Bloodless Coup

I believe the phrase is "playing to his base". Doesn't make it right, but does make it understandable.

But, he has a bow tie!

Armand: George Will is merely statilng facts about births to inner-city women. You ranting wil not change those facts.

I don't think that "facts" have anything to do with an insulting generalization that the children of single parents are "lightly-parented".

Or I should say - the children of single women - I guess Will is fine with single fathers raising children. It's just women who lack the requisite parenting skills.

"W", in this case George Will, is a holier-than-thou ass. I usually rip his column from my Newsweek if he's in Lex Luthor mode.

Gee--good retort to Will.
The typical Liberal response--don't answer with arguments of your own, just smear the messenger. That's why the Democrats will be a minority for a long time to come. And I'm guessing that retorts to this note will also not stay on topic--I expect quite a few people to resort to name calling--the Liberal way.

How does "liberal name calling" differ from "conservative name calling"? Is one more pithy? More rude?

Genuinely curious.

My argument - single mothers aren't necessarily "light" parents whose children will go off and commit crimes sprees.

Will's argument - the opposite of that.

So it strikes me that Mr. Will started the name calling by insulting single mothers and their progeny.

If pointing out the fact that an argument is both insulting and so simplistic as to be simply stupid is name-calling - sure, I guess I have to wallow in Will's name-calling mud too. But it seems to me that that's better than just letting idiocy like this be printed all across America (since, you know, Will is part of that "liberal" MSM) with no criticism whatsoever.

Bro,
As much as you've mocked the Bush administration for not paying attention to research and dismissing findings with which they disagreed, I would hope you'd be open to the contributions of research in this area. In this article, look under the headings "Father Love Predicts Specific Outcomes Better Than Mother Love" and "Father Love Is the Sole Significant Predictor of Specific Outcomes" for descriptions of studies that show what father love does that mother love doesn't.

The hyperlinks within the text may not work, but you can just scroll down the page.

I'll get around to reading those if you like - but the existence of such research doesn't challenge my original complaint, which is that Will's comment that mother's are "light" parenters (because they are too irritable to care about children b/c of their periods? because they are too worried about what's going on in the kitchen? because they are always getting the vapors? he doesn't explain exactly why) is an overly broad and insulting generalization.

And while I didn't hit this point before, his assertation that this leads to rampant crime and riots and the like seems really odd for someone who supposedly (as a bow-tie wearing conservative) you'd think would put the root of crime down to individual responsibility, not the social context or the "tough childhoods" that rapists and murderers endured in their youth. It's an odd "it's America's fault" or "society's fault" moment for someone who I'd think would put down the causes of crime to an individual choosing to be bad or having evil in his or her heart.

I'd really like a good definition of exactly what "father love" is. Paternal acceptance/rejection is not a very rich descriptor.

The cultural shift to increased involvement of fathers/greater role of father love in determining child outcomes only came "a decade or so ago." This seems a bit recent to be drawing major conclusions about crime. Unless we are talking about rampant 'tweens.

In the 1990s, people started data mining because they finally made a windows based (as opposed to programmable) version of SPSS. Yippee. Now people who don't really understand statistics can do them anyway.

I might have missed it, but where does the article equate "father love" with "two married parents in the same house?"

"It is not our purpose here to try to fully disentangle the snarled web of competing social, political, economic, and cultural forces associated with the feminist movement that eventually politicized fatherhood in America" but they'll blame it anyway. And, of course, this means that feminists are the most powerful creatures on the planet, they have caused such change! Especially interesting since as mothers, women don't seem to be so important and are (at least according to Will) a negative influence.

"Contrary to the expectations of many psychologists, including myself, who have studied paternal influences on children, the differences between mothers and fathers appear much less important than the similarities. Students of socialization have consistently found that parental warmth, nurturance, and closeness are associated with positive child outcomes whether the parent or adult involved is a mother or a father." This hardly seems to indicate that fathers are more important are mothers less, but rather that having a nurturing parent or parents is important.

"Here Andry found in a matched sample of 80 delinquent boys 11 through 15 years of age that the great majority of delinquents felt rejected by their fathers but not necessarily by their mothers. Nondelinquents, on the other hand, tended to feel loved by both parents." Does this tell us about mothering? Or something about delinquents. There are all kinds of potential intervening variables. I don't deny that the delinquents might generally feel that way, but that there is a specific causal relationship seems uncertain.

Likewise "from telephone interviews with a national sample of 471 young adults, he found that perceived closeness to fathers for both sons and daughters made a unique contribution—over and above the contribution made by perceived closeness to mothers—to adult offsprings' happiness, life satisfaction, and low psychological distress (i.e., overall psychological well-being). In the author's words, “Regardless of the quality of the mother-child relationship, the closer adult offspring were to their fathers, the happier, more satisfied, and less distressed they reported being” (p. 1039)." So, your absentee father could show up twice a year and beat you, but if that made you feel close, you will turn out better.

