The traditional family

[Paidiske]

What your not taking into consideration is how did these people end up in single parent families in the first place and that is not always caused by lack of money. It is also caused by the values people have about families. Those couples who usually stay together and end up better off financially value traditional families.

There are plenty of people who value "traditional" families who end up with a spouse dying, or with a divorce they never would have chosen, or with abuse in the home. Conversely, there are plenty of people who would take issue with "traditional" ideas about families who have successful, loving, faithful monogamous relationships.

It'd be really lovely if we could stop blaming people for the awful circumstances of life that they haven't chosen and are powerless to change.

 

[Quartermaine]

Do you see a difference between instilling boundaries vs complying with the law?

still not an answer to mt question

 

[Kylie]

Why Children Need a Mother and a Father
There are many thousands of studies which have appeared over the past four to five decades showing quite clearly how absolutely important biological mothers and fathers are to the well-being of their children. Study after study has shown that no other factor is more vital to the healthy development of children than having a mum and a dad.
Why Children Need a Mother and a Father - CultureWatch

Study: Children fare better in traditional mom-dad families
Study: Children fare better in traditional mom-dad families
Marriage Matters, and Redefining It Has Social Costs
Sociologist David Popenoe of Rutgers University explains, “[t]he burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender-differentiated parenting is important for human development and that the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable.” Popenoe concludes:

We should disavow the notion that “mommies can make good daddies,” just as we should disavow the popular notion . . . that “daddies can make good mommies.” . . . The two sexes are different to the core, and each is necessary—culturally and biologically—for the optimal development of a human being.
Marriage Matters, and Redefining It Has Social Costs - Public Discourse

Once again this is pretty obvious. It is a field I have studied academically and have ample support for. In fact the basis for a child's bond with its caregiver which is predominately the mother is know as attachment theory which has been recognized for over 50 years.

The Science of Attachment:
Attachment theory is based on the belief that the mother-child bond is the essential and primary force in infant development, and thus forms the basis of coping, negotiation of relationships, and personality development.
The Science of Attachment: The Biological Roots of Love - The Natural Child Project
The Scientific Reason the Mother-Child Bond Is So Powerful
The Scientific Reason the Mother-Child Bond Is So Powerful

What is ironic is that many people will support the importance of developing a prenatal bond with their child (maintaining a stress free environment, touching and communicating with unborn baby) which contributes to the mother child bond after the baby is born. But then disregard the science if it goes against their ideology that the biological mother is irrelevant to the child. The child is a part of the mother and the mother is a part of the child. That bond is special and both know it.

Bonding with your baby during pregnancy
You don’t need to wait until your baby is born to bond with them. Pregnancy can be the perfect time to start forming an attachment with your baby, which is very important for their development once your baby has actually arrived.

Well now I have supplied the scientific support.

I see no scientific studies there. Just articles which present their own view of what the studies say without linking to the articles themselves so we can see for ourselves.

I am very suspicious of ANYONE who says, "You don't need to read, it, just believe me when I tell you what it said."

 

[Quartermaine]

That doesn't make sense. For one how does matching finances make up for say the absence of a father figure if the single parent is a mother.

resources and access to them
the disadvantage is economic so when economics are controlled for in comparisons between children with one and children with two parents the negative effects disappear. Children with two parents that are poor have the same outcomes as children with one parent with the seam approximate income. Just as children with one parent who has a high income have the same outcomes as children with two parents but having the same amount of income.

Research shows that the lack of a father causes children problems. The same with a missing mother.

[ unless economics are controlled for.

What if both the single parent and couple were on the same income. Doesn't the fact that the couple have two people available to care for the children and do all the other things in managing a household make them better off then the single person who has to do the job of two.

the outcomes for both children are the same

But I agree that money is a big factor in contributing to problems. Most issues with children's development and behavior are associated with lower socioeconomic status. But that is part of the problem why single parents have more problems because income is a big factor. The reality is no one is going to increase a single persons income so the problem remains and in that case couples with children is a better situation.

false. children of two and single parent household do equally well in they are compared according to household income.

