The traditional family

[pleinmont]

Some idiots would prefer it if women were subservient to the male of the species as they were in the bad old days.

 

[Ken-1122]

This line of your post jumped out at me, and I wondered whether it was part of the core of the issue for you.

The thing is, if men's identity was based on dominating their family, keeping their wives subordinate and so on (the "traditional family"), it is a good thing that that has been undermined, and that we have an opportunity to construct a healthier and more positive masculine identity.

When people speak of traditional families, they aren't talking about families where the man dominates the woman
Family structure in the United States - Wikipedia

 

[pleinmont]

When people speak of traditional families, they aren't talking about families where the man dominates the woman
Family structure in the United States - Wikipedia

That is how I see it. My husband and I have always had an equal relationship. Obviously there are things he can do better than me, and visa versa.

 

[Quartermaine]

But what has politics got to do with the issue of single mothers and families.

what has this change of topic to do with you ignoring the fact that Coulter doesn't support her (and your claim) that destroying the family is the active social policy of liberals.

This statistic is mentioned by many different sources from political, law sites to blog sites. So it is not just Coulter that is using this. Why would so many respectful sites use the same stats.

There is a reference but to it from many of the sites that use the stat and it comes from Chuck Colson, “How Shall We Live?” Tyndale House , 2004, p.323
https://files.tyndale.com/thpdata/firstChapters/978-0-8423-5588-9.pdf
But I guess you'd have to buy the book to find out where the author got the stat from.

when you have "many" citing a reference but only using a secondary reference and not original source it's usually a good indication that they don't want you look at the actual original source.

These are some of the sites that use the same stat
72% of juvenile murderers, and 60% of rapists came from single mother homes.
https://www.fixfamilycourts.com/single-mother-home-statistics
Parental Alienation (Canada): Some interesting statistics on single mothers ~ If you want a child to be more vulnerable then put them in a single mother environment

"statistics" compiled by someone who is by his own admission biased.

there is one reference described as "Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Assoc" presented but not published. This is a long standing ploy by those who create junk science to make their work seem legitimate. If you have written a fake paper all you need to do is go to an appropriate meeting or conferences held by a legitimate professional organization - these events are held in public venues and have many parts of them open to the public. Take a few copies of your"research and find a quiet out of the way hall. post a small sign listing the name of your paper and stand there for a few minutes prepared to pas out free copies of your "research" and there you go, you have successfully presented a paper at a major professional event.

 

[Paidiske]

I don't think there was a major issue about men having what is termed toxic masculinity today in the first place to warrant them being pull down and rebuilt. The discourse created by feminism that all men are bad and abuse women is a misrepresentation and it is this that has created a situation where innocent men are becoming targeted and undermined about who they are. It is not a good thing to break down men's identity as this can contribute to the very high mental illness and suicide males are experiencing today. It has gone too far and now men are being unfairly discriminated against.

It right to call out men who are abusive and treat women bad but even some women are recognizing things are going too far and are pulling back. People in general are turning off feminism because it goes too far today in highlighting so called microaggressions by men and scrutinizing men's thoughts to the point that they are too scared to express themselves around women for fear of being labeled a misogynist.

Of course there was a major issue. That's why feminism as a movement began in the first place. If we'd been treated equally all along, we wouldn't have needed to fight for it.

No, no, of course #notallmen, but enough, with enough cultural and systemic problems, that all women feel the effects.

I agree that mental illness and suicide are bad, but arguing for the continued oppression of women is not a good suicide prevention strategy. We have to seek what will help everyone to flourish, not one group at another group's expense.

And, you know, maybe if men don't want to be labelled misogynist, they could avoid casual misogyny...

It cannot be denied taht there were those in the movement like Germaine Greer who made out the traditional family and motherhood was oppressive to women's ability to be free and independent. It stands to reason, if the traditional family was seen as patriarchal then the traditional family would have been seen as oppressive.

And the way things were when Germaine was writing her early works, that was absolutely the case. When The Female Eunuch was published, many women had to resign from their jobs when they got married, or at the latest, when they fell pregnant.

What I mean being dividing is that though feminism may have intended to seek equality by making things political and focusing things on gender this can create a gender divide. That is why people are moving away from feminism as they see it as being divisive.