"paternal (but not maternal) warmth had a significant long-term effect in shaping adolescents' attitudes in 1987 toward such social issues as marriage, divorce, sex roles, child support, welfare, and teenage childbearing." Why do I suspect that there are "right" and "wrong" attitudes to have, and the paternal influence is associated with the "right" ones. And I wonder, are those right ones traditional, patriarchal and/or Judeo-Christian?

"Here Booth and Amato (1994) found in a longitudinal study of 419 parents and their adult children that a poor relationship between spouses while children were living at home was associated 12 years later with somewhat different outcomes for sons and daughters. Specifically, adult sons felt somewhat less close to both parents than did sons whose parents had had a good marital relationship. Daughters, on the other hand, felt much less close to their fathers but only slightly less close to their mothers. Thus, the authors concluded, the father–daughter tie tends to be especially vulnerable in the context of serious marital problems between parents, whereas the mother–daughter tie tends to be especially resilient." Not that there would be a common, legitimate factor that damaged both the father's relationship with the daughter and the mother.

The authors of this study specifically say "The emphasis in this review on fathers should not be construed to suggest that mother love is generally less important than father love."

Will's implication here is not just single mothers' children might experience different (thought the article morris links to implies less emotionally balanced, though not necessarily a life of crime) life outcomes, it's poor black single mothers who are responsible for continuously generating the rampant crime in the black community. It's questionable that you can isolate any variable in the complex cultural context, much less lazy mothers, as the sole cause of crime amongst the urban (black) poor. Maybe Will has been reading What the Poor are Like.

Armand,
If you'll look at Will's quote, he doesn't say the mothers lightly parent the children; he says the children are lightly parented in the absence of a father, which is consistent with the research showing that children get certain benefits psychologically and otherwise from having a father that they don't get even when they do have a caring mother.

You create a straw man when you say "for someone who supposedly (as a bow-tie wearing conservative) you'd think would put the root of crime down to individual responsibility...," and I would argue that a societal/social context can make it more difficult for a person to do the right thing, but in the end each person has responsibility for the choices they do make, especially the difficult ones. Just because a person is more likely to make poor choices in the absence of a loving father doesn't mean they aren't not going to be the ones who bear the consequences for harming themselves through poor academic performance or for harming others and themselves through addiction, criminal behavior, etc. And the mothers and fathers whose behavior leads to a child not having a father also have responsibility for their part of creating this situation.

Binky,
As far as blaming feminism, you're making this into a false dichotomy. The alternatives aren't either recent cultural views on men and women as parents or the patriarchy of a hundred years ago; it is not difficult to comprehend that women can have a valuable role as a mother and if they choose a career, and also men can have a valuable role as a father and if they choose a career. You argue as if just because men are important as parents means society should put women back into their roles where they must be subserviant to their husbands, and that is not what is being argued here. The point based on research is that men are important as parents, and perhaps our culture, laws, and custodial system should begin to reflect that reality.

You argue in response to one of the studies:
"There are all kinds of potential intervening variables" and "that there is a specific causal relationship seems uncertain." You know, when conservatives say the same thing in response to correlations between fossil fuels and global warming, you don't express this doubt.

Your next argument, that if a father showed up twice a year and beat their child, that might help, is cruel. I would simply respond that if a child equates beating with parental care, they would have learned that from somewhere, and not from a father if he only shows up twice a year.

In response to a child learning attitudes about social and societal issues from their father, you impune the messenger. And you avoid the idea that if a caring father is as the research shows a benefit, then maybe it is "right" that attitudes about marriage and child support reflect this, instead of this fairy tale attitude that fathers can walk out and we don't say it's bad because it might hurt the self esteem of the abandoned child. Well, you know what really hurt their self esteem...the father walking out. And we can either accept the reality that these children might need more help in school and in their social/emotional development, or we can lie to them about what's happened and the effect it will have. I thought it was supposed to be conservatives who are lying liars.

You are so eager to portray fathers as the bad guys as you suggest in your next response, that mothers can't do anything wrong but fathers always do and that's why daughters don't forgive their fathers when parents argue even though sons do, presuming when fathers are accused of wrongdoing it's "legitimate" and it hurts their relationship with both daughters and mothers, but when mothers are accused it's not legitimate, so the relationship is repaired, ignoring the fact that human beings--generally speaking, and not including you of course--are not completely cold automatons. Your argument sounds to me like stereotyping, profiling, hatemongering...but it's culturally sensitive because you're hating men and not women.