But we are dealing with what is actually happening and not what ideally could or should be happening. We could say that about every problem that people in lower socioeconomic status have. But that isn't the case. Part of the problem is lack of money but ending up with a lack of money is caused by other problems like poor education.

then socioeconomics is the factor not the number of parents

What your not taking into consideration is how did these people end up in single parent families in the first place and that is not always caused by lack of money. It is also caused by the values people have about families. Those couples who usually stay together and end up better off financially value traditional families.

some may be but the outcomes of the children end up the same if income is controlled for by the researchers

As a father I find that disturbing. Are you are father. If so do you make a difference in your kids lives. What about a mother, the one who carries the baby and gives birth. Are you saying they make no difference if a child never had a mother or father in their life. I don't know why you say that as the scientific support is obvious.

you can be as disturbed as you like but your claim is unsupported

no child is raised in a vacuum. there are always male and female role models in a child's life. If i were to die today my kids woudl have any number of other male role models and male parental figures from my brother-in-law to my dad to any number of uncles and friends

Why Children Need a Mother and a Father
There are many thousands of studies which have appeared over the past four to five decades showing quite clearly how absolutely important biological mothers and fathers are to the well-being of their children. Study after study has shown that no other factor is more vital to the healthy development of children than having a mum and a dad.
Why Children Need a Mother and a Father - CultureWatch

Study: Children fare better in traditional mom-dad families
Study: Children fare better in traditional mom-dad families
Marriage Matters, and Redefining It Has Social Costs
Sociologist David Popenoe of Rutgers University explains, “[t]he burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender-differentiated parenting is important for human development and that the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable.” Popenoe concludes:

We should disavow the notion that “mommies can make good daddies,” just as we should disavow the popular notion . . . that “daddies can make good mommies.” . . . The two sexes are different to the core, and each is necessary—culturally and biologically—for the optimal development of a human being.
Marriage Matters, and Redefining It Has Social Costs - Public Discourse

Once again this is pretty obvious. It is a field I have studied academically and have ample support for. In fact the basis for a child's bond with its caregiver which is predominately the mother is know as attachment theory which has been recognized for over 50 years.

before you toss around the Regnerus study recognize that this is pretty much the definition of junk science. Regnerus makes claims about outcomes of children raised by gay/lesbian couples but he failed to include any children raised by gay/lesbian couples in his study.

to quote Regnerus in an interview with Focus on the Family: " I got taken to task for leaning on young adults’ assessments of their parents’ relationships. I didn’t ask them whether they thought their mom was a lesbian or if their dad was gay.... I said “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers,” when in fact, I don’t know about their sexual orientation; I don't know about their same-sex relationship behavior. "

What is ironic is that many people will support the importance of developing a prenatal bond with their child (maintaining a stress free environment, touching and communicating with unborn baby) which contributes to the mother child bond after the baby is born. But then disregard the science if it goes against their ideology that the biological mother is irrelevant to the child.

no one is saying that.

 

[stevevw]

I don't really believe that's what's happening, though. It comes across as a sort of scaremongering out of fear of social change.

I guess it depends on what knowledge a person has on the topic. It is well know based on certain theories such as Feminism and Marxism that there has been a concerted effort to dismantle the family as it represents oppression of women and a threat to socialism because it is hard for the state to control families.

Both these theories have influenced government policies mainly due to the influence of minority groups which has seen a number of anti-family policies designed to undermine families. Along with the sexual revolution of the 60's which was about sexual freedom and sex outside marriage which attacked the morals of marriage these factors have gradually destroyed traditional values about marriage.

Feminism brought gender into marriage and the family and created the divide. The aim under Feminism has been to destroy the family as this has represented a patriarchy society. In families men have the control and are made out to be the oppressor of women. So undermining men by breaking families will take their control and and give it back to women to be free and independent. According to some authors the destruction of the western family is seen as the last stage of the collapse of society similar to the destruction of the family at the end of the Greek and Roman Empires.

More than a hundred years ago, Marxism declared the relationship of man and woman in monogamous marriage as “the first-class antagonism” in history. This “class-conflict” had to be overcome by destroying marriage and the family. Yet the same agenda eventually migrated to the West. It had its breakthrough with the student rebellion of the 1960s, which swept through European countries with slogans like these:

Battle the bourgeois nuclear family!
If you sleep with the same one twice, you’re a slave of bourgeois vice!
Make love not war!

This movement was fueled by Marxist philosophers, particularly of the Frankfurt School in Germany. In their view, sexuality was to be liberated from restrictive morality – even from the taboo of incest.

During the 1970s, marriage laws and sexual criminal laws were revised in Western countries. Pornography, abortion, and homosexuality – in this sequence – were legalized, and obligatory sexual education was introduced in schools.
Genderism – a new ideology destroying the family

Zimmerman described long-term reality: the traditional family had been deteriorating since the Renaissance and was nearing the point of no return. Like Dawson, Zimmerman noted unmistakable parallels with Greece and Rome.

Dawson and Zimmerman make thought-provoking reading today because they wrote long before the political and sexual radicalism of the 1960s launched an open and direct ideological attack on the family and placed it on the public agenda.

“As in the decline of the ancient world, the family is steadily losing its form and its social significance, and the state absorbs more and more of the life of its members,” Dawson wrote. “The functions which were formerly fulfilled by the head of the family are now being taken over by the state, which educates the children and takes the responsibility for their maintenance and health.” “The father no longer holds a vital position in the family,”

Zimmerman pointed out that the state views the family as a threat, eviscerates the family, co-opts its critics and sponsors family-hostile intellectuals, and demands supremacy over society in general and the family in particular.