People argue this line about division a lot. My mental image is this; there are two people, and one has squashed the other under a rock. When the person under the rock complains, the other tells them, "Hush, you're being divisive!"

No, the division was already there, and it's not wrong to speak up and name the injustice.

This is a vet Marxist view and that is what I am saying is the new ideology that has been creeping in. Yes some employers can be oppressive but I don't think it is as bad as some make out. I agree that capitalistic ideals and materialism is not a good basis for social welfare. The state has been diminishing its responsibility to help the needy and left things to privatization which is wrong. Butr some are taking this further by wanting to demonize western civilization as well and reject everything the west stands for. This seems to be a growing trend with SJW.

I am not a Marxist, but I can see that giving employers relatively unfettered power has harmed our families and households. Setting unreasonable hours, demanding excessive overtime, requiring people to be "on" for work even in their personal time... it creates very high levels of stress and eats into the ability to nurture healthy family relationships, or even to take care of one's self. That has nothing to do with "demonising western civilisation" or anything like that.

 

[Kylie]

It doesnt say so we cannot assume by saying that the other 88% are ok. Their may be other stats which their certainly are that show how children and adolescents from single parent families have other issues besides behavioral problems such as poor education, psychological problems, substance abuse problems and other developmental issues etc.

So you think perhaps they are saying, "Only 12% have behaviour problems, and the other 88% have behaviour problems too."

In any case, the article you linked to does not mention the cause of ANY of the behaviour problems, so I don't see how your conclusion that the problems are a result of the family structure are justified.

I agree that particular study was not specifying which parents are best but it still mentions that single parents children have more problems and that even blended families can cause kids more problems as opposed to their biological parents.

Does it say if it makes a difference if the families were blended while the children were still babies as opposed to later in childhood? There are a lot of variables that just aren't mentioned and yet could have a significant impact. You haven't shown that the study shows what you claim it does.

Yes of course poverty has an impact on any situation. But that is part of the problem that single parents cannot be in a position to have as much money and this can lead to other problems like stress and anxiety or children going without and then experiencing poor education or health etc.

Families with both parents are just as capable of being in poverty.

But that is only part of the reason. Other factors like a missing father or mothers role can cause problems or that single parents may have a higher rate of certain problems like mental health or poor parenting skills due to their own life experiences that cause them to be single parents etc according to the research.

But mental health problems and poor parenting skills aren't a result of familial structure, are they?

Sorry I forgot to add the site reference. The paper comes from the
The Centre for Independent Studies which does research for the Australian Government and used to help make policies. If you look at the site address it has CIS in the address.
About CIS - The Centre for Independent Studies

That's still not a study. Can you link to the actual study or not?

The study will be looking at the stats compared to married and cohabitation couples which doesn't require a child's knowledge of what is the status of the parents.

I don't think you get the point.

Little baby lives in a house with two adults, a man and a woman. You are claiming that if these two adults are married, then the baby will do better. But if the two adults are NOT married, the baby won't do as well.

The only variable is whether the two adults are married. So, if everything else is the same, the marital status of the adults is somehow having an effect on the baby.

How is that difference made?

Yes but it is still a journal which is peer reviewed and open to the scrutiny of other academics. The authors still cite scientific support for what they write and If you look at the paper at the bottom of each page there is a list of references they have used.

Yes, I'm sure that the Harvard Law Review is peer reviewed by psychologists, just as the Journal of Biochemistry is routinely peer reviewed by lawyers... *rolls eyes*

I guess it wold work in a similar way as far as having another loving parent to help. But this cannot substitute for a father especially a biological father just as two men cannot substitute for a mother. There are many studies that show that the role that a mother an father play in child upbringing is important. But that does not mean that same sex couples cannot bring up health and happy children.

So the child just needs figures of all genders then? An uncle could do it as well?

I haven't decided anything. It is the research that shows this. I did not even think of this as this is an unusual setup. I am not sure what you mean though. Many families have additional members help in raising children such as the grandparents or am older sibling and the research shows that this is also good for child rearing and families. But I am not sure about a three way relationship.