As to your next point, I agree completely, that fathers are important does not mean that mothers are not.

Just to say that there are certain realms in which children will have much more difficulty without a caring father does not mean that there aren't certain realms in which children will have much more difficulty without a caring mother.

You argue in response to one of the studies: "There are all kinds of potential intervening variables" and "that there is a specific causal relationship seems uncertain." You know, when conservatives say the samething in response to correlations between fossil fuels and global warming, you don't express this doubt.

True. That's because the scientists have, oh, you know, lots of evidence. And a little something aproaching consensus.

I'm not eager to portray fathers as bad guys. I am eager to portray the authors of the study as presumptuous, and blindered. That they can't see reasons why an individual could simultaneously piss off two people who would then seek support from each other creates what we call "an underspecified model." Underspecified models are often riddled with error.

Your next argument, that if a father showed up twice a year and beat their child, that might help" Bullshit. And you know it. Nice to know you still have your skills, though. My argument is that their study is based on reported perception, and includes no information about the facts of the relationship. Hyperbole. You know, "extravagant exaggeration" for effect. They could have a great relationship, or a terrible one by all standards, but that doesn't matter for the variable they focus on. It's a big problem with this kind of survey research. One of the reasons I don't do it anymore. Much of it is crap.

"you impune the messenger" Actually, I impugn the messenger, but hey, I could be wrong, you're the one with the GREs.

"hurt the self esteem" Excuse me, but isn't it the right that has been spending years objecting to the left's fetish about self-esteem? You're getting off your talking points. Careful now.

". Your argument sounds to me like stereotyping, profiling, hatemongering" That's because you're not really listening. Or because you're already playing your response in your head as you are kind of reading what I wrote. I did write that "having a nurturing parent or parents is important." I don't care if it's a male or female parent. And this supplies another reason why I think your conclusions about this study are biased, because the things they cite themselves suggest that both parents are important yet you emphasize "Father Love Is the Sole Significant Predictor of Specific Outcomes."

"you're hating men and not women." Only if they write vague meta-studies that don't really tell us anything. And in that case, I'd "hate" women just as much.

Binky,
You argue that the authors focus on perception rather than the facts, ignoring that to an individual perception is reality.
You caught me mispelling impugn; I must have been "blindered," only I don't know because it's not in the dictionary--not even the American Hertiage dictionary.
Yes, isn't it interesting that the left's cry for children's self esteem doesn't lead them to support programs that actually build self worth but instead build a sense of entitlement, that they deserve something because "I am somebody," when the research bears out self worth comes from focusing on particular strengths and not mindless generalized mantras.
And I know you don't care whether it's a male or female parent, but the research shows that it's important that it's at least a male parent, not just from the few studies the author discussed in detail but also from the ten or so he mentioned but didn't discuss in detail. I know it doesn't fit in with your political worldview, that is your perception so it's real to you, but it's not real to those who base reality on research rather than dogma.
If your concern is consensus, then find an article mentioning a dozen studies saying the father doesn't have a significant role with these specific outcomes.

Morris,

You fundamentally miss the point, and it's a critical one about scientific studies. It doesn't matter what the kids "perceive" if the argument is about whether one-parent families are better than two-parent families. In order to show that two-parent families are better, you need data that shows children from one-parent familes have higher rates of committing crimes, or failing to graduate, or some other social/economic evil than two-parent families.

Data that shows that kids who "percieve" that they are parented less are more likely to commit crimes is irrelevant to whether or not parents make a difference. After all, the kid who "perceives" he is parented less may (in fact) have lots of time with both parents (or, may have no time with either - the point is that the kids perception isn't a fact about families).

"ignoring that to an individual perception is reality."

If we accept your statement, George Will is indeed completely full of shit, because then it would not matter how "lightly" the children were parented, as long as they perceived it to be good.

Blindered.

Binky,
Right, blinders, I get it. But you're trying to make a noun into a verb (because you put it into past tense), and that only works with some nouns (you know, the ones that are also verbs).

Morris,

Could you please address the content, not the form, of the arguments? That's likely to make everyone less waspy, and raise standards of discourse. Snarky isn't an argument.

Maybe you should start writing letters. You can start with conservative darling Jonah Goldberg and then move on to the various and sundry media outlets.

What next, would you like to debate whether there is a practice called "tea-bagging?"

And nice diversion, but it fails to make George Will right according to your "parenting perception in more important than reality" standard.

