TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Justice for Men and Boys
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Mensactivism
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

[X-Post TIL] The relationship between single-parent families and crime is so strong that controlling for it erases the difference between race and crime and between low income and crime.

[deleted]

May 6, 2015
113 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/350x6i/til_the_relationship_between_singleparent/
Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title [X-Post TIL] The relationship between single-parent families and crime is so strong that controlling for it erases the difference between race and crime and between low income and crime.
Author

[deleted]

Upvotes 113
Comments 36
Date May 6, 2015 8:17 AM UTC
(11 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/351dmy/xpost_til_the_relationship_between_singleparent/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/x-post-til-the-relationship-between-single-parent.981064
https://theredarchive.com/post/981064

Comments

[–]notmyusualreddit 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

The reddit statisticians are already trying to debunk it.. but anyone thats seen how a single mom raises their kids vs how single dads do knows that being raised by only a mom is asking for trouble.

[–]MemeticParadigm 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

My biggest problem with this piece is that the work they cite twice (and refer to sans citation at least one other time, and refer to as "the best of these [13 major] studies"),

M. Anne Hill and June O’Neill, “Underclass Behaviors in the United States: Measurement and Analysis of Determinants,”

appears almost completely inaccessible - it's not online as far as I can tell, it's available in print at 4 libraries in the entire US, and I can't readily find a place to even order it, so it's impossible to ascertain how much the author is paraphrasing or what important bits of context from the study might be left out. If anyone happens upon a link to that source online, I'd genuinely love to see it.

According to one study, children raised in single-parent families are one-third more likely to exhibit anti-social behavior - Source: Figure 5

Figure 5 does appear to show this but only if we leave out mother+stepfather families. In fact, for most of the negative associations in that study, mother+stepfather households do just as poorly or even worse than single-parent households. Additionally, for a number of categories, the single-mother never married category performs significantly better than the single-mother divorced category.

This seems to point to interpersonal conflict in the household having at least as strong of a negative impact as having 1 vs 2 parents in the household - i.e. although a child may, on average, be best off with both bio-parents, the child of a single mother who didn't get married in the first place will, on average, be better off than the child of a mother who got married to the child's father and then got divorced.

Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent. Source: table 5, rows 4 and 5.

What's interesting to note here is that the welfare increase actually has no (or even an insignificant, negative) impact on the probabilities of becoming pregnant or carrying to term, it only has a significant, positive influence on the probability of being unmarried at birth.

The conclusion we should draw, then, is not that welfare increases the likelihood of a woman deciding to get pregnant without being married, but that it reduces the incidence of shotgun weddings in response to unplanned pregnancies.

Given the findings in the author's 3rd source, cited above, which seem to indicate that divorce and other factors which indicate high levels of interpersonal conflict in the household are just as damaging as single-parenting, and the trivial assumption that such shotgun weddings are generally more likely to end in divorce and/or significant conflict within the relationship, which is actually worse for crime than just remaining unmarried, the author's conclusion that

higher welfare > more births out of wedlock > more crime

doesn't seem all that well supported.

[–]iainmf 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

If it can be debunked, it should be.

[–]scdi 20 points21 points22 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Reddit debunking:

I think the sample size was too small (without any statistics being done).

This study disproves it (link to study that does not disprove it).

Here is an advocacy site that say they are wrong (link to site with no citations).

That is sexist/racist/etc.

The study is old and no longer applies.

The author was obviously biased.

[–]emperorhirohito 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Better than Tumblr debunk. That just calls everyone racist.

[–]MemeticParadigm 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The study is old and no longer applies.

Just want to point out that, at least in this case, a caveat that older data may well be a significantly poorer source of trends that are relevant to current day is stated right in one of the author's sources:

Since the effects of divorce and single parenthood may depend in part on how frequently these family structures occur - that is, the extent to which they are non-normative - contemporary data are preferable for generalizing to current effects of family structure.

and that was stated by the source in 1991, which used a data source from 1988, so the data was ~3 years old at the time. That data is now ~27 years old.

[–]dungone 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

That's true, but that would only really come into play if you were comparing an older study to a newer study.

The way armchair statisticians would have you believe, 1988 data is too old to tell us anything about 1988, because by golly, it's 30 years old.

[–]MemeticParadigm 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The way armchair statisticians would have you believe, 1988 data is too old to tell us anything about 1988, because by golly, it's 30 years old.

Err, did you mean for that 2nd 1988 to be 2015?