You say you haven't decided anything and are going with what the research says, but you seem to be looking at only the research that supports one particular conclusion rather than looking at research that supports other conclusions.

So your more or less saying that the idea of say a father or mother role is redundant and not needed by children.

No, I'm saying that when it comes to raising a child, the love and care given to the child by the parental figures is much more important than the number of those parental figures or the gender of those parental figures.

 

[FireDragon76]

When people speak of traditional families, they aren't talking about families where the man dominates the woman
Family structure in the United States - Wikipedia

It really depends... sometimes they are. Patriarchy and misogyny are real things among conservative Christians in the US.

 

[Ken-1122]

It really depends... sometimes they are. Patriarchy and misogyny are real things among conservative Christians in the US.

It's a real thing among Atheist, Muslims, Hindu, Black people, white people, Brown people, it's a real thing among everybody. This idea of finding the worst of a particular group and acting as if that is the norm is a cheap shot.
Second of all, this conversation was not about Christians, it was about traditional families. Christians aren't the only ones who find value in the traditional family structure ya know.

 

[stevevw]

what has this change of topic to do with you ignoring the fact that Coulter doesn't support her (and your claim) that destroying the family is the active social policy of liberals.

I haven't made any claims about the liberals wanting to destroy the family. Can you show me where I have said this. I wasn't trying to change the topic. I was just asking why you had mentioned Coulter's remarks about the liberals when I had not brought this up.

when you have "many" citing a reference but only using a secondary reference and not original source it's usually a good indication that they don't want you look at the actual original source.

"statistics" compiled by someone who is by his own admission biased.

That's a logical fallacy based on numbers (argumentum ad populum) in saying that just because many people have posted the same stat without the original source means the stat is false. It is also a logical fallacy to say the stats are wrong by discrediting the author/s.

there is one reference described as "Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Assoc" presented but not published. This is a long standing ploy by those who create junk science to make their work seem legitimate. If you have written a fake paper all you need to do is go to an appropriate meeting or conferences held by a legitimate professional organization - these events are held in public venues and have many parts of them open to the public. Take a few copies of your"research and find a quiet out of the way hall. post a small sign listing the name of your paper and stand there for a few minutes prepared to pas out free copies of your "research" and there you go, you have successfully presented a paper at a major professional event.

I cited several sources that had used this stat including the author of a book about Barack Obama. It seems Obama also used the quote when he was addressing the nation about the importance of fatherhood.
Children's Rights: President Obama on the vital importance of responsible fatherhood.
Another source had a link to the original source which is a academic paper from the American Psychological Association. So it is a scientific based reference which was a study on juveniles from single parents charged with murder.
“Characteristics of Adolescents Charged with Homicide.”
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1988-20389-001

But as I asked in my previous post we don't need to rely on any particular stat to show that children and adolescents from single parents have higher rates of a range of issues. It seems you want to change the focus onto the credibility of the author rather acknowledge that children from single parent families have more problems.

 

[stevevw]

So you think perhaps they are saying, "Only 12% have behaviour problems, and the other 88% have behavior problems too."

No I am saying we don't know and cannot make assumptions from this one article about the other 88% from this one study.

In any case, the article you linked to does not mention the cause of ANY of the behaviour problems, so I don't see how your conclusion that the problems are a result of the family structure are justified.

The study does show the cause and that is single parenting. That is what they controlled for.

Does it say if it makes a difference if the families were blended while the children were still babies as opposed to later in childhood? There are a lot of variables that just aren't mentioned and yet could have a significant impact. You haven't shown that the study shows what you claim it does.

The research was done of children aged 2 to 16 years.

Families with both parents are just as capable of being in poverty.

Yes that is true and they will experience problems as well. But single parent families are more likely to experience financial hardship.

But mental health problems and poor parenting skills aren't a result of familial structure, are they?

Yes they can be. mental health problems can be traced back to single parenting. The studies have to control for other variables to be able to establish that it is single parenting that caused children to have the problems. The study has focused on what problems single parents experience as opposed to two parents. You can begin to see trends in the differences.

Though studies don't always establish the reasons why single parents may have certain problems the fact remains that single parents and their children will experience those problems more than other family structures like two parent families. But other research has found the reasons as well which I have linked.

