In response to our post about The Dysfunctional Society, an astute reader wrote to us:
When I read the first paragraph of the original Wash Times article a couple of days ago, I got the same impression: two-parent households have been superseded by single-parent households. It wasn't till I got to paragraph 8 that I realized I was mistaken (and then I had to read it twice to be sure). By "single-adult household", they [include] "one adult and no-one else". This definition includes my elderly, widowed mother, or my never-married brother.
Being cynical, I suspect the newspaper reporter deliberately used phrasing that would mislead the casual reader, or headline-scanner. After all, it would fit the Left's agenda to have us all thinking that "mom, pop, and two kids" is obsolete; that there are many more "families" that are just "parent and kid(s)". But according to the article, the top three living arrangements are:
1. Single adult (one person alone)
2. Nuclear family (two married parents and a child)
3. Married households without children.
The article never says where "single-parent households" rank, and I think that is a very revealing ommision.
She's right. The census figures are explained here. Link. Excerpt:
In fact, the Census Bureau's category “single-adult” takes in a lot of people. William Devlin, the founder of the Urban Family Council, says it includes both ends of the life cycle; young people just starting out and older people who are widowed.
We would also point out that most single-parent families tend to have only one or two children. More stable families tend to have larger families. As a result, greater numbers of children are being raised by two parents. Those children will, in turn, be more stable when they grow up.
Congratulations to the sharp reader. TDE and the Washington Times weren't the only ones to sound the defeat bell too loudly. Link.
