In Response...

I received this comment on my post "Will the Real Single Parents Please Stand Up":

"Your relationship status has no bearing on your ability to raise a person."

Really?

There is a far higher poverty rate for families headed by a single parent than two-parent households. Kids in a single-parent household don't do as well in school (and they drop out of school at a far higher rate). A child in a single-parent household is far more likely than the child in a two-parent household to abuse substances and to end up in prison. The list of social pathologies associated with single-parent households is long and well-established.

To compare a TYPICAL single-parent household with a TYPICAL two-parent household and to conclude that parenting in both types of households is the same is to not understand the differences between the two types of households.

In Response:

Yes. Really. A person’s relationship status has no bearing on their ability to raise a person.

I know what the statistics are. I am one. I was raised by a single parent. Yes, I was poor. Technically, I still am poor, since I don’t have a “real” job and spend my time raising my children. However, I’ll let my mother know that the good grades I earned in school were a fluke since I never should have finished in the first place. I’ll also let her know to look forward to me becoming a drug addict and ending up in prison. From what is listed above, that will just be the beginning.

My best friend is also a single mother. She is above the poverty line. After becoming pregnant in college, she finished her degree, earned a job to support her and her child and has even purchased her own vehicles and house. In all things considered, she’s doing just as well if not better than us and our two parent household.

With these facts being so well established, who can argue?

Me. I realize that these examples are exceptions to the rules and not TYPICAL. I also realize that the difference between a single parent household and a two parent household is simply one person.

There are several other factors that impact a person’s income level (geographical, education level, unemployment rate). I have to ask, were these single parent households below the poverty line before the child was born? From what has been stated, it appears that the birth of the child is what instantaneously caused the income level to drop. 

Of the kids that don’t do well in school and drop out, is there a geographical connection? What are the teacher to student ratio of the schools they attend? What types of extra-curricular programs are offered?

I’d like to ask the same questions when referring to those that partake in substance abuse and end up in prison. Of these statistics, I mean children, what is their community like? What is the crime rate?

The statements made above imply that the poverty rate, school performance and substance abuse are linked together. Is this true? If I find a child of a single parent, will that child fill all of the requirement, meaning they are below the poverty line, not performing well in school, have dabbled in drugs and will someday be in prison? Or is the only thing these children have in common that they only have one parent to raise them?

The problem I have with studies and statistics when it comes to social pathologies is that they are malleable. They are numbers, ones that when combined and paired with generalized statements can easily be turned into false truths. Numbers can be calculated to produce desired results. The statements made above, if appearing in a scholarly journal, would imply that the problem is the parent, since that is the only link given. The result of this is that people read it, believe it, hold it to their hearts as truth and use it to judge others, further enforcing a ridiculous social caste system. Somehow, the single parent has now become a second class citizen. 

But what do I know. I’m just the product of a single parent household. I really should get back to snorting my coke and working on my dead lifts in the prison yard. Oh, wait. I mean reading with my first grader and bringing my daughters to the park. Oh, and to teach them to ask questions and think for themselves, since that is so evidently becoming a lost art form. The hidden message is that the only purpose of children of single parents is to repeat the cycle, thus further degrading our highly prized social standards. 

The author of the original article in question wasn’t detailing the fear she has that her child will grow up to be a drug addict or the stereotype she faces daily with being a single parent. She was lamenting about how hard it is to raise a child on her own. I agree, it’s hard to parent, but no harder for her than it is for me. End of story. 

Despite what society would like us to believe, I stand by my words and believe that a relationship status has no bearing on their ability to raise a person. 

{Note: I would just like to clarify that I do appreciate the comment listed above, as well as all other comments. I don't expect people to agree with me and in no way did I view the comment above as disrespectful or hurtful. My reply is also not about being "right." It's about opening our minds and having discussions. This comment made me think and feel and that makes it wonderful and why I chose to respond.}