That's still not a study. Can you link to the actual study or not?

No its not a study but it is a paper that has academic references to studies and other supports.

I don't think you get the point.

Little baby lives in a house with two adults, a man and a woman. You are claiming that if these two adults are married, then the baby will do better. But if the two adults are NOT married, the baby won't do as well.

The only variable is whether the two adults are married. So, if everything else is the same, the marital status of the adults is somehow having an effect on the baby.

How is that difference made?

The results are derived from what happens to unmarried couples. They are saying that married couples have greater stability and security because of the commit in being married. Whereas cohabitation couples relationships are more unstable and less secure for child.

It is the security of a stable family for the child that is the benefit and it is the lack of security that can cause problems for children. Lack of security like with attachment theory has been shown to cause many development problems for children. But other issues can stem from a lack of stability in families such as inconsistent finances because cohabiting parents separate more and therefore will lose income more from one parent missing.

So the child just needs figures of all genders then? An uncle could do it as well?

Other people besides biological parents especially the mother can act as a caregiver and do a great job of bringing up kids and I am not disputing that. I am saying that the optimum setup is two parents and the best is the biological mother and father. That's not to say biological parents can harm children as well.

You say you haven't decided anything and are going with what the research says, but you seem to be looking at only the research that supports one particular conclusion rather than looking at research that supports other conclusions.

I have looked at other conclusions. But at the end of the day you have to go with what is the most consistent and supported data. Contrary results can be found in anything but if they are the minority then there is a reason such as they have not included some data or perhaps have biases themselves.

So that is why you have to look at a number of articles to find the most consistent and reliable data. That happens to be that single parenting comes with more problems for children. That doesn't mean that there are no single parents capable of looking after children.

No, I'm saying that when it comes to raising a child, the love and care given to the child by the parental figures is much more important than the number of those parental figures or the gender of those parental figures.

Yes a loving caregiver is important. But what I am asking with all things equal does a biological father or mother make any difference.

 

[Quartermaine]

I haven't made any claims about the liberals wanting to destroy the family. Can you show me where I have said this. I wasn't trying to change the topic. I was just asking why you had mentioned Coulter's remarks about the liberals when I had not brought this up.

Post #165

"Destroying the family "is the active social policy of liberals," says conservative author Ann Coulter."

That's a logical fallacy based on numbers (argumentum ad populum) in saying that just because many people have posted the same stat without the original source means the stat is false. It is also a logical fallacy to say the stats are wrong by discrediting the author/s.

the claims about the stats are not referenced and that is why they are useless

I cited several sources that had used this stat including the author of a book about Barack Obama. It seems Obama also used the quote when he was addressing the nation about the importance of fatherhood.
Children's Rights: President Obama on the vital importance of responsible fatherhood.

the claims are the authors's not president' Obama's

Another source had a link to the original source which is a academic paper from the American Psychological Association. So it is a scientific based reference which was a study on juveniles from single parents charged with murder.
“Characteristics of Adolescents Charged with Homicide.”
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1988-20389-001

you have a 30 year old study that is unavailable outside of an abstract which doesn't say what you attribute .

But as I asked in my previous post we don't need to rely on any particular stat to show that children and adolescents from single parents have higher rates of a range of issues. It seems you want to change the focus onto the credibility of the author rather acknowledge that children from single parent families have more problems.

Yeah we do need actual stats to make that claim.

 

[Kylie]

No I am saying we don't know and cannot make assumptions from this one article about the other 88% from this one study.

So you think maybe they have behavioural problems too? Then why wouldn't the be added to the 12%?

The study does show the cause and that is single parenting. That is what they controlled for.

Care to show me the specific part of the study that shows this?

BTW, you have not linked to the study. You linked to an article about the study.

The research was done of children aged 2 to 16 years.

And the data shows that the older kids have greater behavioural problems, suggesting that if a single parent gets into another relationship while the child is young, the problems are mitigated. Thus, it seems that much of the problem is older children seeing their familial structure change and finding it hard to change their well established patterns. Perhaps this is the cause? The children not coping well with change, and it ISN'T the non-traditional family structure?