Each generation thus accepts as normal what would have shocked their grandparents had it happened all at once: premarital sex, cohabitation, illegitimacy, divorce, same-sex marriage, daycare, fast-food dinners.
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/06/freedom-and-the-family-the-family-crisis-and-the-future-of-western-civilization.html

The Destruction of the Family
THE PLANNED DESTRUCTION OF THE FAMILY
Destroying the family
Destroying the family "is the active social policy of liberals," says conservative author Ann Coulter.[1] It is also a goal of socialism.[2]
The ultimate goal of cultural Marxism is to destroy the basic building block of society: The Family Unit.

They concluded that in order to maintain the control of people, it would be necessary to destroy the family and restructure it. Soviet expert Mikhail Heller explained that in their attack against Russian family, communists encouraged sexual immorality during marriage, force women out of the home into the workforce, and provided easy access to abortion and divorce. In 1918 they passed a law allowing for a divorce just by simply mailing or delivering a postcard to the local register and without the necessity of even notifying the spouse being divorced.[3]
Destroying the family - Conservapedia

That is just a simple summary and there is much more to it that this so I have linked a couple of articles which give more details. But this has been well known for years and is not some conspiracy theory but a well thought theory that has scientific support.

Today we are seeing the evolution of the feminist and Marxist movement with the spreading of these ideas to gender ideology which not only includes women but also many forms of gender identity and also the SJW who want to tear down capitalism (any wealthy people and organisations because they represent oppression) and install a socialism. This has also been influenced by modernity (critical questioning of everything) which basically rejects science in favor of personal and subjective views.

The problem is the end result of these theory based policies that destroy the family are also destroying society as a whole. That is what the state wanted so they could take control. Men are being demonized and presumed the aggressor and oppressor and this has led to high rates of mental illness and suicide.

Feminism has backfired and now men can be women to once again take their platform and feminists are no happy. There is now a war of sexes and no one is a winner especially the kids who are the innocent parties in all this and often neglected.

 

[stevevw]

In many cases, yes.

I think overall people make it worse than it was. Back then there was only one wage per family. Most men were not wage earners because they were bad men trying to dominate women but cared for their family and felt an obligation to do that. You have to remember the idea of the male bread winner was not some concocted plan to oppress women but a evolutionary and socially developed survival behavior that evolved over 1000's of years. Many women seen this as the best as well back then. But like many things today in modern society thinking changes according to the circumstances.

As explained above it was not a simple case of men oppressing women. There was also agendas from women as an extreme reaction to a perceived threat that may have happened in some cases but not across the board. This is often the problem that western society has developed an individualistic view and this can focus too much on individual rights rather than what is best for the family, group and community. We have seen examples of this individualism making people self absorbed and focused primarily on their rights and not others.

It was part of a package; most people who advocate for the "traditional family" want women at home having babies and keeping house, as part of that package.

No this is the feminist view which always leans towards an oppressive point of view. There are other reasons why a parent should be at home with the children and research supports this. That does not mean that men can also be stay at home dads. But this is not about power imbalances. Some want to make it that because this is the way thinking has gone with modernism where people want to criticize and challenge everything and put individual rights over all else.

But don't get me wrong I would be the first to be against an abusive husband. I work in an industry that confronts DV. This is wrong and should be stopped. The trouble is it is not just one thing causing this. There are societal influences such as financial pressures as well that force people to think and act a certain way. So if economics demand both people work then there is not much choice.

But what I am talking about is optimally the best family situation despite all these influences. The science says the traditional family is the best family structure despite personal views. It just so happens that there are systemic and external factors that prevent most from having traditional families and also causing problems in traditional families.

Again, it depends how you do things. For example, for a couple of years when my daughter was small, my husband and I each worked three days a week. No cost to child development (rather a great bond with both parents), both parents having a career and working. Now, if only more workplaces allowed for that kind of part-time role...

Yes, I agree that today some people are able to find ways to try and get the best of both worlds. You acknowledge the importance of time with your children so try to make this a priority. There are two of you which makes it easier. Unfortunately, modern society has resulted in a breakdown for many people being able to be in this position whether that is from personal problems or systemic issues such as economic influences or lack of support.

So, again, let's make it easier for a woman to have babies without having to drop out of the world of work altogether.

Ideally yes if there was a way to allow a woman to work and spend time with family that would be great. I don't think the answer is in the other extreme in totally swapping roles and denying men to work which would create the same problems that women have been complaining about. The issue I have is that it is society that dictates what happens and not the family and so far they are not being family friendly.

