Although it may be surprising to some, having two parents in the home provides the greatest economic privilege kids can have. Thus, the decline in marriage has had disastrous cultural implications. In this episode, Sean and Scott discuss the recent book The Two Parent Privilege by Melissa Kearney. They discuss Kearney's 10-year study which shows the host of benefits that are passed on to children who grow up with two parents. While her argument is not biblically-based, it lines up with Scriptural values of the family.



Episode Transcript

Sean: Our culture says that as long as children are loved, the structure of the family doesn't really matter. But is that true? What does the data show about family structure and how it has an impact on children? What exactly are the advantages of two parents instead of one? We'll dive into these questions and more around a new book, The Two Parent Privilege by economist, Melissa Kearney. I'm your host, Sean McDowell.

Scott: I'm your co-host, Scott Rae.

Sean: And this is Think Biblically from Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. Scott, this book came out and both of us are intrigued and fascinated by it. It's called “The Two Parent Privilege.” What's the basic idea and premise behind this book that she's arguing for?

Scott: Really, it's a case of simple math. And she has one chapter that's titled, "Two is greater than one."

Sean: Right.

Scott: And that's really the point, that two parents bestow more advantages on children than does one parent working alone. And that as a result, there's a lot of nuance to this too, but as a result, the advantage is she's viewing this as an economist.

Sean: That's right.

Scott: So she's viewing outcomes in terms of level of education achieved and income achieved. Good job, good future, good income. She's only looking at economic categories and economic outcomes. And we know there are other things that are a part of this too, but she's only focused there. And so the corollary point is that the disadvantages that come from children being raised with one parent instead of two are exacerbating the economic inequalities that are already built into our system.

Sean: I think what's super interesting about this number one is it's University of Chicago Press. I have no idea about her theological, really or political ideology. It doesn't really matter behind it.

Scott: She gives no hint at what those might be.

Sean: I was looking for it. And she took a lot of heat, I think, for just raising certain questions in the world of economics and the assumption that any family structure is equivalent to another. She's saying, let's just look at the data. That doesn't pan out. So if we care about kids and we care about the economic success of our country, we need to make some changes and we'll get into that.

Scott: In fact, she says when she and her husband are together at social gatherings and people start talking about some of these issues, her husband just waits for the time when she says, well, the data doesn't really support that.

Sean: Yes, yes.

Scott: And so this is data-driven. I didn't think the book was gonna read as well as it does, but she's a great writer.

Sean: She is.

Scott: And really makes this stuff come alive.

Sean: All right, so let's start with some of the data. What is the percentage of kids being raised in single parent homes today? And what are some of the other basic statistical facts that we need to know for this discussion?

Scott: Yeah, less than two thirds, just slightly under two thirds of all kids in the United States are being raised in two parent homes. So that's over a third, close to 40% that are being raised in homes that are not two parent in them. One in five kids are being raised in homes with single moms. And in most cases, the mom is not married or cohabiting with a partner. And this is the part that caught me a little off guard and that when it comes to non-college educated children, half of children born to non-college educated parents are in single parent homes.

Sean: Wow.

Scott: And so the big misconception I think was that we often assume that women who are well off, who have good jobs, good careers, good professions, they have the resources to do this on their own. And they're the ones who are opting for this sort of single mother by choice arrangement. Reality is that's not true. The vast majority of people who are single moms are people who are non-college educated and who have less of a financial future and view a potential partner in terms of what they bring to the table economically. And then which reflects back on the sort of what she calls the marriageability of men today too. So there's lots of layers to this that I think are really interesting. But those I think are the basic stats. And what it suggests is that the children who are being disadvantaged by being raised in homes with one parent are simply making the cycle of economic inequality worse. And the gap between the haves and have nots is increasing because of that.

Sean: It was a fascinating point. She said, it's not single moms who are advancing in their careers and have resources that are increasingly a one parent family. It's those who are in poverty and don't have those kinds of resources, have that college degree that are being, only have one parent, so to speak. And that's what makes it hard for them. Now there's also an element here. She said that races are different in terms of the two parent family. So she says 77% of white children, 88% of Asian children lived with their married parents, almost nine out of 10 Asian children. But with Hispanics, it drops to 62% and 38% of black children lived with married parents. So there is a disparity there across the different races that she draws out to.