Yes that is true and they will experience problems as well. But single parent families are more likely to experience financial hardship.

But I'd say that's because of the trouble faced trying to survive on a single income and find childcare - something which a non-traditional family would avoid.

Yes they can be. mental health problems can be traced back to single parenting. The studies have to control for other variables to be able to establish that it is single parenting that caused children to have the problems. The study has focused on what problems single parents experience as opposed to two parents. You can begin to see trends in the differences. Though studies don't always establish the reasons why single parents may have certain problems the fact remains that single parents and their children will experience those problems more than other family structures like two parent families. But other research has found the reasons as well which I have linked.

But the problems are not caused by the child only having a single parent. The child is not going, "I only have a single parent, therefore I will have behavioural problems." The problems are because of avoidable consequences of being a single parent - low income, finding it hard to balance family and work life, etc. If these things weren't an issue, then the single parent aspect wouldn't cause such problems, would it?

No its not a study but it is a paper that has academic references to studies and other supports.

Perhaps you could use one of those instead?

The results are derived from what happens to unmarried couples. They are saying that married couples have greater stability and security because of the commit in being married. Whereas cohabitation couples relationships are more unstable and less secure for child.
It is the security for the child that is the benefit and it is the lack of security that can cause the insecurity. Like the attachment bond for a child and their caregiver (mainly the mother) has been proven to be a big factor in how kids develop and turn out in life a stable and secure family is vital for child development.

Marriage is not a secure relationship. Divorce is a thing, y'know. And about 50% of marriages end in divorce. Marriage and Divorce

And marriage being secure is not necessarily a good thing. It could hold people in toxic relationships - what do you think that is going to do to the kids?

Other people besides biological parents especially the mother can act as a caregiver and do a great job of bringing up kids and I am not disputing that. I am saying that the optimum setup is two parents and the best is the biological mother and father. That's not to say biological parents can harm children as well.

You have provided nothing to show that a mother and father are optimum. At best, you have shown that single parent families are at a disadvantage. The only difference between us there is that you claim the disadvantage comes from the child not having exposure to both parents, while I claim it is because greater demands are placed on the single parent.

I have looked at other conclusions. But at the end of the day you have to go with what is the most consistent and supported data. Contrary results can be found in anything but if they are the minority then there is a reason such as they have not included some data or perhaps have biases themselves. So that is why you have to look at a number of articles to find the most consistent and reliable data. That happens to be that single parenting comes with more problems for children. That doesn't mean that there are no single parents capable of looking after children.

Would you care to show me some of the sources you looked at which support other conclusions?

Yes a loving caregiver is important. But what I am asking with all things equal does a biological father or mother make any difference.

How about we look at cases where children have been swapped at birth, and a child is raised by someone who believes that the child is biologically theirs but actually isn't. If having biological parents is so important, those children should suffer some measurable disadvantage, yes?

 

[stevevw]

Of course there was a major issue. That's why feminism as a movement began in the first place. If we'd been treated equally all along, we wouldn't have needed to fight for it.

Yes initially there was a problem and thus women began to stand up for their rights. I am saying that this has now gone too far. Women have gained a lot but still regard all men as bad. The discourse today is described with language like toxic masculinity, rape culture, and misogyny. This is not a true reflection of men and this is causing many problems for men to the point that I think the discrimination and abuse is going the other way.

I also believe though it was not right for men to be so dominant in the past the basis for men wanting to be in that position was not all bad. As mentioned men wanting to be the bread winner and head of the family originates from evolution. It was a natural development for survival. Men were stronger and better at taking the lead in matters of survival. Its just that men just took things too far and spread this into areas where it should not have been applied. The problem is today that men and women cannot be equal in all this as they are naturally different.

But feminism to a point has made it harder for the genders to find that natural fit because now everything is scrutinized and even if men are good at taking the lead in certain things they can't as hard line feminist will complain. That is why I think that not only men but women have now lost that natural identity that they need to have to allow them to find their true identities. this is affecting men more at the moment and is seen in the high mental illness and suicide.

No, no, of course #notallmen, but enough, with enough cultural and systemic problems, that all women feel the effects.

yes I agree but now things are going too far and some men are feeling the effects.