I ask because, if you didn't, your example of an armchair statistician is electing a position that's really hard to defend in the 1st place, and I don't think I've really seen much of anyone defend that view, so it seems a bit strawman-ish.

[–]dungone 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I see it all the time and they're usually the ones doing the strawmanning. If you do a study in 2015 using 1988 data, they will want to throw away the study in it's entirely. They will not only refuse to acknowledge that this could still be happening today, but will refuse to acknowledge that it happened in 1988 by going back to their claim that it can't possibly be true anymore. It's like arguing with a brick wall.

If you actually want to use the stats as a jumping off point to have a qualitative discussion about what happened in 1988, how single motherhood had resulted in increased poverty and social problems that obviously continued into the future, what the dynamics of it were (even stuff that is backed by very recent data, such as the positive effects of fathers in children's lives), then they will simply strawman you by accusing you of blindly trying to treat 2015 as if it were 1988. The bottom line is that even though the data is old, it still points to a history of single motherhood that is mired in social failure. They refuse to even consider it and jump to emotional arguments such as, "my mother raised 7 kids by herself and we all became Harvard MBA's!"

And I can't remember a single time where someone had actually offered up newer data as they were using this "it's old" special pleading to dismiss studies that they were ideologically opposed to.

[–]MemeticParadigm 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They will not only refuse to acknowledge that this could still be happening today, but will refuse to acknowledge that it happened in 1988 by going back to their claim that it can't possibly be true anymore.

Ahh - I guess I'm just fortunate enough to not have run into that frequently enough to notice a pattern.

Data is data. Data that isn't properly contextualized is worthless but, as long as 30 year old data is interpreted in the context of the environment 30 years ago, acting like it's somehow completely invalid just seems so stupid to me.

[–]crunchboombang -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You just listed real and valid reasons why a study could be debunked.

[–]chavelah 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I've known plenty of highly effective single moms. And, to my grief, a couple of extremely shitty single dads. People are people, the quality of their parenting isn't dependent on their gender.

[–]notmyusualreddit 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not saying that its not possible for one to outpace the other in select examples, but on average trends can easily form. Saying people are people seems to ignore the differences between these two very different types of people.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Their quality of their parenting is informed by how society holds them accountable for their parenting however, and mothers are given a lot more slack.

[–]chavelah 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

True. Women also get the opportunity to try their hand at parenting simply by giving birth and walking out of the hospital with a baby, whereas men have to demonstrate some level of social and emotional competence in order to be put in a parenting role. They have to 1) be in a stable, commited relationship with their child's mother or 2) be able to negotiate a coparenting arrangement with an ex or a casual sex partner or 3) be able to convince a judge that they are a more fit parent than their ex wife/girlfriend/fuckbuddy.

[–]dungone 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Those are all good points, but keep in mind that children do best in a stable nuclear family and that women also have to have their shit together, socially and emotionally, to make a marriage work. Even in that context, husbands are heavily scrutinized as parents while mothers sort of just get to parent by the mantra of "mother knows best".

[–]chavelah 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No disagreement here. It takes two to do the nuclear family tango.

[–]SigmundFloyd76 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Very well said.

Single dad here. I feel like I'm under constant scrutiny. I subscribe to the "free range" parenting concept and I have a very deliberate and reasoned parenting style based on two main points: I communicate with my children as if they are humans and I am honest. No baby-talk, no referring to myself in the third person ("now now, daddy doesn't like that behavior"-ARGH), no bullshit about boogiemen; real or imaginary, and I consider myself lucky to have the privilege to mold these two humans into good and happy people.

So when kids have a disagreement at the park, I deliberately try to let them resolve it themselves, or I'll intentionally not tell my daughter to "get down from there" because i'm certain she is able to manage her own risk (to a degree) etc etc. I am constantly having to defend my parenting actions against helicopter moms at the playground who imply I'm less than a dedicated parent.

Meanwhile my kids are the most reasonable, well adjusted little humans that i've ever met. And it's no accident: I'm deliberately TRYING to make them this way.

Yada yada, I could go on and on. Great comment. You speak like you have some authority on the issue. Cheers.

[–]Macismyname 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If god forbid I ever have children, I hope I'm that kind of parent. I fully intend to be, but everyone goes into parenthood with the best of intentions.

Kudos man, you sound great.

[–]Juan_Golt 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Since there is a bias in the way men become primary parents, we should expect to find a different average parenting ability.

[–]Xerkule 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not the correlations they're debunking, it's the implied conclusion. The finding in the title could just mean that all those factors are highly correlated with one another. In that situation, controlling for any one factor will reduce the apparent relationship between the others.