IMO the root cause today is materialism. there is pressure to get a job to get the house and car and then work more to keep things. First it was one parent working and now both parents have to work. It seems this burden has increased over the years despite the promise of a better life. I am not sure governments will ever make things good for families as they are always saying they have no money. In fact they seem to be doing the opposite and making it harder especially for single parents. We need to take a step back and evaluate what is most important materialism or people.

Well, maybe ideally people would have to demonstrate higher levels of maturity before starting a family, but since there's no really non-tyrannical way to do that...

But what does that maturity mean. What would be the types of behaviors a mature person would do to have a better family life.

 

[pleinmont]

So called 'traditional' values don't always make for a good marriage, and certainly not in this day and age.

 

[stevevw]

resources and access to them
the disadvantage is economic so when economics are controlled for in comparisons between children with one and children with two parents the negative effects disappear. Children with two parents that are poor have the same outcomes as children with one parent with the seam approximate income. Just as children with one parent who has a high income have the same outcomes as children with two parents but having the same amount of income.

So what about the science that says fathers are important for a child upbringing. There are certain influences on children that only fathers can have. That has nothing to do with economics. So if a single mother is well off she cannot makeup for that with money.

unless economics are controlled for.

It has nothing to do with economics. It is about a child's self worth, identity, connection and bonding to a biological father figure that helps a child develop. There is science which I have already posted that proves that a father figure is needed to bring up a child properly and the best father figure is the biological father. The same with the mother and money has nothing to do with it. You seem to be ignoring the science.
For example form one of the articles I posted
This study simply reflects the findings of so many previous studies. By every indicator, children do better when raised by their own biological parent. No other family structure comes close in terms of positive outcomes.
Why Children Need a Mother and a Father - CultureWatch

the outcomes for both children are the same

Have you heard the saying two heads are better than one. Or that two people doing something with all things equal will do it better than one. If this is the case then if all things are equal then why wouldn't the couple be able to have more time for their child.

The issue your overlooking is that financial hardship is part of the problem for single parents that leads to other problems like mental illness.

Single parent families are at high risk of financial hardship which may impact on psychological well-being.
This study has highlighted that the stresses of parenting alone appear to heighten feelings of stress, uncertainty, and depression associated with finances.
The Impact of Financial Hardship on Single Parents: An Exploration of the Journey From Social Distress to Seeking Help

false. children of two and single parent household do equally well in they are compared according to household income.

Do well in what regard. How does income fix the loss of a parent on a child. Children suffer when they lose a parent. No amount of money can fix that. The data show despite income that children from separated and divorced homes have a number of issue that money cannot fix such as depression, anxiety, substance abuse, relationship problems, education suffering etc. The problem is your talking about a hypothetical even if it was true which is not happening. The fact is children do worse by all studies than those from two parent families. It is a given. There's more people looking after the kids, more brains, more muscle, more time, more care, more love, more everything if all things are equal. That has to make a difference despite the money.

Prof McLanahan said the data showed that even a child in a stable single-parent household was likely to do worse on some measures than a child of a married couple. "Having two adults who co-operate to raise the child, who give time and money, means there are just more resources than one doing it," she said.
Do children in two-parent families do better?

then socioeconomic is the factor not the number of parents

It does have to do with the number of parents because there is one less parent to help educate, influence, guide the child and therefore this causes them to be more likely to end up poorly educated, unemployed and without much money. That's not to say that single parents can and do do a great job bringing up kids,. But we are talking about averages not exceptions.

some may be but the outcomes of the children end up the same if income is controlled for by the researchers

But your saying for every problem there is if we only threw money at it then there would not be any problems. Money has caused every problem. The evidence does not support this. People with money have problems. Poor people have problems not caused by money.

you can be as disturbed as you like but your claim is unsupported

no child is raised in a vacuum. there are always male and female role models in a child's life. If i were to die today my kids would have any number of other male role models and male parental figures from my brother-in-law to my dad to any number of uncles and friends

So how do you explain the evidence that shows that the loss of a parent through divorce impacts on a child's development and behavior even in wealthy families.

before you toss around the Regnerus study recognize that this is pretty much the definition of junk science. Regnerus makes claims about outcomes of children raised by gay/lesbian couples but he failed to include any children raised by gay/lesbian couples in his study.

Evidently the study was done according to a new Gold Standard. In was a much larger survey than the usual which is usually better for getting more reliable results. It was backed by the University of Texas and they investigated claims of misrepresentation and found nothing wrong. Mr. Regnerus cautioned that his study does not attempt to “undermine or affirm arguments” about gay rights or link poor adult outcomes solely to gay parenting.

to quote Regnerus in an interview with Focus on the Family: " I got taken to task for leaning on young adults’ assessments of their parents’ relationships. I didn’t ask them whether they thought their mom was a lesbian or if their dad was gay.... I said “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers,” when in fact, I don’t know about their sexual orientation; I don't know about their same-sex relationship behavior. "

But isn't this a logical fallacy attacking the person and not the content. Anyway I posted other studies and research and not just that one.

no one is saying that.