I agree that mental illness and suicide are bad, but arguing for the continued oppression of women is not a good suicide prevention strategy. We have to seek what will help everyone to flourish, not one group at another group's expense.

It is not a case of allowing men to oppress women to stop them committing suicide. It is about going to far with making out that they are monsters. Like I said earlier a rights based cause can be great at first but what often happens is when that oppressed group gets power themselves they can become the oppressors. It is a common consequence of power struggle.

And, you know, maybe if men don't want to be labelled misogynist, they could avoid casual misogyny...

This is what I mean. At the moment there is no acknowledgement that things may have gone to far and when men do say something they are labeled with more names. Often what they say and do is misconstrued because some are fixated on their rights too much. Men are now getting fired for saying the wrong thing that may offend a women, are losing their rights to their kids and are being accused of sexual harassment which is often shown to be false. Masculinity is seen as toxic and some want it completely eradicated when masculinity is not an evil thing altogether. So many men just keep quiet. Jordan Peterson a psychology professor recognizes this and explains things well.

Why feminists must read Jordan Peterson’s advice to men
More than half a century after the modern feminist revolution began in the 1960s, we have yet to figure out new rules for partnership between men and women.

Consider: We have rejected traditional sexist proprieties that forbade coarse language in front of "the ladies," yet a man can now be fired for telling a crude joke that offends a female co-worker. Calling women "the weaker sex" would be considered shockingly retrograde, yet ambivalent sexual encounters are easily recast as violations of women, with men presumed entirely responsible for ensuring consent. Workplace romances abound, yet flirting could be one step away from someone's idea of sexual harassment.

The fact that the word "masculinity" so often appears next to the word "toxic" says a lot about this cultural moment. So does the proliferation of neologisms for bad behaviour with "man" as a prefix: "mansplaining," "manspreading," etc.

For all its successes, contemporary feminism's main message to men is not one of equal partnership. Rather, it's: Repent, abase yourself, and be an obedient feminist ally — and we still won't trust you. It's no wonder that Peterson has found an eager audience in this climate. If feminists don't like his message, they should offer a better one.
Opinion | Why feminists must read Jordan Peterson’s advice to men

And the way things were when Germaine was writing her early works, that was absolutely the case. When The Female Eunuch was published, many women had to resign from their jobs when they got married, or at the latest, when they fell pregnant.

Yes but there was also the radical side which Greer has stated that the family was a symbol of oppression. This ideology has been one of the contributing factors to the family breaking down as families breakdown over gender conflicts and personal ideals about self fulfillment and ambition. The co-op is gone and now no one really knows what roles men and women should play and what a family is anymore.

People argue this line about division a lot. My mental image is this; there are two people, and one has squashed the other under a rock. When the person under the rock complains, the other tells them, "Hush, you're being divisive!"

Yes but it goes both ways. When experts say that the best setup for a family is where the male is the breadwinner women shout patriarchy and misogynist. So it has become a divide on personal grounds and the truth about what is best can no longer be made because the focus is on individual rights rather than what is best.

No, the division was already there, and it's not wrong to speak up and name the injustice.

Yes I agree but now we have a different problem so I am not sure a real solution to the problem has been found. It has just created more and different problems. Probably things are more divisive than before.

I am not a Marxist, but I can see that giving employers relatively unfettered power has harmed our families and households. Setting unreasonable hours, demanding excessive overtime, requiring people to be "on" for work even in their personal time... it creates very high levels of stress and eats into the ability to nurture healthy family relationships, or even to take care of one's self. That has nothing to do with "demonizing western civilization" or anything like that.

Well it does in that the original reasons and basis standing up against those wrongs was justified like many rights campaigns today things have gone overboard where they are tearing down everything. So the setting of unreasonable hours and demanding excessive overtime, requiring people to be "on" for work even in their personal time turns into the system is bad and we need to get rid of it and bring in socialism.

 

[FireDragon76]

Second of all, this conversation was not about Christians, it was about traditional families. Christians aren't the only ones who find value in the traditional family structure ya know.

In the US, "traditional family values" is a dog whistle for opposition to gay marriage and gay rights on the part of conservative Evangelical Christians.