It doesn't necessarily mean that people in single parent families with high income commit as many crimes as people in single parent families with low income. It could just mean there are many more single parents with low income.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I find the low income link negation particularly interesting.

[–]sedatedinsomniac 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's not especially surprising. Look at appalachia, Nepal, and other poor regions around the world. Crime isn't universally coralated with poverty but it is very closely tied to cultures where one of the parents abandons the offspring and to cultures that celebrate violence and crime.

[–]bennejam000 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think that's actually the correlation being made. It's not the low income that's causing the crime, it's the lack of decent male role models as a byproduct of the nation ensuring mothers can raise their kids. The problem arises as women become more capable of financing a household without a second income and marriage isn't a necessary structure. The households lack male influence for young boys who search for that influence and in areas that have heavy gang influence, they can influence young boys and bring them in at young ages. Poverty has nothing to do with it, but rather the social/family structure changes that have resulted from covering up the financial burden of children.

[–]chavelah 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The Cato Institute absolutely has an axe to grind with poor people in general. But they're not wrong about the effect of normalizing out-of-wedlock parenthood. They're calling it "single parenthood," not recognizing that the fathers of these income-generating children are very often involved in their lives - but unofficially, since their presence in the household as an actual family member would shift the burden of providing support off the government and onto them. Meanwhile, the young mother avoids employment for the same reason - to keep the welfare benefits flowing. I can't blame any poor person for looking at the system and making rational economic choices in response to how it functions, but yes, the current welfare model encourages young people to have children they can't support, and to have children outside of marriage.

[–]TheHappyGiant 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

That's the actually issue. Welfare benefits create a culture of dependency and the effect is independent of race (urban areas for blacks, Appalachia for whites). Both areas mimic the same behavior that was predicted by Patrick Moynihan (democrat Senator) in the 70's.

[–]bennejam000 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The difference is everyone leaves Appalachia (and rural areas with the same problems), out of the news because a couple of hillbillies doing stupid stuff doesn't make news but God forbid a black kid in urban anywhere runs from the police and gets hurt doing it (understatement I know, but even minor stuff like that makes the news).

[–]thekarateguy 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It is likely a confluence of several factors, but I would hesitate to discount the poverty/crime relationship.

I also would be very interested to see some research that compares single father vs single mother households with respect to the crime rates of their children. Anyone know of such a study?

[–]DroogDim 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, that can't be true. Otherwise the wholly made up narrative about the evils of the traditional family, and the uselessness of fathers, wouldn't be worth the pixels on which they are memorialized.

[–]CornyHoosier 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm an only child raised by a single mother (and we were very poor). She had to work a lot to afford everything, but she always told me I could be whatever I wanted.

I've never been in trouble with the law. It's been a struggle to get to where I am, but she has always given me positive encouragement when I'm feeling down.

[–]Bed_Invader 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I was raised by a single mother and then a single father - the same thing here. But I don't find it hard to believe...we were lucky enough to be one of the none-correlated.

[–]InBaggingArea 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This does seem an extraordinary result.

[–]joe_bruised_ego 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

When statistics are perfectly correlated it erases them. It would be just as accurate to say “the relationship between race and crime is so strong that controlling for it erases the difference between single-parent families and crime and between low income and crime” or “the relationship between low income and crime is so strong that controlling for it erases the difference between race and crime and between single-parent families and crime.”

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What's it's saying is that when you look at families with fathers and mothers present, whether the children go on to commit crime is not correlated with wealth or race.

To think of it a different way, the reason that poor families and black families correlate strongly with high levels of juvenile crime is they also have high rates of single mother households, which appears to be the common correlating factor.

[–]joe_bruised_ego 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

But, because there’s perfect correlation between all those things you can swap them around any way you want.

It’s just as accurate to say when you look at race, whether the children go on to commit crime is not correlated with wealth or families with fathers and mothers present.

[–]TheDemonicAttorney 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You can't actually swap them around, due to cause and effect timing. Committing a crime doesn't retroactively mean you were raised in a single parent home or were born a minority. The study doesn't say that being poor, or being a minority don't matter when it comes to crime, they said they controlled for it, in order to isolate this third variable. We can place statistical values on the impact of race or poverty on crime rate; based on empirical date already collected. If the rate of crime is greater among single-parent parent homes; than can normally be expected of minority or poor homes, than the third variable is likely playing a role. This is an oversimplification, so statisticians please don't tell me its more complicated, we all know that.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter