore, it would be counterproductive for me to prohibit speech of any kind, or to put up barriers that require people to create an account in order to comment.  Now, being that this is the internet, I use the word "community" somewhat loosely. Some may call an online
Read more