Post: #1

Link:

Quote:First, there’s more recent census data, covering 2011. And second, there’s a bit of a mismatch between what Rubio said and what Rector wrote about. Rector was comparing female-headed single-parent households that include kids to married households that have kids. But Rubio didn’t specify that he was talking only about female-headed households that have kids. About one of every five single-parent households is headed by a man.

If you use 2011 data and include single-parent households headed by either sex, the numbers come out a bit differently. The data show that 37.2 percent of single-parent households are in poverty, compared to 10.9 percent for married families with kids. That’s a 71 percent decrease in the likelihood of poverty, rather than 82 percent.

If I'm reading this right, this leftist article is implying the following:

- Rubio says a child born in a two parent family is 82% less likely to be born in poverty than a child born in a single parent family.
- The article says that's true ONLY IF you look at children raised in a single parent family by a woman.
- If you include a single parent family where a man is the parent, the poverty rate isn't quite as low and thus a child is only 71% likely to be born in poverty.

So, fathers are more important than mothers.

Am I reading this wrong? This is a leftist publication and they seem to be refuting one of their major talking points.

Post: #2

The leftists' points have already been thoroughly refuted. Destructive effects of single mother households have been already been well documented and presented numerous times. The problem with sociology and public opinion is in hamsterizing away these findings, not the lack of findings.

However in this case, even though men fare a bit better, comparing a single parent family led by a man and a single parent family led by a woman is not much of a solace - it's still a huge gap in comparison to a proper family no matter how you put it.