From: kapa@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (k.a.perkins)
Subject: Re: Impact of the absent father
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:14:27 GMT
Followup-To: misc.kids
Summary: lighten up, it's just another study in USA today

In article <1992Aug25.034455.24878@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>, noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
> Source: USA Today, August 24, 1992
> 
> By Marilyn Elias
> 
> Murphy Brown's baby is likely to be as well-behaved and academically
> successful in elementary school as traditionally reared kids, suggests a
> study out Sunday.
> 
> "A very strong case could be made that in many respects the Brown kid is
> perfectly well off," says sociologist Frank L. Mott of Ohio State
> University, Columbus.
> 
> Mott followed 1,714 children for three years to see how living without a
> biological dad affected behavior and academic skills.
> 
> At the start, 73% of the youngsters, ages 2 to 5, had dad at home; three
> years later, 60% were still intact families.  He presented findings to
> the American Sociological Association meeting in Pittsburgh.
> 
> Highlights of the study:
> 
>       * When moms' education and income were taken into
> 	account, there was no difference in math and reading
> 	skills between kids living with and without a father.
> 
>       *	Low income and poor education predicted trouble
>         adjustment far more than parents' marital status.
> 
> Critics of one-parent families are fingering the wrong culprits, Mott
> argues.
> 
> "We need to get mothers better educated and boost income, because it's
> this rather than having a father at home that affects kids the most."
> 
> But the findings were challenged by divorce researcher Judith
> Wallerstein of Corte Madera, Calif.
> 
< some criticisms of Mott's methodology by Judith Wallerstein>

> And it's not meaningful to separate the influences of income and
> marital status - because divorced women as a whole are so much poorer
> than wives, she says.
> 
> "In real life, being poor and divorced is usually one and the same."

< followed by no contradiction of the assertion that divorced women
tend to be poorer than married women but lots of emotional overreacting
to Mott's study >

Geeze, lighten up.  It's not like USA Today is widely regarded as
the in place to look for sociological research.  It's not the Journal
of Child Development or the New England Journal of Medicine.  This
is like being all up in arms because People Magazine or the Enquirer
has sensational headlines about Fergie's tits.
> 
> Mott's study, if anything, seems incredibly short-sighted.

Actually 3 years isn't bad.  13 would be better, so would 30, but
3 isn't bad.

 He studied
> children for 3 years, starting with children ages 2 to 5.  Let's see,
> they would be ages 5 to 8 right now, wouldn't they?  I guess there was
> no vast difference between the IQ of the 5 year-olds living with single
> mothers and the 5-year-olds living in intact homes.  Sure.  Like you
> would expect there to be.  But what about those 8-year-olds?  Surely a
> difference must be noticeable by age 8.  Ahhhh.  Mott's no flunky - the
> difference can be solely attributed to the mothers' income and
> educational background.

I guess you don't think that parental income or education has any
influence on IQ or childhood achievement?  It has no influence
on the amount of time and attention that parents can pay their
kids, or on the kinds of opportunities kids can have?  Why don't
you site your studies that back this up, and we'll take a look
at their methodology.

<lots of hyperbole while the author vents his other frustrations
with alimony and women and blames it on to Mott for suggesting something
he doesn't like >

> You know it.  Mott's simply flouting the standard "Women good, men bad"
> rhetoric of modern-day - oh, I hate to say it - "feminism" - and writing
> dad out of the picture as some unneeded sperm donor.

I suggest you look up the word "flout" in Webster's.  You're the
one who's "flouting" the socalled standard.  The closest word I
can think of that you probably mean is "flaunt", but you probably
think that I'm showing off that I'm a well educated mother with a
high income.  But I am still married to my children's father so
I probably don't fall entirely into your category of awful women.
> 
< more hysterical ranting against Mott and divorced mothers >

> Well, folks, even though Marilyn Elias tried to jump on the Murphy
> Brown bandwagon, neither she, nor Mr. Mott, did much to convince me to
> go along for the ride.  Many studies that note the educational
> achievement of older children of single mothers show convincingly that
> these kids, in general, will achieve lower than their counterparts from
> two-parent homes.  These kids have a much higher rate of juvenile
> delinquency and have higher crime rates.  These kids will also be in a
> much higher risk category for teenage suicide and drug use.  Finally,
> children of one-parent homes are much more likely to be poor.

Well, since you're the pied piper of scientifically unbiased studies
with sound methodology, perhaps you could give specific references
for some of these studies, instead of the ambiguous "studies show".
You can leave out USA Today as your references.  Other thoughts
aside, you've made the case that the studies they print aren't always
the most scientifically accurate.

> Mott might have noticed that - he might not have.  But he implies a
> socialistic solution to that problem - give the moms more money and more
> education.  Who picks up that tab, Mr. Mott?  You?  You wouldn't be
> advocating having all these deadbeat dads pay more for their children
> and for the education of their wives, would you?

Nothing you've quoted indicates Mott advocated any remedy, expressed
or implied, whatsoever for anything.  Aren't you the one who just said
these kids were more likely to be poor?  What was your remedy for that,
if it wasn't their parents' having more money from somewhere?

> Aaron L. Hoffmeyer

Kate Perkins