Atheists are less committed to those sort of values, just due to the nature of not having investment in a religious ideology.

 

[pleinmont]

In the US, "traditional family values" is a dog whistle for opposition to gay marriage and gay rights on the part of conservative Evangelical Christians.

Atheists are less committed to those sort of values, just due to the nature of not having investment in a religious ideology.

Using the bible as an excuse for bigotry is very unpleasant.

 

[stevevw]

Post #165

"Destroying the family "is the active social policy of liberals," says conservative author Ann Coulter."

Sorry my bad. I didn't realize the implications of what that meant and was more focused on the
It is also a goal of socialism.[2] part of that quote. But after reading up on it I can see that the Liberals and Democrats are a bit similar to our Australian Labor Party and Greens. They have similar policies which I think have undermined the family like pro-abortion, supporting women to have kids without fathers, support gender ideology that undermines the roles of men and women (mothers and fathers), introduce policies that promote state child care and then make it hard for anyone to speak out by restricting free speech. This is similar to socialism which for some in liberal and labor politics can border on communism which promotes state control and the restriction of the family because it represents something that is independent and has values that conflict with state control.

the claims about the stats are not referenced and that is why they are useless

The problem is that the stat comes from Coulter's book which may have the original reference. We just don't know that. The other point is there is an academic reference for the stat so it is not a false statement as you have made out.

you have a 30 year old study that is unavailable outside of an abstract which doesn't say what you attribute.

Nevertheless it comes from a peer reviewed journal and may have been correct for that time.

Yeah we do need actual stats to make that claim.

What I am meaning is that you are overly focused on this one stat from Coulter to undermine her credibility rather than step back and look at the overall stats on this issue. So if we get back to the issue at hand there is no doubt that there is overwhelming evidence for from reputable sources showing that children brought up in single parent families have many problems associated with development and behavioral issues compared to two parent families. Considering we are talking about crime for children from single parents here is more evidence.

Single-Parent Families Cause Juvenile Crime
The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency reports that the most reliable indicator of violent crime in a community is the proportion of fatherless families. Fathers typically offer economic stability, a role model for boys, greater household security, and reduced stress for mothers. This is especially true for families with adolescent boys, the most crime-prone cohort. Children from single-parent families are more prone than children from two-parent families to use drugs, be gang members, be expelled from school, be committed to reform institutions, and become juvenile murderers. Single parenthood inevitably reduces the amount of time a child has in interaction with someone who is attentive to the child's needs, including the provision of moral guidance and discipline.
NCJRS Abstract - National Criminal Justice Reference Service

The Real Root Causes of Violent Crime: The Breakdown of Marriage, Family, and Community

• Over the past thirty years, the rise in violent crime parallels the rise in families abandoned by fathers.
• High-crime neighborhoods are characterized by high concentrations of families abandoned by fathers.
• State-by-state analysis by Heritage scholars indicates that a 10 percent increase in the percentage of children living in single-parent homes leads typically to a 17 percent increase in juvenile crime.
• The rate of violent teenage crime corresponds with the number of families abandoned by fathers.
• The type of aggression and hostility demonstrated by a future criminal often is foreshadowed in unusual aggressiveness as early as age five or six.
• The future criminal tends to be an individual rejected by other children as early as the first grade who goes on to form his own group of friends, often the future delinquent gang.

On the other hand:

• Neighborhoods with a high degree of religious practice are not high-crime neighborhoods.
• Even in high-crime inner-city neighborhoods, well over 90 percent of children from safe, stable homes do not become delinquents. By contrast only 10 percent of children from unsafe, unstable homes in these neighborhoods avoid crime.
• Criminals capable of sustaining marriage gradually move away from a life of crime after they get married.
• The mother's strong affectionate attachment to her child is the child's best buffer against a life of crime.
• The father's authority and involvement in raising his children are also a great buffer against a life of crime.

