![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Apr. 25th, 2007 02:09 amParents who are of different races, such as a white father and an Asian-American mother, spend more time and money on their kids than parents who are both of the same race, new research shows.
So-called biracial (aka interracial or multiracial) parents are more likely than their "monoracial" counterparts to provide their children with a home computer, private schooling and educational books and CDs and to make sure they participate in reading activities, dance, music or art lessons outside of school and get trips to the zoo, library and other cultural venues...
...The advantage, or higher investment, can be explained as a counterweight or response to the social challenges faced by interracial couples, who only gained legal acceptance in the United States in 1970 when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a state law in Virginia that prohibited whites from marrying non-whites, said study author Brian Powell at Indiana University Bloomington...
Sure. The male share of the extra contribution could also be explained by the diminution of paternity uncertainty in such cases, though. Was it too complicated to go into all that or are people just allergic to the concept? I guess a case could be made that it's the root of all evil--but surely that means all eyes should be on it. I suppose it's also the root of all things depressing.
If the p.u. leavening really is a factor, these findings might help us figure out how much of it is conscious calculation of odds, and how much is just reaction to cues.
So-called biracial (aka interracial or multiracial) parents are more likely than their "monoracial" counterparts to provide their children with a home computer, private schooling and educational books and CDs and to make sure they participate in reading activities, dance, music or art lessons outside of school and get trips to the zoo, library and other cultural venues...
...The advantage, or higher investment, can be explained as a counterweight or response to the social challenges faced by interracial couples, who only gained legal acceptance in the United States in 1970 when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a state law in Virginia that prohibited whites from marrying non-whites, said study author Brian Powell at Indiana University Bloomington...
Sure. The male share of the extra contribution could also be explained by the diminution of paternity uncertainty in such cases, though. Was it too complicated to go into all that or are people just allergic to the concept? I guess a case could be made that it's the root of all evil--but surely that means all eyes should be on it. I suppose it's also the root of all things depressing.
If the p.u. leavening really is a factor, these findings might help us figure out how much of it is conscious calculation of odds, and how much is just reaction to cues.
