1) Guess who makes all the decisions

I don't think either of my predecessors emphasised enough on how 'all the decisions' are made by all the people. In my family the template is that everybody gets a say, a vote, a seat at the table to decide what we will do with our time and resources. This isn't how I grew up but comes out of my libertarian free market ideals and it's what our Family 2.0 (est 2008) operating system is build upon.

The biggest challenge with this comes with Mrs and the elder two children slipping back to Family 1.0 pre-me thinking. The kids forget they have the franchise. Mrs tries to pull some unilateral decision-making. For example, we may head out on a shopping trip and I'm shocked to find one or both of the kids don't know why or where we're even going! Just following orders! And then I'm alarmed again to find out Mrs didn't brief them ahead of time so they had no chance to be involved at all. It happens less and less. Having Mrs and I model for the kids negotiation and bilateral decision-making rather than single dictator parent is the sort of advantage single parents cannot have.

2) Guess how often I argue about money

Well, that's a subset of the above of course. While unilateral Generalissimo Fascism does away with this one we are once again forgetting that children can have a say about money. In Family 2.0 the needs of our children are broken up into budgets for the children to spend as they wish. Simultaneously they are encouraged by reality (rather than Mrs or I) to spend wisely and to look after what they have.

For example, they get a regular quota of Milo (drinking chocolate) per period of time which they can gobble up quickly or prudently consume. Likewise, a clothing allowance. So, the children get the chance to find out before they face adulthood the costs of using their shoes as skateboard breaks. And unlike Family 1.0, if Mrs or I do notice one of the kids molesting their shoes or spooning raw milo into their mouth we suffer no injury. In Family 1.0 you have to intervene because the communal household supply and budget is under attack. Arguments: neutralised.

The other reason being a single parent is a disadvantage when it comes to money is that couples have shared values. Mrs and I agree, to my renewing delight, on so many things. This includes spending and the conversations that lead to the discovery of this agreement are a pleasure.

3) Guess whose kid gets to learn more responsibility

So the original premise seems to be that more responsibility is taught by the solo parent out of necessity. Can't do it all for your kids, that's a good thing, so you value teamwork more.

Knight N Daze counters that teaching responsibility to children when you're a parenting staff down to half is much harder not easier. Turning things like tidying up and doing the dishes and laundry into education modules takes a great deal more time and patience. And after that the job's unlikely to have been done up to standard anyway.

I can vouch for that. We have learned to consider it victory if the children can self-start and complete a job using too much, say, dishwashing liquid, in twice the time and mess where half their work has to be repeated by a parent. Because, that's not bad for a learner and they can improve on those things next time. But being able to oversee that is costly stuff. Especially for the solo parent's limited resources of time and money and patience. Believe me, we value child responsibility and don't need less parents in our house to underline the benefit!

4) Guess who gets all of dad’s (or mom’s) bonding time

So...run that past me again? There's more bonding time to be had with parents if you get rid of one? Isn't that a bit like using only one chopstick in order speed up dinner? It's crazy.

It's not about who gets all of a finite share of the parent's bonding time. It's about the quality of that bond, how often you get to connect, and it's about growing the share. This isn't a zero sum game. Having the second parent means more and better intimacy on offer to children. More love to give because the parent's needs are being met too so the overall capacity rises. It also means that, at any given moment, there is more chance that a parent will be there for bonding time at the same time a child does.

5) Guess who doesn’t have to deal with the drama

Dead people? They don't have to deal with drama or eating or taxes or dishes or lawnmowers or people.

People who don't have relationships don't have to deal with drama. It's true. And unemployed people don't have to deal with rush hour traffic or pay negotiations of upskilling. And illiteracy solve the problem of profane graffiti; Blindness solves all graffiti. And repressing your empathy down to 0 does away with all sarcasm and intimidation.

Not quite the solution I would have gone for since all of those undesirable things can be eliminated or managed without death or dismemberment while also enjoying the benefits.

I'm tempted to say that a single parent and their children very disadvantaged. But it's far safer to say that families running Family 1.0 software are the ones in big trouble. That's the kind of single parent that I had to overcome and upgrade and this has been a great success. The above "advantages" I think only count in Family 1.0 not Family 2.0 which makes disadvantages of them all. Unless, that is, you count the grateful dead. Because couples that are ended don't have to suffer growing and feeling.