Thats possibly the dumbest and most irresponsible thing ive read all week. Children need two caretakers of ideally different genders, or otherwise role models actively involved in their development to compensate, to develop into truly well rounded and emotionally stable and healthy people. That is a proven fact.
The nucleus family model evidently achieves better results than any variant of single parenting, simply because there are two caretakers instead of one. You make it sound like in vitro fertilization of single women is some sort of yass queen feminist shortcut to having a well adjusted child, it definitely is not.
And a woman in that situation should seriously ask herself if a deliberately fatherless child in their life is actually for that not yet existing kid, or an act of vanity and inability to emotionally connect to a potential father.
How so? Would you actually argue that the time and resources of two people are not more effective than those of just one? Or that any child needs both male and female role models and people of trust in their lives?
How about a single mom who is a self made millionaire? She sold her internet startup for more money than you and I will ever see and retired at 30. She can spend 24 hours a day with her child, and never has to worry about money for the rest of her life.
What can your average middle class married heterosexual couple provide that she can’t?
Also, I’m curious what your thoughts are on a polygamous/ polyandrous household. Let’s say a woman has three husbands, and they are all parents to that child. That should be twice as good as just one mom and dad, right? Does it change your opinion if it’s one man with three wives?
Thats possibly the dumbest and most irresponsible thing ive read all week. Children need two caretakers of ideally different genders, or otherwise role models actively involved in their development to compensate, to develop into truly well rounded and emotionally stable and healthy people. That is a proven fact.
The nucleus family model evidently achieves better results than any variant of single parenting, simply because there are two caretakers instead of one. You make it sound like in vitro fertilization of single women is some sort of yass queen feminist shortcut to having a well adjusted child, it definitely is not.
And a woman in that situation should seriously ask herself if a deliberately fatherless child in their life is actually for that not yet existing kid, or an act of vanity and inability to emotionally connect to a potential father.
Congratulations! A new record!
You just wrote something FAR more stupid than what you replied to!
How so? Would you actually argue that the time and resources of two people are not more effective than those of just one? Or that any child needs both male and female role models and people of trust in their lives?
Your argument seems to revolve around:
More parents = more resources = better children
How about a single mom who is a self made millionaire? She sold her internet startup for more money than you and I will ever see and retired at 30. She can spend 24 hours a day with her child, and never has to worry about money for the rest of her life.
What can your average middle class married heterosexual couple provide that she can’t?
Also, I’m curious what your thoughts are on a polygamous/ polyandrous household. Let’s say a woman has three husbands, and they are all parents to that child. That should be twice as good as just one mom and dad, right? Does it change your opinion if it’s one man with three wives?