Biological anthropologist helen fisher thinks there may be evolutionary benefits for single parenting?

http://chemistrygreatdebate.spaces.live.…





i tend to agree with her. your thoughts?Biological anthropologist helen fisher thinks there may be evolutionary benefits for single parenting?
I don't think this is exactly a new strategy, and especially not for the wealthy members of any society.





I find many of the statistics being quoted about single-parent households to be questionable at best.





The most up-to-date and best studies I have read suggest there is no difference in children's outcomes between well functioning single-parent households and well functioning two-parent households. And poorly functioning is just that, poorly functioning. The majority of households in the US now are either single-parent or blended (a second marriage or marriage with stepchildren, etc), the mass catastrophes that social conservatives would predict simply aren't occurring. And the historical reality of real life in the US is that single parents and blended families have always played a large role in our society.





A male and a female parent are required for reproduction [actually apparently it is possible to combine the genetic material of two women to produce a female offspring, but I haven't heard of it being done with humans], but any combination thereof can successfully raise a child. There is no credible evidence to suggest that children who lack a parent of one sex will have trouble relating to that sex as adults. Don't forget that not only do most children see both of their parents, but that there are aunts and uncles and grandparents and friends and teachers and all kinds of role models for children. And that's not even bringing the idea of a bad parent into the discussion.





Although being a single parent presents a different set of challenges than a coupled parent, I can see how this could be a beneficial choice for many people.





Fewer people need to marry simply to survive than at any time in the past. Men and women both are settling down later in life, and for love and companionship rather than financial, social or biological need. There are good reasons to believe this is beneficial for couples as more mature people will probably make better relationship decisions. However, especially for women, the later they wait to reproduce the more possible health consequences are faced by both the child and the parent. And then there is trying to time a child into all of an adults other obligations, like careers or advanced education for example. Among other things.





For those who are financially and socially able, it seems intelligently adaptive to have children when it is best to have children and get married when it is best to get married.





If for some people, it is best to have the children first then more power to them.Biological anthropologist helen fisher thinks there may be evolutionary benefits for single parenting?
Helen's reasearch may be right, but it shouldn't change parenting in any way, because single-parent homes (especially fatherless ones) can have serious repurcussions on children, meaning the future generation.





- In a study of 146 adolescent friends of 26 adolescent suicide victims, teens living in single-parent families are not only more likely to commit suicide but also more likely to suffer from psychological disorders, when compared to teens living in intact families.





- Fatherless children are at dramatically greater risk of suicide.





- Three out of four teenage suicides occur in households where a parent has been absent.





- A family structure index -- a composite index based on the annual rate of children involved in divorce and the percentage of families with children present that are female-headed - is a strong predictor of suicide among young adult and adolescent white males.


http://www.childrensjustice.org/stats.ht…





I don't think 'evolutionary benefits' are a worthy compromise for a mentally healthy future generation. I would be more bothered about my kid, and I wouldn't give a damn about science if it meant my kid suffered. I'd let someone else be the guinea pig to try this out. Not me.





I think parents have more to benefit from, and parenting is certainly more about the children than about the parents.
I both agree and disagree. Single parenting is nothing new and has been practiced through history in various cultures.





But this did not mean that there was only one adult responsible for the well-being of the child. I think for both the child and adult's sake, there needs to be more than one adult around.





In cultures where the father didn't necessarily stay in the home, there were usually multiple adults (male and female) who took on the responsibility of looking out for the child and ensuring its survival.
I don't hold marriage up to any high moral standard...nor do I hold parenthood in any great esteem. Bottom line - anyone can marry, and anyone can reproduce.





What I respect is a person (or couple) who truly wants a child and understands the importance of the selflessness that it requires for successful parenting.





Yes, wouldn't it be ideal if every child could have both a mother and a father. And that they loved eachother, didn't abuse one another and stayed together forever.





Wouldn't it also be nice if guns weren't on the streets and gas didn't cost an arm and a leg. I deal in reality...so I look at each situation individually.
I agree with many of her points too, and it's good to see research into single parenting drawing some positive conclusions for once! I do think children benefit from having both their parents around, but not necessarily married.





';One Hollywood couple recently announced that they would wed “the day that all Americans had the right to wed.” ';


I definetly respect that!
America still has to catch up with the rest of the developed (and less developed) world in a cultural sense. Men on the moon and stealth fighters is an achievement, but still stuck in social wallow where 'shacking up' has a stigma attached and marriage is seen as the ultimate (anything less being an insult to God)? Gimme a break.


I don't need evolutionary science to back my opinion on this.





EDIT - Children need two parents, but they don't necessarily need to live in the same house. Sorry if this breaks your middle American fantasies.
I just read it as a private benefit--of avoiding the uncertainties of marriage and keeping control of your own life.


For a while, though, the rich and famous can better afford to take care of children, so the conclusion would be to ban poor, stupid, disabled and jobless people form having kids. That would not go over very well,


In evolution of this species, Nature designed it so gay and lesbians would be around, childless themselves, to adopt and rear children if the natural parents died.
it may be easier but since when does easier make it better. children need a stability that cannot be fulfilled in that sort of environment. basically what the article said is there are more people having children out of wedlock bc they were raised that way and it's perfectly normal to them. it isnt something to aim for.
You might have well started your question by saying ';a woman who wrote words on a dart board , blind folder herself and then through darts at it from 25 feet away said';





But anyway, some one who uses celeberitys as her standard of highly evolved people has no credibility in my estimation
Very interesting - I just have one niggle, where she says from a Darwin perspective they are collecting social capital - social capital is a Pierre Bourdieu perspective, not a Darwinian one! I think she's probably right though :-)
Seems to me the evolutionary benefits are for the parents and not the child, where's jonmcn49? he's knows everything on evolution and Darwin.
Once again the feminist screaming ';a father is not necessary, but a burden';.





Why do children of single parents perform more poorly in school and go to jail more often?.
Disagree.
Everybody has an opinion. But the statistics are against her.





Siggy
yeah what else can an nation of bastards argue? 7 million plus people have no idea about their biological father.
Call me old-fashioned but I think a child needs a mother and father.
No- children need two parents.
Interesting.





Perhaps she should tell that to the millions of men and women in our prisons who are from single parent homes. Not to mention the countless other emotional cripples who don't know how to relate to the opposite sex.