But you said that the mother child attachment bond makes no difference to a child's development and upbringing.

 

[stevevw]

I see no scientific studies there. Just articles which present their own view of what the studies say without linking to the articles themselves so we can see for ourselves.

I am very suspicious of ANYONE who says, "You don't need to read, it, just believe me when I tell you what it said."

I linked 6 articles which one or ones are you saying have no link to the science. The first one does Why Children Need a Mother and a Father names the study The research is part of the on-going Millennium Cohort Study, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council. As Lisa Calderwood from London University’s Institute of Education explained: Then look it up, simple. Not all have a link, but an article that names the study, individual and University is not going to lie as that involves naming specific people.
Children in single parent families have more behavioural problems: study
Lisa Calderwood
Children in single parent families have more behavioural problems: study
Same as the others

Marriage Matters, and Redefining It Has Social Costs (This has a direct link to the paper) What is Marriage?
What is Marriage? by Sherif Girgis, Robert George, Ryan T. Anderson :: SSRN

The Science of Attachment: This has all the references at the end of the article.

The Scientific Reason the Mother-Child Bond Is So Powerful (this article has a direct link within it) researchers behind the new study published in the Journal of Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience,

The last article is from Health Direct which is part of the Australian Governments Health Department.
Trusted Health Advice
This website gives heath advice and uses scientific research as it is supplying information to the public. Though I don't trust governments I have used this site before and found verification for most of the stuff it mentions. What it says about a mother developing a bond with their prenatal baby is not new and is verified by other academic articles.

 

[Quartermaine]

I guess it depends on what knowledge a person has on the topic. It is well know based on certain theories such as Feminism and Marxism that there has been a concerted effort to dismantle the family as it represents oppression of women and a threat to socialism because it is hard for the state to control families.

Both these theories have influenced government policies mainly due to the influence of minority groups which has seen a number of anti-family policies designed to undermine families. Along with the sexual revolution of the 60's which was about sexual freedom and sex outside marriage which attacked the morals of marriage these factors have gradually destroyed traditional values about marriage.

Feminism brought gender into marriage and the family and created the divide. The aim under Feminism has been to destroy the family as this has represented a patriarchy society. In families men have the control and are made out to be the oppressor of women. So undermining men by breaking families will take their control and and give it back to women to be free and independent. According to some authors the destruction of the western family is seen as the last stage of the collapse of society similar to the destruction of the family at the end of the Greek and Roman Empires.

More than a hundred years ago, Marxism declared the relationship of man and woman in monogamous marriage as “the first-class antagonism” in history. This “class-conflict” had to be overcome by destroying marriage and the family. Yet the same agenda eventually migrated to the West. It had its breakthrough with the student rebellion of the 1960s, which swept through European countries with slogans like these:

Battle the bourgeois nuclear family!
If you sleep with the same one twice, you’re a slave of bourgeois vice!
Make love not war!

This movement was fueled by Marxist philosophers, particularly of the Frankfurt School in Germany. In their view, sexuality was to be liberated from restrictive morality – even from the taboo of incest.

During the 1970s, marriage laws and sexual criminal laws were revised in Western countries. Pornography, abortion, and homosexuality – in this sequence – were legalized, and obligatory sexual education was introduced in schools.
Genderism – a new ideology destroying the family

Zimmerman described long-term reality: the traditional family had been deteriorating since the Renaissance and was nearing the point of no return. Like Dawson, Zimmerman noted unmistakable parallels with Greece and Rome.

Dawson and Zimmerman make thought-provoking reading today because they wrote long before the political and sexual radicalism of the 1960s launched an open and direct ideological attack on the family and placed it on the public agenda.

“As in the decline of the ancient world, the family is steadily losing its form and its social significance, and the state absorbs more and more of the life of its members,” Dawson wrote. “The functions which were formerly fulfilled by the head of the family are now being taken over by the state, which educates the children and takes the responsibility for their maintenance and health.” “The father no longer holds a vital position in the family,”

Zimmerman pointed out that the state views the family as a threat, eviscerates the family, co-opts its critics and sponsors family-hostile intellectuals, and demands supremacy over society in general and the family in particular.

