No, Being Raised By A ‘Group Of Pals’ Isn’t Better Than Having A Mom And Dad: One doesn’t need a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to know that children need a mother and a father, not an artificial womb and a group of drinking buddies

No, Being Raised By A ‘Group Of Pals’ Isn’t Better Than Having A Mom And Dad:

One doesn’t need a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to know that children need a mother and a father, not an artificial womb and a group of drinking buddies.

In the week leading up to Mother’s Day weekend, The Atlantic thought it would be the perfect time to run a piece on pro-natalism policies arguing that being raised by “a group of friends” “might be even better” than being raised by a mother and father.

Perhaps this should be unsurprising considering The Atlantic’s atrocious track record of hoax-peddling and left-wing bias. It should be even less of a shock in light of the fact that the author, Faith Hill, has touted the virtue of skipping family holiday gatherings, argued for spouses maintaining a stranglehold on their individual autonomy, and advised readers to “take yourself on a date” “to honor [your] aloneness.” After the reversal of Roe v. Wade, she lamented that “the gap between dystopian plots and actual life feels like it’s shrinking” — because, apparently, a world in which there are some limits on the legality of parents paying an abortionist to kill their unborn child is a very dark place.

Admittedly, Hill’s cautious openness to the possibility that there might be a problem with America’s basement-level birth rate is an improvement on the media’s years of collaborating with scientists, researchers, and so-called experts to demonize parents who have more than 1.8 children and strike fear in the hearts of young people who entertain the idea of having children. At the same time, it isn’t committing a genetic fallacy to pause and consider whether a member of the legacy media is the person most qualified to dictate pro-natalist policy prescriptions. In fact, news outlets with a robust, decades-long track record of promoting no-holds-barred promiscuity, self-enforced sterility (as the magical highway to adult utopian-theme-park experience), abortion-on-demand, and climate change paranoia seem unlikely to have a reasonable perspective on the issue.

Hill does acknowledge the breakdown in the traditional family since the 1970s but (unsurprisingly) fails to ponder whether this decline might be linked to the collapse in birth rates that took place over the same period. She decries Project 2025 for stating that “married men and women are the ideal, natural family structure,” claiming that “a pronatalist policy that defines family so narrowly” is a “moral” and “strategic” error because it “acknowledge[es] only a type of household that most Americans don’t fit into.” (Married couples still account for nearly 50 percent of U.S. households, but Hill is deftly obscuring a deeper reality here. Every child has a mother and a father — not just 50 percent — and those three make up a natural family, regardless of whether the child ends up being raised by a same-sex couple or “group of friends.”)

To support her argument, Hill turns to Cambridge psychologist Susan Golombok, whose research was cited in briefs supporting what would be the final outcomes in Obergefell and Bostock. Golombok, Hill writes, has purportedly discovered that “parents in nonconventional family structures tend to be more involved than straight, married parents on average,” and “what counts more for kids is … the quality of their relationships with family members, and whether they’re accepted by the outside world.” Hill doesn’t delve into the details of Golombok’s research in the article but concludes that “at least half a century of research supports the idea that a household arrangement itself isn’t what makes a kid happy and healthy.”

Marriage isn’t a “magical fix-all,” Hill observes, noting that one could be “raised by two miserably married, constantly arguing parents.” She quotes Harvard sociologist Christina Cross, who downplays the benefits of marriage because it doesn’t automatically make poor families affluent (as if marriage were some sort of get-rich scheme). “The benefits of the two-parent structure, [Cross] said, ‘are just not universal.’”

In other words, it really doesn’t matter whether one gets married or spends life on a relationship carousel (or rollercoaster); the kids will be fine. And it doesn’t matter whether children have a mom and a dad, or two dads, or 20 dads, or a managing partner and a flock of interns. A child could be raised by Bill Belichick, his girlfriend, and the North Carolina football team, and still get good grades and go to college, so clearly the traditional family is outdated. Government should subsidize the creation of motherless and fatherless kids so anyone who wants to can go pick one up from the local artificial-womb warehouse or order one on Amazon. —>READ MORE HERE

Source

Jesus Christ is King