Scott: And I think to be fair to her too, she is not speculating on some of the reasons for those things. And she's not making a judgment about it. She's viewing this strictly in economic terms. She's not making value judgments here. In fact, she makes a point. She's asked often, does it matter whether the two parents are same sex or opposite sex in terms of the economic outcomes? And she says, really the data doesn't show that there's a lot of difference there. Now we would suggest that there are other things that matter besides the economic parts that make a two parent heterosexual couple a better arrangement for kids than a same sex couple. Mainly that you have modeling for men and for women in the same family setting. So there are other things, but she's not making value judgments and she's not being critical of single moms for some of the choices that they're making. And she points out that some women are single parents because of tragedy, because of divorce or they're widowed. But she said, that's not the majority. The reason most people are in single parent families is by choice, not by tragedy. And she's fully, I mean, I think she gives a lot of grace to people for whom this is not a choice.

Sean: Right. So there is a certain tension in the book. Maybe I would say it is she makes a point economically that two parents are better than one, whether same sex or not. But there's also a lot of attention in the book about the importance of fathers on just the health and the success and the development and the education and the self-image, et cetera, in particular of boys. So she's really asking questions more than she's answering them. What would it take to get more fathers engaged in family and neighborhood life? So can the government play a role? How effectively would the government play a role? Now, of course, she doesn't bring the church into this and other factors. That's a separate conversation. But yes, two parents is better than one, but there is the tension of clearly pointed out that fathers make a distinct difference that I think is a tension within the book. Now, with that said, we don't have to necessarily explore that any further. What do you think has been the response of her academic peers to their research in this area?

Scott: It's really interesting. In fact, in my view, this was some of the most interesting parts of the book.

Sean: Oh, okay.

Scott: Because her academic peers, she's taken a lot of grief for her views because of this widespread cultural assumption that family structure doesn't really matter. And as long as kids are loved and cared for, it just doesn't matter what the nature of the roof is that they're under. And she says that's just simply not true. And so what she's found is that this is a subject that her colleagues don't really wanna talk about. There's something that's taboo about this particular subject. I think the reason for that is because the cultural pressure to view all family structures is on the same level, playing field, is so strong culturally. And we are so nervous about being judgmental about different family structures. And this culture of autonomy that drives this is so powerful today. That I should be able to choose who I wanna love and how I wanna raise my children, however I see fit. And nobody has the right to judge me for that. That is so powerful and built into our culture today. And so her colleagues, I think, how's the term, they're sort of family structure agnostic about it. I think that's not quite the right term, but it's the idea. And they just don't want it. It's just not something they wanna address. And she, in her view, this is a tragic omission because of the impact on kids that she's finding that the data suggests. And now she's talking about mainly when she says two are better than one in terms of parents in the home. She's mainly talking about the economic resources that are available to children. That's the main thing. And she's assuming here that you have two parents, both of whom are working, at least, preferably full-time, but at least some. And that the resources that they're bringing into the family structure are much more significant and they open up far more opportunities for their children than is the case in most one-parent families. Now, obviously there are exceptions to this, but what the data points out is that the economic outcomes are better for kids when they have more of these opportunities that are resourced by having two parents contribute to that as opposed to just one.

Sean: In some ways, it seems so obvious. Why do we need studies to back this up, right? I mean, you have two people. I just look at my wife and I. We have different abilities to fix things, different abilities within the home, literally…

Scott: She's the handy one in your home.

Sean: Fair enough. That is definitely not my lane, I struggle there. But like just having two people that can see things differently, resource differently, ride kids to practice and back, you have more funds, like it's just obvious, although there's exceptions, that two is going to be better than one.

Scott: Yeah, and I think the other part that she points out that has economic benefit is that when you have two, there's much more emotional energy to go around. And that what she discovered with the data shows is that when families struggle financially, there's less emotional bandwidth to invest in the children. And because that financial stress takes up so much of your emotional energy. And some of these single parent families, they're working multiple jobs just to make their ends meet. And when there are two parents around, there's just more emotional energy to go around for the sake of the children. And she said, that's a big part of what parents invest in their children that has economic benefits.

Sean: So the idea even being a kid is more likely to read better. If they have a parent who reads to them sometime in their life, often before bed. But if you have one parent who's working all day and can't do so, you just don't have the energy. I mean, even with my wife, with the two of us, sometimes I don't have the energy at the end of the day, but I try to make it work with my kids 'cause it's valuable. That's just a reality that we have finite energy that gives me a lot of sympathy and compassion for single parent moms. Now, just yesterday, I was interviewing a friend of mine who grew up in the inner city, single parent household. And what he said was it was kind of all hands on neck. You had aunts, you had uncles, you had grandmas. His father was not in the picture, but others stepped in and it was kind of, he literally said the term, it takes a village to raise a child. So that helps and she talks about that in the book, but it still can't replace economically speaking, a mom and a dad in the home, can it?

