Just cause the mom is fucked up doesnt mean the dad isnt as well? Also wouldnt that imply the moms who had custody were actually the better single mom that were available yet they still had huge disparities in outcome compared to single dads and 2 parents
Just cause the mom is fucked up doesnt mean the dad isnt as well?
I think you're missing my point. That's not what I'm saying. I'm going to make up some numbers so you can see what I'm getting at. Assume that good/bad parenting has a normal distribution in both sexes. Half good, half bad. If a father has to be 25% better than the mother to get custody, it means the bottom 25% of fathers never get custody (a 0.0001% mother would be picked over a 24.999% father). So you're comparing the averages of 0-100 quality for women and 25-100 quality for men.
Yes there are cases where both parents are lousy, but if they were equally lousy, the court would have given custody to the mother anyway. Meaning, on average, single fathers are going to be better parents than single mothers. Even if men and women had the exact same distribution of parenting ability.
I mean assuming it's a normal distribution in both sexes would already be a huge assumption because the numbers don't really bare that out If that was true,
I think you're a bit too focused on the numerical idea that 0-25 quality mothers are to blame for their horrible stats but I think it's trying too hard to put a quantitative quality number on an abstract like parenthood.
I'm not saying that mechanism is strictly to blame. Only that even if mothers and fathers were of equal everything, the bias in the courts would still make single fathers outperform on average.
I'm sure there's tons of other considerations. Like if sons or daughters do better under different sexes of single parents and which of those combinations are more common.
Do you have any idea how fucked up a mom has to be for the father to be awarded sole custody? Huge selection bias at work.
Just cause the mom is fucked up doesnt mean the dad isnt as well? Also wouldnt that imply the moms who had custody were actually the better single mom that were available yet they still had huge disparities in outcome compared to single dads and 2 parents
I think you're missing my point. That's not what I'm saying. I'm going to make up some numbers so you can see what I'm getting at. Assume that good/bad parenting has a normal distribution in both sexes. Half good, half bad. If a father has to be 25% better than the mother to get custody, it means the bottom 25% of fathers never get custody (a 0.0001% mother would be picked over a 24.999% father). So you're comparing the averages of 0-100 quality for women and 25-100 quality for men.
Yes there are cases where both parents are lousy, but if they were equally lousy, the court would have given custody to the mother anyway. Meaning, on average, single fathers are going to be better parents than single mothers. Even if men and women had the exact same distribution of parenting ability.
I mean assuming it's a normal distribution in both sexes would already be a huge assumption because the numbers don't really bare that out If that was true,
I think you're a bit too focused on the numerical idea that 0-25 quality mothers are to blame for their horrible stats but I think it's trying too hard to put a quantitative quality number on an abstract like parenthood.
I'm not saying that mechanism is strictly to blame. Only that even if mothers and fathers were of equal everything, the bias in the courts would still make single fathers outperform on average.
I'm sure there's tons of other considerations. Like if sons or daughters do better under different sexes of single parents and which of those combinations are more common.