OK, let's keep it simple. There is a mountain of evidence that children of single parents tend to fare worse in a wide range of outcomes than children of two-parent families. That is well-known, well-studied and it seems a point with which you agree as far as it goes. Am I right so far? You also seem to agree with the well-known and well-studied fact that the above point is true regardless of race, class, income, education, etc. Right?

My understanding of your point is that, because all those studies I've referred to don't isolate families that have not incurred the "loss" of a parent, i.e. those families that were single-parent from the outset, we can't conclude that those in your special category will have the same problems as those in the broader group. (Of course they include those, but they don't isolate those and study those separately from the others.) Am I right? I don't want to put words in your mouth.

You acknowledge that there is absolutely no empirical basis for the proposition that families in the latter group would be any different from families in the former group in terms of their children's outcomes. Right?

So my question to you is "why mention this at all?" Since you have no basis for thinking, if you do, that the group of families you identify will be better or worse off than those in the multiple studies I referred to.

And given that you have no basis for believing families in the category you identified would be different, why not apply at least provisionally, the information that we do have, particularly since the groups those studies surveyed included the category you identify?

why don't you name me all the feminist authors who have abjured the anti-male, anti-father nonsense I talk about. I read a lot of feminist writing and it's not only what they say that's so troubling, but what they don't say. So yes, there are fewer feminists who openly say, for example, that all men are rapists and that's all they are, which I suppose is a blessing, but where are the feminists who loudly and stridently reject those views? Who are these feminists who reject the anti-father, anti-family mantra intoned by so many feminists for so long? How many feminists go to bat for fathers' rights in family courts? For presumption of shared parenting laws? For enforcement of visitation orders? For reasonable standards of proof in TR cases? etc, etc.

It's easy to make blanket statements about how father-friendly feminsts are, but there's a mountain of evidence against the point and very little to support it.

Oh and by the way, I'm scarcely the first or only person to mention this. I've run into lots of people, men and women alike, who see feminism's anti-male, anti-father biases and shake their heads.

try to pay attention. I for one have repeatedly referred to single parents, not single mothers. If people are talking about single mothers, it's (a) because the subject of the article is a woman, (b) there's a lot more data on single mothers than single fathers or (c) there's an organization called Single Mothers By Choice whose founder wrote a post to this thread.

different people do things differently; they place value on different things. Even if we can say, and I don't beleive we can, that women tend to like a cleaner house than men, why does that have to mean that women's way is better and that men are stupid, incompetent or "just don't get it" if they disagree?

Actually, years ago, Salon had an interesting article on the subject in which various women agreed that they tend to think of themselves as the authority on domestic life including childcare and that men needed to comply with their demands. In other words, women wield power at home and that includes setting standards for how clean the house has to be, when the child goes to bed, etc. Men tend to agree with this too and cede power at home to women.

Former NOW president Karen DeCrow said years ago that for women to gain power in the workplace, they'd have to cede power at home. So to the extent that women don't cede power over domestic authority, they will tend to play second fiddle at work. That's because, if the woman is the only competent adult at home, when it comes time to nurse the sick child or whatever, she'll be the one to do it, to the detrimient of her paid job. So Slate's depiciton of men as helpless at home tends to keep women second at work. It's more important than just thoughtlessness by Slate, it's ultimately anti-women's equality and should be viewed that way.

Which means that Broadsheet's take is not only kinder to men, it tends to promote equality of the sexes. I appreciate both the content and the tone of this piece. May there be more of them.

all us heteros are alike and all you gays are alike. Amazing how that happens.