Scott: Well, not unless that extended family is also contributing significantly financially to the family. But oftentimes that's not the case. The other point that she makes that's related to this is that there is a difference between biological parents and step parents in this, which I didn't see coming because I thought, hey, this is great, I got a dad in the home, whether it's a stepdad or a bio dad didn't really matter that much. She says that data doesn't really support that. And the reason that she hints that, she's holding that reason for loosely, but the reason is because there's more of an emotional connection to biological children than normally than there is to step kids.

Sean: That's right.

Scott: Now there are exceptions to that, of course, and I'm not, and there are lots of step dads and step moms who love their kids and are totally invested in them. But what the data shows is that the kids who have two bio parents in the home do better economically, not just because of the resources, but because of that connection and investment that's being made. And again, that's not, she's not bagging on step parents.

Sean: That's right.

Scott: But she's pointing out that there's a different kind of connection in lots of cases.

Sean: Okay, so let's take a step back and look at this because basically she's pushing back on everything we've heard since the start of the sexual revolution would be okay and good for families, right? And at times she says, here would be my guess and suspicion of why, but she's really just following the data. So we've been told again, a sexual revolution, that divorce is fine for kids, that kids will be okay. She shows that we've come out, that as a whole, divorce has a negative effect on kids. And again, you and I are not putting shame on anybody. We are following the data. So we're told the kids will be fine. Divorce is not a big deal if they love each other. Movies like "Mrs. Doubtfire" says, even sometimes it's better for kids. That doesn't seem to be the case.

Scott: Although she does admit that she's not advocating that couples stay together in abusive, addictive, those kinds of clearly destructive types of homes.

Sean: Of course, so those are, there's always exceptions to this, but as a whole, that doesn't help. We're told that kids don't need two parents. And this is like, yes, they need two. She has a huge section on the father and the influence of the father in the health of a child. So it seems to be that there is a gender component here that actually matters. And so really the argument is, it's your two biological parents that's the most powerful factor economically for the success of a child. And if it's your biological parents, that does mean mom and that means dad. And every other family arrangement we've tried for whatever reason is not as effective economically speaking. That seems to be the heart of what she's arguing. Now that doesn't surprise me at all because of my theological and biblical commitments.

Scott: We would say, that's pretty intuitive.

Sean: That's right, but to see somebody in Oxford Press argue for this is a huge breath of fresh air. And I say kudos to her for following the data where she thinks it points.

Scott: Yeah, now here, there's a part of this where she makes conclusions about dads and boys, which I think is really insightful. Something else is happening with boys and more often than it used to. Many more of them are growing up without dads in their homes. Insofar as dads are teachers and coaches and role models and even disciplinarians, the absence of dads from so many homes, I'm not surprised because having an adverse effect on children, boys especially. Parents are critical role models for their children. Dads are important role models for their sons and boys are an acute disadvantage by not having a loving dad in their home. The challenges face, they say the struggles of boys, they are downstream consequence of the struggles of men. In general, the challenges facing boys and men are mutually reinforcing. As too many men, particularly without college degrees, they become less likely to be suitable or desirable husbands and live in dads, which means more and more boys are growing up without the positive influence of a father at home.

Sean: Wow.

Scott: And she said, this is a pattern that we have to break. And I commend her, she's not, she's following the data. She's not offering a lot of solutions until the very end. And they're largely in the hands of government to be able to fix this. And I think she, one of the parts that I think she's missed is the place of what we call mediating institutions that stand between the state and the individual or between the family that have huge impacts on what the welfare of the family is all about. And so I think that that's the part where we would say, this is where churches, sports teams, boy scouts, girl scouts, although that's not really politically correct any longer. But things that engender those kinds of relationships and bonding between parents and kids that don't involve the state are really crucial elements to making this better. And one thing that I would have found very interesting is to see what the data would have said about families that attend church two or three times a month.

Sean: Yep.

Scott: What's the data on that in terms of healthy families, how many of those are two parent families and what are the economic outcomes for those families?

Sean: And of course, people are gonna say the people who can go two to three times have the time and resources and ability to go. So they're self selecting. That's where the data gets difficult. But I think you're right. That's a huge piece of the puzzle, being able to have a two parent family. Where do people hear that this is good? Where do they see this modeled? That messaging is not coming from the wider society. It's certainly not in Hollywood. There's a difference between a message that says economically for your kids, the best is mom and dad to stay together versus a church that might say that and also say this is God's design, marriage is good. Keep your promises, the abuse and other stuff aside. That level of commitment goes so much deeper. And is it just a big piece of the pie that she leaves out understandably? She's an economist. That's not the approach of it.