Each generation thus accepts as normal what would have shocked their grandparents had it happened all at once: premarital sex, cohabitation, illegitimacy, divorce, same-sex marriage, daycare, fast-food dinners.
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/06/freedom-and-the-family-the-family-crisis-and-the-future-of-western-civilization.html

The Destruction of the Family
THE PLANNED DESTRUCTION OF THE FAMILY
Destroying the family
Destroying the family "is the active social policy of liberals," says conservative author Ann Coulter.[1] It is also a goal of socialism.[2]
The ultimate goal of cultural Marxism is to destroy the basic building block of society: The Family Unit.

They concluded that in order to maintain the control of people, it would be necessary to destroy the family and restructure it. Soviet expert Mikhail Heller explained that in their attack against Russian family, communists encouraged sexual immorality during marriage, force women out of the home into the workforce, and provided easy access to abortion and divorce. In 1918 they passed a law allowing for a divorce just by simply mailing or delivering a postcard to the local register and without the necessity of even notifying the spouse being divorced.[3]
Destroying the family - Conservapedia

That is just a simple summary and there is much more to it that this so I have linked a couple of articles which give more details. But this has been well known for years and is not some conspiracy theory but a well thought theory that has scientific support.

Today we are seeing the evolution of the feminist and Marxist movement with the spreading of these ideas to gender ideology which not only includes women but also many forms of gender identity and also the SJW who want to tear down capitalism (any wealthy people and organisations because they represent oppression) and install a socialism. This has also been influenced by modernity (critical questioning of everything) which basically rejects science in favor of personal and subjective views.

The problem is the end result of these theory based policies that destroy the family are also destroying society as a whole. That is what the state wanted so they could take control. Men are being demonized and presumed the aggressor and oppressor and this has led to high rates of mental illness and suicide.

Feminism has backfired and now men can be women to once again take their platform and feminists are no happy. There is now a war of sexes and no one is a winner especially the kids who are the innocent parties in all this and often neglected.

Ann Coulter? Really?

The woman who said "Why do we let blind people and people in wheelchairs become citizens? I feel sorry for cripples but that doesn't mean i wan't them in my country"

 

[Paidiske]

I guess it depends on what knowledge a person has on the topic. It is well know based on certain theories such as Feminism and Marxism that there has been a concerted effort to dismantle the family as it represents oppression of women and a threat to socialism because it is hard for the state to control families.

Oh please. I'm a feminist, and I have no interest in dismantling the family. Neither do most feminists. We do, however, have an interest in removing the ways families have been oppressive of women, that is correct. You seem to deny that is or was the case, but for billions of women around the world it remains a daily reality.

Feminism brought gender into marriage and the family and created the divide. The aim under Feminism has been to destroy the family as this has represented a patriarchy society. In families men have the control and are made out to be the oppressor of women. So undermining men by breaking families will take their control and and give it back to women to be free and independent. According to some authors the destruction of the western family is seen as the last stage of the collapse of society similar to the destruction of the family at the end of the Greek and Roman Empires.

Ah, no. The divide was there under patriarchy; it was that divide which was used to deny women autonomy, education, employment, and so on. It is feminism which seeks to overcome the divide and create a true partnership of equals.

I certainly see a family where "men have the control" as a dangerous thing. But that doesn't mean I want to "break" families, or undermine men, it means I want power and control to be shared between men and women.

also the SJW who want to tear down capitalism (any wealthy people and organisations because they represent oppression) and install a socialism.

Social justice is a movement which wants to see liberation from oppression, protection for the vulnerable and restoration for those who have been exploited. That's not necessarily the same thing as tearing down capitalism, although it does require checks on the way an unbridled capitalist system will oppress and exploit people, especially the vulnerable.

This has also been influenced by modernity (critical questioning of everything) which basically rejects science in favor of personal and subjective views.

The issue I have is that it is society that dictates what happens and not the family and so far they are not being family friendly.

I'm suggesting that the problem isn't "society," it's employers. (See my above point about the exploitativeness and oppressiveness of unbridled capitalism). It's employers who require long working days, long working weeks and a lack of flexibility. It's employers who end up structuring the lives of families in ways which are not family friendly. If we want to make real change there, don't rail at the lack of a "traditional" family, make it possible for people to work and still be a functional part of their family.

 

[Quartermaine]

So what about the science that says fathers are important for a child upbringing.

no one is saying they are not.

There are certain influences on children that only fathers can have. That has nothing to do with economics. So if a single mother is well off she cannot makeup for that with money.

you can rail against facts all you like but in the end the negative outcomes you ascribe to a lack of a father in the household disappear when researchers control for economics.

You keep talking as if single parent families live is complete isolation from anyone else, they don't and that means children of single parents will have access to positive roll models of both genders

It has nothing to do with economics. It is about a child's self worth, identity, connection and bonding to a biological father figure that helps a child develop.

then why do the negative outcomes you attribute to children raised by single mothers disappear when researchers control for economics?