Baltar,
I wonder why it is you criticize me and not Binky who firt brought up the issue of form by pointing out my use of impune rather than impugn. Surely, someone as logical as you isn't playing favorites?
Binky,
Thanks for again proving the point I just made by attacking the "how" of my argument ("nice diversion") rather than its substance.
I understand how frustrating it is that not everyone is a computer who gives the same responses to the same input, but if it's broke, why not take a look at it? If there are all these people going into addiction and other life difficulty at greater rates when they have perceived that their fathers to have rejected them, why not look at the research that has been done? You want to throw out so much research because it has the same limitations as 95% of the research out there (including global warming research), but then argue it's conservatives who don't listen to science. Would it be any more valid to ask study respondents about their living arrangements if the purpose of the study is to ascertain the specific benefits of having a caring father? It doesn't take a genius to recognize that just because a father lists the same street address as a child doesn't mean the child is feeling loved by the father, and I think you get that. But ask yourself if it's more difficult for a father's child to feel loved if they live somewhere else, and the answer is not a difficult one (that's a yes), unless the father is in fact a rejecting one to begin with (in which case there would be less of a negative, but not a positive presentation of attachment).

No Morris, I got on your use of impugn because you were the one who decided to start talking about your GREs scores many posts ago. That you regret bringing it up does not reduce my enjoyment of reminding you of the imprudence of your decision.

How could I attack something (substance) that wasn't there?

Are you suggesting that "global warming research" relies on survey data about feelings taken without reference to causal fact?

Let me ask you a very simple question about the study we are supposedly discussing:

What is the difference between the two data points?

Child one: two parent home, affluent, good schools, three square meals, active extracurricular life, believes self to be fully loved by both parents.

Child two: One parent home, occasional contact with other parent, below the poverty line, repeated grades, sometimes hungry, latchkey child with no adult supervision in the afternoons, believes self to be fully loved by both parents.

To the study above, there is no difference, because it is based on the perception of the child. Which, if we accept your statement, is, in fact, reality. George Will has nothing to say about this kind of perception. He says that poor black women "lightly parent" their children, and those children are therefore more prone to various bad things.

Note, I have never said that "no children ever grow up to do bad things. Armand said that Will was an idiot (or thereabouts). My argument has been that your arguments and reference to metastudies does nothing to prove that Will is not an idiot, but rather provides further evidence against him.

It reminds me of one of the things that convinced me that survey research often doesn't measure what we think it measures. I interviewed a woman with three teeth and no job (she was too old to work as a maid anymore) living in a one room dirt floor shack in the middle of an open sewer. More of her children had died than had survived. She had no husband to help her with any of it. When I asked her about her life, which by most standards of existence had been full of misery, she said (loose translation): well, three of my children survived, they all have jobs, and I have my little home, so I am extremely fortunate.

Clearly we all know people with an embarrassment of riches who are miserable, and would not share this woman's assessment. It doesn't mean that the children's feelings about parenting are not valid, but that we must be cautious in their interpretation. Not that it's relevant anyway, as Will was just going around asserting, and didn't even take the time, as you have, to procure studies to support his assertions.

Morris,

Look, it's clear that you don't understand some very fundamental points about the scientific method (as imperfect as it is). If you want to study what the effect of two versus one parent families is on various aspects of children (how well do they learn? do they stay out of trouble? what sort of jobs do they get?) then you have to collect data. The data you collect has to reflect accurately both sides of the equation.

In other words, if you are trying to measure parenting, you measure how many adults live permenantly with the kids (and you have to decide if a unmarried couple who live permenantly together counts, among other data-driven decisions). You don't ask the kid how many parents he/she has. That's not valid data, 'cause the kid can be wrong, the kid can lie, the kid can consider one parent (or both) to be awful and say that they have only one. You see? If you want to measure the perceptions of the kids on how they do (school, crime, jobs, whatever), then you can ask the kid (who will give you the kids perception of how many/what sort of parent they have - that's the kids reality, but the kids reality isn't necessarily the real reality, if you see what I'm saying). So, I don't discount what you are trying to argue - if the kid "feels" like he/she has two loving parents, then the kid will do better than with one parent: that's a study one can design and test. But that's not the same question as how one-parent families perform compared to two-parent families - to study this requires actually measuring how many parents they are (and, depending on how you define "parenting" it becomes more complex: live-in grandparents? live-in boyfriends/girlfriends? live-in renters - don't laugh: I ended up "parenting" an 6 year old kid while living in the house with his parents while I worked in Vermont for a year and a half). It's a similiar question, but not the same.

In science, your study is only as good as the variables it measures: you can't claim to be measuring one-parent-versus-two if all you are doing is asking kids about what sort of "feelings" they get from parenting.

Is this clear, now?

I don't pick on Binky, because she is moderately logical, and understands this already. If she forgets, I'll remind her.

Only moderately logical? You asshole!!!

Yeah, let's talk about favorites now, huh?

Update of interest: Respectful of Otters links to this on blaming the victim. Via Pandagon.