When I was growing up in early 1980s Britain there was still something of a stigma attached to single-parent families. They were quite rare, they were talked about, something was considered to be ‘wrong’. By the 1990s and early 2000s these social mores had shifted significantly. As the number of single-parent families dramatically increased, most often headed by single mothers, it became almost taboo to suggest that these hard working parents were somehow at a disadvantage. You had to agree that these families were just as good, both morally, and that the outcomes were just as good as any other family setup. Leah Libresco comments,

I think part of what is shaping the pushback…is the idea that it is wrong to point out that some living situations (and sometimes parental choices) are not so good for their kids if you can’t fix the problem. But this presumes that, first of all, the parents are unaware that their circumstances are less than optimal/actively difficult. And, that it’s impossible to say both, “You’re doing the best you can, based on where you are now” and “but that still can result in harm/bad outcomes.”

On Men and Marriageability

By 2010 any discussion about single parent families had mostly been forgotten as arguments flared up about whether same-sex parents could offer the same or even better advantages than opposite-sexed couples. But now as the weight of research over decades begins to be made available we are able to demonstrate with evidence that children brought up in traditional family structures (i.e two parents of opposite sex) do gain benefits.

Now of course what to do about these results is furiously debated because for some this cannot be right, in the sense of being morally so. The idea that to say a traditional family structure is superior, better, advantageous in and of itself seems to be an offensive one. So they are forced to find and advocate for other alternatives. The advantages must be because of a society’s remaining prejudices which therefore must be eradicated. Only by doing so we will then see all the outcomes evened out. Central to this belief is the idea that all familial roles are swappable pieces. There is nothing inherently necessary and good in any of the constituent parts and perhaps especially so if that role is carried out by a man.

But the evidence seems to be saying that children raised in single-parent households generally have worse economic outcomes, and that generally speaking it is in a nation’s interest to promote marriage over other possibilities even though good policies supporting this are hard to come by.

Correlated to that is the fact that in the majority of cases it is children growing up without the presence of a father that suffer most. Which is why Leah Libresco Sargeant argues that “Father” should not be considered a Part-Time Job even though it is.

Men need to know what they can uniquely contribute to their family. The abiding presence of a father isn’t replaceable by their paycheck, their banked sperm, or their weekend visits.

On Men and Marriageability

As western societies deal with misogyny and a growing misandry, we need to raise the bar for men and remind them that the pattern we’ve rejected (essentially the Christian one) is the one they should aspire to. Cohabitation is a poor substitute for marriage, marriage is more beautiful than we realise, singleness need not be feared or shunned, the gospel speaks to family life, marriage is not gender-neutral and so on. As Christians, society is gifting us an opportunity through our relational lives to stand out in a positive way but we can’t do that if we just endorse the culture and it most likely won’t go well for the church if it does.