The scholarly evidence, in short, suggests that at the heart of the explosion of crime in America is the loss of the capacity of fathers and mothers to be responsible in caring for the children they bring into the world. This loss of love and guidance at the intimate levels of marriage and family has broad social consequences for children and for the wider community. The empirical evidence shows that too many young men and women from broken families tend to have a much weaker sense of connection with their neighborhood and are prone to exploit its members to satisfy their unmet needs or desires. This contributes to a loss of a sense of community and to the disintegration of neighborhoods into social chaos and violent crime. If policymakers are to deal with the root causes of crime, therefore, they must deal with the rapid rise of illegitimacy.
The Real Root Causes of Violent Crime: The Breakdown of Marriage, Family, and Community

 

[Ken-1122]

In the US, "traditional family values" is a dog whistle for opposition to gay marriage and gay rights on the part of conservative Evangelical Christians.

Citations? So because you said it that makes it so? I think not. Perhaps for YOU it's a dog whistle; but then I've seen white bigots who see black people as a dog whistle for criminal, black bigots who see white people as a dog whistle for racism..... Perhaps this dog whistle you speak of isn't based in reality but bigotry.

 

[FireDragon76]

Citations? So because you said it that makes it so? I think not. Perhaps for YOU it's a dog whistle; but then I've seen white bigots who see black people as a dog whistle for criminal, black bigots who see white people as a dog whistle for racism..... Perhaps this dog whistle you speak of isn't based in reality but bigotry.

Or perhaps not.

Family values - RationalWiki

In contemporary American politics, "family values" is known as a code word or dog whistle — something that disguises more hateful aspects of an agenda as something nice and innocent.

 

[Quartermaine]

Using the bible as an excuse for bigotry is very unpleasant.

sadly it is far to common

 

[Quartermaine]

Sorry my bad. I didn't realize the implications of what that meant and was more focused on the
It is also a goal of socialism.[2] part of that quote. But after reading up on it I can see that the Liberals and Democrats are a bit similar to our Australian Labor Party and Greens. They have similar policies which I think have undermined the family like pro-abortion, supporting women to have kids without fathers, support gender ideology that undermines the roles of men and women (mothers and fathers), introduce policies that promote state child care and then make it hard for anyone to speak out by restricting free speech. This is similar to socialism which for some in liberal and labor politics can border on communism which promotes state control and the restriction of the family because it represents something that is independent and has values that conflict with state control.

on what planet is this going on?

The problem is that the stat comes from Coulter's book which may have the original reference. We just don't know that. The other point is there is an academic reference for the stat so it is not a false statement as you have made out.

if there is an academic reference then it woudl be the reference. as it is all we hear of it are rumors. Frankly there is more evidence for Bigfoot than this supposed reference.

Nevertheless it comes from a peer reviewed journal and may have been correct for that time.

but you can't say what it may or may not have been correct about .

What I am meaning is that you are overly focused on this one stat from Coulter to undermine her credibility rather than step back and look at the overall stats on this issue. So if we get back to the issue at hand there is no doubt that there is overwhelming evidence for from reputable sources showing that children brought up in single parent families have many problems associated with development and behavioral issues compared to two parent families.

if there is overwhelming evidence why can't you show any?

Considering we are talking about crime for children from single parents here is more evidence.

Single-Parent Families Cause Juvenile Crime
The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency reports that the most reliable indicator of violent crime in a community is the proportion of fatherless families.

Did the journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency engage in research about the reason(s)why there was more crime in one section of the community?

Let em save you the time of going and looking. No they didn't.

What you presented was an editorial from a book not research.

Fathers typically offer economic stability, a role model for boys, greater household security, and reduced stress for mothers. This is especially true for families with adolescent boys, the most crime-prone cohort. Children from single-parent families are more prone than children from two-parent families to use drugs, be gang members, be expelled from school, be committed to reform institutions, and become juvenile murderers. Single parenthood inevitably reduces the amount of time a child has in interaction with someone who is attentive to the child's needs, including the provision of moral guidance and discipline.
NCJRS Abstract - National Criminal Justice Reference Service

none of these claims came from the journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency

The Real Root Causes of Violent Crime: The Breakdown of Marriage, Family, and Community

we are going to stop right here. The heritage foundation is a far right "think tank with a long history of race based claims about the intellectual and social inferiority of non-whites. the stuff listed here has been used for the promotion of racism. Check your sources already[/quote]