There is science which I have already posted that proves that a father figure is needed to bring up a child properly and the best father figure is the biological father. The same with the mother and money has nothing to do with it. You seem to be ignoring the science.

you are the one ignoring the science that doesn't fit your world view

For example form one of the articles I posted
This study simply reflects the findings of so many previous studies. By every indicator, children do better when raised by their own biological parent. No other family structure comes close in terms of positive outcomes.
Why Children Need a Mother and a Father - CultureWatch
Have you heard the saying two heads are better than one. Or that two people doing something with all things equal will do it better than one. If this is the case then if all things are equal then why wouldn't the couple be able to have more time for their child.

If you want to talk about studies stop using garbage like this and cite the actual studies.

cite the studies that show that children fare better when raised by their biological parents

The issue your overlooking is that financial hardship is part of the problem for single parents

and what happens when you compare two parent children to single parent children who have the seam incomes?

that leads to other problems like mental illness.

Single parent families are at high risk of financial hardship which may impact on psychological well-being.
This study has highlighted that the stresses of parenting alone appear to heighten feelings of stress, uncertainty, and depression associated with finances.
The Impact of Financial Hardship on Single Parents: An Exploration of the Journey From Social Distress to Seeking Help

the study you bring up also finds that "single parents with higher income are less impacted by psychological distress"
what a shock

Do well in what regard. How does income fix the loss of a parent on a child. Children suffer when they lose a parent. No amount of money can fix that. The data show despite income that children from separated and divorced homes have a number of issue that money cannot fix such as depression, anxiety, substance abuse, relationship problems, education suffering etc.

cite the research that shows these outcomes and have controlled for income

 

[MoreQuestions]

You give the impression that people with non white skins are less intelligent!

"Unpleasant" was an interesting choice of words. I can't tell if you think I was being unpleasant or if you think the

You give the impression that people with non white skins are less intelligent!

As measured by IQ this does seem to be the case.
I'm not sure if you were calling me unpleasant or the information?

 

[MoreQuestions]

IQ is not the main underlying cause of poverty. In America, the main causes of poverty are lack of access to education and health problems. These tend, of course, to involve vicious cycles; but that doesn't mean that the people caught in those vicious cycles don't have average or higher IQ.

You claim that, but what I can find online says that fewer women are in prison, not because of IQ, but because they commit violent crimes (which attract more and longer prison sentences) at a much lower rate than men. Now IQ might be a component of a tendency to violence in some people, but it's not the whole answer.

Because I know enough about the prison system - and our society more broadly - that to me, the claim that "more men are in prison because they're dumb" is highly suspect. And also because it's being used as part of an argument to keep women to "traditional" roles, so the agenda behind it is also highly suspect.

There are so many other more important factors here than intelligence. Like poverty, and systemic racism.

I'm not saying that IQ is the sole factor, but it might be a much bigger influence than most people acknowledge. For example, you say that poverty is more important than intelligence, yet there is a clear link between intelligence and income - you seem to want to avoid considering intelligence as a key underlying factor. Why?
I hope you have thought more about your original position as a result of this discussion.
I don't have time to take this much further and appreciate the thread. Thank you.

 

[Paidiske]

I'm not saying that IQ is the sole factor, but it might be a much bigger influence than most people acknowledge. For example, you say that poverty is more important than intelligence, yet there is a clear link between intelligence and income - you seem to want to avoid considering intelligence as a key underlying factor. Why?

Because I think it is, at most, a very minor factor compared to other social and systemic factors.

I hope you have thought more about your original position as a result of this discussion.

My original position in this thread was: "I think looking at a sort of middle-class, post-industrial-revolution model where mum stays home and dad goes to work outside the home as if it is the answer to life, the universe, and everything, is pretty short-sighted, to be honest."

I'd stand by that.

 

[Ken-1122]

One is theoretical, one is applied. They interact with each other, but laws are not set in stone necessarily if context is considered that can then adjust how they are applied in asking for compliance, etc

If a representative of the law (cop) tells you to put your hands behind your back so he can handcuff you, If you refuse to do so, you are not complying with the law. How is a cop supposed to force you to do as instructed (comply with the law) without resorting to violence if necessary?

 

[Kylie]

I linked 6 articles which one or ones are you saying have no link to the science. The first one does Why Children Need a Mother and a Father names the study The research is part of the on-going Millennium Cohort Study, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council. As Lisa Calderwood from London University’s Institute of Education explained: Then look it up, simple. Not all have a link, but an article that names the study, individual and University is not going to lie as that involves naming specific people.

Children in single parent families have more behavioural problems: study
Lisa Calderwood
Children in single parent families have more behavioural problems: study
Same as the others

Yeah, I did a search for "Millenium Cohort Study," and got to their website. Do you expect me to go trawling through the entire website looking for the one study with these results?