Scott: Yeah, I wasn't expecting to see that.

Sean: I agree. That's fair enough. Let me ask you about this. She has a really interesting section where she kind of talks about the idea that we could have something that's not actually marriage, like living together, but would function like marriage. So what's the big idea of actually getting married itself? I have some thoughts on that, but I'd be curious to know your reflections of what the data itself shows according to her book.

Scott: I'm paraphrasing here, but this is one of the most, I'd say, this is one of the strongest statements she makes in the book.

Sean: Oh, wow, okay.

Scott: And that is that there is simply no other substitute available to us at the moment that we know is an acceptable substitute for the level of commitment and stability that marriage provides. She said, cohabitation is not the same thing as marriage. It's not as stable. People come and go out of cohabitation relationships. Now, you and I both know couples who've been cohabiting for a long time and they're totally committed to each other. But I think that's the exception and not the rule. But she said, she's really clear about it. As far as stability and the benefit to children, there's nothing that resembles the stability of marriage.

Sean: And I think you and I would have reasons for that. Like she writes on page 113, she said, "Married parents spend more time with their children than unmarried parents." Now, she's not making a value judgment. She's not saying that there, she's just simply observing the facts that there's something about marriage itself, even if people say we're committed to each other, these are their own biological kids. And that's because you and I would say there's something about marriage itself that is not just a commitment between individuals, but it's meant to be a public commitment in which accountability is built in and permanence is built in. So simply making that promise in itself is significant. So I'll sometimes say, when I talk to high school men and women, in particular girls, I'll say, "If a guy says it's just a marriage certificate before you get married, it's just a marriage certificate after you get married." Like we know that it means something and it's a promise and it's a commitment that plays itself out economically, specifically for the benefit of kids. So we shouldn't just be promoting, have commitment with each other, stay together, technically mom and dad, it's actually the public marriage with a commitment that makes a difference and translates to the wellbeing of kids.

Scott: Right, that's why we have witnesses to the vows that couples play.

Sean: That's right.

Scott: Because there's these wild, crazy, total commitment all in. I mean, you're pushing all, I mean, it's sort of similar to belief in one God. Now you're pushing all your chips into the middle of the table on one person, like we do on one God. And she gets this, by the way, this is part of a great chapter called Parenting is Hard. (both laughing) She's the master of understatement.

Sean: The most obvious truism ever.

Scott: But this data comes from the, what's called the American Time Use Survey. And they ask specifically the amount of time that moms and dads spend with their children on a weekly basis. And there's a significant difference between married and unmarried couples, and married, especially married and unmarried dads, the time that they spend with their kids. And part of the reason for this is that she points out in married households, there is somebody who's working full-time and functions as the primary breadwinner. And if the other, and in many cases, the other partner in there works part-time or no time, and has much more time energy to put into the raising and the investment in children. So she, I mean, this is, we're not, again, we're not, she's not attempting to make value judgments here. She's just pointing out what Americans say about themselves

Sean: Right, right.

Scott: in terms of the time that they are able to spend.

Sean: Let's wrap this up talking about some of her solutions she gives on page 170. So she gives some suggestions, and this is the title of the chapter, it's just simply family matters, which is great. I love that an economist is saying family matters, and what she means by family is literally two parent, biological parents, which would imply mom and a dad permanently together in marriage. So here's what she says we should do. We don't have time to flesh all of these out. And like you said earlier, there's more pieces to this, like the church that's not on her radar, but she writes this, she says, "In summary, here are the things we should do to address the challenges I've laid out in this book. One, work to restore and foster a norm of two parent homes for children." That is powerful to hear somebody say in a University of Chicago Press book, an economic economist saying this, I wanna say amen to that. Now how the government does that, and what that looks like, and what's actually effective or not, I don't have the answer to that, but go ahead.

Scott: Well, I wish she could have come on with us. I agree, and we invited her a couple times. We did, we did. She just wasn't able to. Yeah, but this is a major swim upstream culturally. And I'd like to ask her realistically, how optimistic are you that this cultural and the social cultural norm can change?

Sean: Wow, that's a good question.

Scott: And personally, I'm not super optimistic about that, apart from a really significant spiritual revival in the church and in the country. 'Cause I just think that the cultural momentum for all family structures to be on the same level playing field is so strong. I believe that that's here to stay.

