Single Parents May Do As Well As Two--No Shit!

My favorite website, Yahoo!, has put up an article from Health Day entitled, Single Parents May Do As Well As Two. Can someone please tell me how I can get some grant money to study utterly obvious bullshit? (and yes, I know, I know, if I were doing fatherhood research I could get thousands/millions from the Department of Health and Human Services, DHHS) I mean, when controlling for resources, the main one being financial, the other one being emotional, a child will do just fine in any environment. The stigma, of course, is the single parent that we (and the author) are referring to, is the MOTHER. And in that this is such a mother-bashing, woman-blaming society, people ultimately believe that mothers are incapable of raising sound children in absence of a "father" (on the contrary, see Father Absence Harms Children?).

No, No, not just a father figure will do anymore, "they" are talking about the actual biodad as a requirement for successful child-rearing. An entire movement has sprung up (concurrently with the invention of the child support system) declaring how necessary fathers are for child growth and development (see They Have Their Statistics, and then There is the Truth...Somewhere). Decades of developmental research has been abandoned and new false research has been air-brushed into "reality" (see Fatherlessness "Research" is Overly Simplistic, Biased, and Sexist). Not having a biological father is considered pathological (on the contrary see Mother Absence v Father Absence). Protecting a child from a dangerous father is pathological (see Psychological Theories on Why Mothers Are Alienating Kids from Fathers).

From the article:

A single parent marrying or moving in with a partner may be as disruptive to a child as a divorce, the author suggests.
Right, because disruption is disruption, and we all know kids need stability and continuity (the same stability that can NOT occur in 50/50 custody)

"Based on this study, we can't say for sure that marriage will be a good thing for the children of single mothers, particularly if that marriage is unhealthy and does not last,"
Mothers? Why, I thought this was about "parents"?

Every mother knows that juggling a new intimate partner along with motherhood, can be a difficult task. We don't need a study to tell us that if the new relationship isn't good, that it will negatively affect the children. Duh! But I stand to guess that a major reason that single mothers re-partner is due to economic resources. The new partner brings money into the household either directly through employment, or indirectly by allowing the mother to retain employment minus child care expenses.

Only in black families did Kamp Dush find a particular advantage in children always living with two parents as opposed to growing up with only one. Black children from stabled married families scored better on reading and math tests than those from single-parent families.
There HAS to be more to this. Could it be that Blacks are on the lowest end of the economic spectrum? And so, it would take dual incomes in a Black household to equal one decent salary that a White woman may have? Can we tie in the racism/classism factor?

The findings appear in "Marriage and Family: Perspectives and Complexities," a recently published book that Kamp Dash co-edited. She looked at information gathered from nearly 5,000 households nationwide during two long-term periods over three decades.

Oh yes, and Professor, please expect the vocal minority of father's rights groups, aka father's supremacists, to trash your research in it's entirety. It doesn't matter the scope or depth, none of it suits their agenda.

Moms have known for a long time that moms do a good damn job raising their kids by evidenced by the old adage:

I can do bad all by myself.

(see Guess Who's Killing the Children)