Additionally, the article you linked to claims the study found, "...some 12 per cent of children brought up by one parent displayed series behavioural problems by the age of seven."

For a start, 12% is still fairly small. Almost 90% of children raised by a single parent do NOT show signs of behavioural problems by the age of seven.

Also, even if we take this to be a serious problem (it never mentions how serious the behavioural problems are, after all, it could be only slightly more problematic than the children in the no-behavioural problems group), it still doesn't show that the child needs parents of TWO genders to avoid this.

Marriage Matters, and Redefining It Has Social Costs (This has a direct link to the paper) What is Marriage?
What is Marriage? by Sherif Girgis, Robert George, Ryan T. Anderson :: SSRN

That's not a scientific study. There was no testing done, no analysis of statistics. It's just an expression of opinion. It wasn't even published in a scientific journal!

The Science of Attachment: This has all the references at the end of the article.

And no way for me to actually read those sources so again, I just have to take the author's word on what they say.

In any case, that article is simply talking about the baby's attachment with the mother. The only part I could find that references attachments with others says:

"...the child cultivates an array of "affectional bonds"3 that include, most important, the father or partner, as well as other members of the network of close family and friends. Attunement in each of these relationships is intensely important because the child is always taking in new information and being shaped by the world.10 Just as the mother's role is to assist in the child's development, so is the role of every other primary person in the child's life. While attachment theory centers on a primary figure, typically the mother, as the bedrock of the child's health and wellbeing, this does not occur in a vacuum, nor to the exclusion of fathers and partners. Often, in the progression of infant development, the initial role of fathers focuses on support of the mother in her attempt to care for their baby. But it does not stop there. As the baby gains in abilities, the father becomes more central, and his role often evolves into the safe launching point for the child's accelerated forays into the external world. In the implementation of attachment theory, the baby is connected to the mother and embraced by the support of many people who influence growth and development differently at each unique stage."​

This does not mean that the mother's male spouse must be present, just that the baby does not develop in a vacuum and also gains from having other supporting figures in its life. This would include a same-sex couple, or even a polyamorous relationship with three (or more) adults living together.

The Scientific Reason the Mother-Child Bond Is So Powerful (this article has a direct link within it) researchers behind the new study published in the Journal of Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience,

Again, this is talking about the mother-child bond. I saw nothing in that article that pushed for only a mother, father, baby family dynamic.

The last article is from Health Direct which is part of the Australian Governments Health Department.
Trusted Health Advice
This website gives heath advice and uses scientific research as it is supplying information to the public. Though I don't trust governments I have used this site before and found verification for most of the stuff it mentions. What it says about a mother developing a bond with their prenatal baby is not new and is verified by other academic articles.

The one and only link you've provided for this does not link to the article, but just to the general website. I'm not going to go looking through the website to find the article you claim proves your point. But, once again, the article seems to be talking about the bond between mother and child. It is NOT pushing the traditional family dynamic that you seem to think it is. Of course, if you'd actually link to the specific article itself, I'd be happy to read it and change my views accordingly.

 

[Ken-1122]

still not an answer to mt question

If stopped by a cop, of course I would show him my license when he asks for it. Now answer my question; Now do you agree that even a good cop may have to resort to physical violence (as a last resort) in accordance to his duties?

 

[stevevw]

Ann Coulter? Really?

The woman who said "Why do we let blind people and people in wheelchairs become citizens? I feel sorry for cripples but that doesn't mean i wan't them in my country"

I don't know who she is but I am not interested in that. It is the content that needs to be looked at and I know this is correct as it is virtually the same type of content that most social academics will talk about. You are basically making a logical fallacy in attacking the person and not addressing the content.

OK so I done a quick fact check on Anne Coulter and the quote she is suppose to have said about cripples not being allowed to be citizens. It turns out that this fact is false and she did not say this. This is what happens to some people especially those who challenge the lefts PC. It has happened to good people such as Jordan Petersen, and Ben Shapiro who try to speak the truth. I knew something was going on when I read Anne Coulter had some Christian values that atheists and activists were going to makeup stuff about her.

A meme making the rounds on Facebook has a photo of conservative commentator Ann Coulter with a quote supposedly from her about how “cripples” should not be allowed U,S. citizenship.

The facts: Coulter has said a lot of things, but not this one.
Fact Check: Coulter really that cold-hearted? Not really ...

 

[Quartermaine]

If stopped by a cop, of course I would show him my license when he asks for it.

so how did this police officer instill boundaries without the use of violence

Now answer my question; Now do you agree that even a good cop may have to resort to physical violence (as a last resort) in accordance to his duties?

Not the question you asked. Again try to be honest. again your original question was: "How about if a cop use violence against your child to instill boundaries, does that make him a very bad cop?"