Dear Larry: I am disturbed and puzzled by your response to "Proud Mother" regarding single parenting. You said: "There are examples of good single parenting, but the failures are the norm. For the good of society, we should advocate two-parent families and speak out against fathers and mothers who abandon their children."
It seems to me the issue is not single parenting, but bad parenting. Simply having two parents isn't the solution; it doesn't necessarily pull a child out of poverty, spare him psychological problems, or improve his health or performance in school. Many children are better off without a parent who isn't prepared to fulfill the responsibilities of parenthood.
Children need to be loved, supported and inspired to become the very best versions of themselves. This can be done in any set of circumstances. Granted, some of us face more challenges than others. Poverty, lack of education, and unsafe neighborhoods are the issues that our society must confront.
As a single working mother, I'm tired of being commended for "beating the odds." I have a happy, bright, successful daughter, and it is my privilege and my honor to be her parent.
Consider me another proud single parent. — Gayle
Dear Gayle: Congratulations on your parenting success. With that said, I stand by my statement because the statistics support my conclusion that all things being equal, two parents do better than one. This is especially true with single mothers raising boys.
It has been my experience that single mothers are able to control their sons until their sons become larger than they are.
This usually begins with the onset of puberty. Once the son is bigger, he begins to exert more and more independence. However, if there is an active father in the family, the son's independence is delayed.
I meet so many mothers who have lost control of their sons. These boys, who are in their early teens, are roaming the streets unsupervised and getting into trouble.
I remember when my son first challenged his mother at age 12. He was taller and larger than his mother. My wife told him to take out the trash. An hour later, the trash was not removed, and my wife said, "Do it right now." He responded that he would dump the trash when he was good and ready.
I overheard the conversation and immediately reacted. I, being much larger than my son, looked him right in the eye with flashing eyes, letting him know that he was never to disrespect his mother again.
When my son became as large as I was, he was older and had learned to empathize, respect authority, and love his parents. It was the latter characteristic that kept him under control until he became an adult.
As an aside, your letter is an exception. Most people who responded agreed with my observation. The following is a typical example.
Dear Larry: I liked your response to "Proud Mother."
I agree that there is no excuse for parents who abandon their children. The thing that you missed is that a large number of custodial parents do everything they can to alienate the other parent.
A child needs to be raised by two caring parents, even if they are not together. That child has the right to have a relationship with each parent. — Dan
To find out more about Larry G. Meeks and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
|
 |
Comments
|
13 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Larry, if I had spoken to my parents like that, it would've been the same reaction, but I also would've gotten my TV privileges revoked.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Roger
Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:45 PM
|
|
|
|
So when Larry made the request for positive letters, why didn't he include a disclaimer that read, "But not from single parents?" So far every positive letter I've seen since that column ran has been met with Larry promptly dismissing them because they're not positive in the way that HE wants. Stories of single parents overcoming difficult circumstances to raise good children? We'll have none of that here! Fortunately Larry turned it around with yet another positive anecdote about (who else?) himself.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Jon
Sun Nov 21, 2010 5:14 PM
|
|
|
|
I don't see it that way, Jon. Look at what Larry actually said: "Congratulations on your parenting success. With that said, I stand by my statement because the statistics support my conclusion that all things being equal, two parents do better than one." He seems to be willing to admit that the one-parent arrangement does "work out" now and then at raising a a child into successful adult, but that it's best whenever possible to hedge the bet - and have a 2nd parent in the picture. He is saying - both in this column and his previous one - that if you roll the dice, the two-parent model comes out ahead every time. I don't think he means to demean single parents; he's simply saying that statistically (and all other things being equal), the traditional nuclear family is the best model to follow. I really am not seeing where Larry makes any statement other than that one.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Matt
Sun Nov 21, 2010 11:10 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Matt
I do agree that having two invested parents is ideal and preferable to a single parent doing it alone. I guess my issue is that there's a difference between speaking out against parents who abandon their children (which is of course reprehensible), and painting all single parents with that same broad stroke. A mother or father who abandons his or her child always needs to be taken to task for such irresponsibility. I just think that unforeseen circumstances can see a person make all the right decisions, have the best intentions and still end up a single parent just as easily as someone who landed in that position through poorly made choices. I'm not saying we should stop encouraging the idea of children having an involved mother and father. But it would probably be more productive to also examine how less traditional families (single parents, grandparents raising children, same-sex couples) also manage to raise healthy, well-adjusted children. The non-nuclear families are going to continue to exist and grow.