Sean: Really? Okay, so just flesh out really quickly what you mean culturally. I would guess that you mean kind of what's called this culture of authenticity. I look within to my own feelings, my own desires. If I want it and I do it, that's good. And I shouldn't judge somebody else's life decisions.

Scott: It's the culture of autonomy.

Sean: Okay, fair enough. Culture of autonomy is a good way to follow your heart. And so like I saw somebody arguing for polyamory and he started off by saying, the reason this is gonna work is because we love each other and we have good intentions. What that ignores is what Thomas Sowell argued. I was reading his book on the basics of economics. It's like 500 pages. He said, just like there's laws of physics, just like there's laws of chemistry, there's laws of economics. And they're just as objective. That worldview you're talking about ignores that. So you're not confident barring the spiritual revival. I'm a little less pessimistic maybe on this one. I've seen some pushback on some of the transgender ideology and people saying, wait, boys and girls are different. This is harmful. So, but regardless, we agree that that's hugely important and that's a welcome insight from her.

Scott: Now she points out that this may be handled best at the level of individual conversation. She has an incident where she gets in a cab and this guy has a great beautiful picture of his daughter hanging from the rear view mirror. And she's always, “Is that your daughter?” And he says, and he says, gushing on it. I said, “do you live with her?” And he said, “no, not able to.” And she said, “well, why not?” And she really pushed him hard on that. If you really, you know, if you really love her, you know, the best thing for her is for you to be living under the same roof with her. Very powerful.

Sean: Now she has a few other things. So you wouldn't necessarily have to walk through all of these, but any other thoughts, support, critique, reflections on her solution. By the way, I just want to frame for folks, this is less a how to book, more as a diagnosis.

Scott: This is a how come book.

Sean:And then, yeah. And then here's principles of where things need to shift. Then the next book would be to figure out how to do so. That's what she's arguing for. But anything else jump out about things we should do or shouldn't do on her list?

Scott: I think a stronger safety net for families, regardless of family structure. I think what this shows is that the more resources that we can put into the hands of families, regardless of the structure, the better off children are gonna be as a result.

Sean: Now that's a huge can of worms. I really wanted to unpack with her because of course, people have argued that that social net encourages such behavior. So how do we support without…

Scott: Well, in her view, the data doesn't support that pushback.

Sean: That’s what she argues. Right.

Scott: So, and I think that the part of that I think is really helpful is the things that she says we should not do. Yeah, I like that list too. Except we should not accept a new reality where the two parent family is a thing of the past. And she's not, by the way, she's not going back to leave at the beaver. Of course. Is it not going back to the father's knows best in the 1950s? And he says, "I don't think we should bemoan the economic independence of women.” That's a good thing that women have. We should not stigmatize single mothers. I agree, we should not. And we should not keep government assistance meager under the mistaken assumption that doing so will incentivize more marriages and two parent families. Reality is that provides very little in terms of incentive to do the wrong things. So I think part of the solution I think is just to stop doing some of the things that we're doing. Stop assuming that all family structures are of equal significance. That I think, refashioning that social norm. I think the best way we can do that is by the prevalence of two parent families that are making this work and that are providing good outcomes for their children. The more that becomes visible and evident, the more the data supports that, I think the better off we're gonna be.

Sean: There's so much I agree with in this book. In some ways, it just gave me, it renewed just kind of courage and encouragement to keep kind of preaching some of the things that I've been preaching. Kids need a father in the home. The two parent family is ideal. So when we see the newest wave of people pushing for polyamory, it's like, wait a minute. It's two parents, mom and dad in the home that is best for kids. Everything else we've tried has not been successful. And so I get criticized like crazy for this. I know you do from folks, you're hateful, you're bigoted. And I go, here's what the data shows, lines up with scripture for the sake of our neighbors and for the sake of the next generation, we cannot stop teaching and talking about these issues. I'd recommend her book. People seem to know…

Scott: Oh, I would too. This is, I asked, and the reason you just cited is the reason why I'd recommend it to our listeners. 'Cause they need to know that the data supports what the Bible teaches in this area. And it is so helpful to see general and special revelation working together.

Sean: There it is, there it is. Well, this has been a great conversation, Scott. This has been part of the ThinkBiblically podcast. We wanna thank you for joining us today and please consider writing a review on your podcast app and consider sharing this with a friend. You can send in your reflections to us, your questions to us. And as you may have figured out on Fridays, we're doing cultural updates now in which we talk about events in the news from a biblical perspective and take your questions. The email is thinkbiblically@biola.edu. That's thinkbiblically@biola.edu. We would love to hear from you. Just remember, ThinkBiblically about everything.