On a separate note, I know how quickly these discussions can turn ugly, and I appreciate your willingness to keep a civil tone.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Jon
Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:05 PM
|
|
|
|
It would be nice if he would put something in about how it's good to pick a good partner before you risk pregnancy so that you can have that good 2 parent family.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Laurie
Mon Nov 22, 2010 7:02 PM
|
|
|
|
There is one excellent point in this article that I haven't seen discussed anywhere else. For some personality types, and perhaps more commonly for young men, there's a physical aspect to authority, such that if one person is larger or stronger, he or she instinctively pushes the limits with the authority figure or even upsets the authority structure. It's animal instinct, kind of like the way dogs can upset the hierarchy in the pack if the leader is weak or missing. But in the presence of someone who could (in theory) physically enforce discipline, young people control themselves better.
I have known many men raised by single mothers who turned out well, but in every case the mother in question is an extremely strong, capable, intelligent person. A simply average woman just isn't mentally or emotionally strong enough or confident enough to be an enforcer toward someone who's physically bigger or stronger. Ever hear that phrase "it's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog"? It's true with people too, and while some women have more than enough "fight" and are stronger that way than most teenaged boys, the average woman just doesn't have it no matter how hard she tries. A woman with less "fight" than average, or one who's crippled by untreated addiction or untreated mental illness, doesn't stand a chance.
As a child matures, he or she must develop the ability to listen to and obey people who are in a position of authority, but who aren't necessarily physically dominant, in order to function in society. On the job, how often do we have to follow the orders of someone who's less qualified, or younger, or less educated, or just plain wrong? All the time. If we can't do it as adults, we end up fired. But there are a lot of people who finish childhood and adolescence without developing the ability to control their animal instincts, and it ruins their lives.
There may not be a way to guarantee that young people learn compassion or develop maturity, but having someone around who could physically enforce discipline should the need arise definitely buys a time and increases the odds it will happen. A father (assuming he isn't abusive or a complete goof) fills this role nicely just by being there. Doing a positive male role model thing or helping support the family financially is even better.
Comment: #6
Posted by: R.A.
Wed Nov 24, 2010 9:16 AM
|
|
|
|
R.A. your post is extremely wise and contains some sage thinking. I'd like to commend your insight. It's natural for young men to challenge parental authority around age 18 or so, and being that males are often physically very strong and limber during this period, that combines with the rashness for which young men are known and they find it difficult, if not impossible to submit to someone smaller and weaker - their mothers. A father, on the other hand, is often still bigger and stronger than the son - and he can discourage boys from exercising those base impulses or physically intimidating others. He can help maintain discipline in the household long enough for the son to either "grow up" mentally or until the young man is ready to leave the house on his own.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Matt
Thu Nov 25, 2010 12:12 AM
|
|
|
|
Following this logic, the real problem isn't single parenting. It's short parents. Short parents be banned!
It's parenting, not controlling a prison population. There are plenty of ways to exert influence and control without physical size. Come on!
Comment: #8
Posted by: Jpp
Thu Nov 25, 2010 6:26 AM
|
|
|
|
Dear Larry, I am a single parent living with my boyfriend. I pay rent to my friend to let my 18 yearold, that is still going to school to live there. My boyfriend won't let my son live with us, but he needs me to be there to make him go to school. then I pay my boyfriend for staying there too. what can I do to get him to let my son come stay with us, or should I move?
Comment: #9
Posted by: deanne mccurdy
Thu Nov 25, 2010 11:44 AM
|
|
|
|
Most kids who don't want to do their chores/homework want to watch TV and play video games instead. Who's fault is that? It's the parents who allow these things into their homes. I've never heard a kid say "I can't take out the trash because I'm trying to do this science project."
TV is the worst thing for a kid. It keeps children away from the book. Once the TV is gone, the kids will read more.
Comment: #10
Posted by: Roger
Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:19 PM
|
|
|
|
deanne mccurdy: are you kidding me? If you want to write to Larry you have to email to him. He likely won't respond in the comments section.
Quit shacking up with your boyfriend and go and be there for your son. Yeah he's 18 but still in school. He doesn't have a father (you're paying a friend to let him live with him/her?) and now he doesn't have a mother at a crucial time in his life. Kiss off the selfish boyfriend and take care of your kid. Eventually your son will marry and have kids and have no time for you since you put your jerk of a boyfriend first. Don't worry, deanne, there are still jerks out there for you to date later once you've helped be there to launch your son!
I guess I'm trying to say, 'Move!'
Comment: #11
Posted by: Lori
Sun Nov 28, 2010 4:24 AM
|
|
|
|
@jpp: Like I said, it's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog. It's an issue of assertiveness, authority, and inner strength, with physical strength as a substitute if these other things aren't present.
Comment: #12
Posted by: R.A.
Mon Nov 29, 2010 1:41 PM
|
|
|
|
Is Larry saying that it takes brute force to keep a son in line and a mother is not physically strong enough to do so?
Comment: #13
Posted by: Ann Powell
Sun Dec 5, 2010 7:46 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
