Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by superdave, Sep 28, 2017.
The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but, on the contrary, that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge-hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.
POTENTIAL EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL IMPACT ON CHILDREN
Kids from single-parent families are more likely to face emotional and behavioral health challenges — like aggression or engaging in high-risk behaviors — when compared to peers raised by married parents. Research has linked these health challenges with factors often associated with single-parent families, such as parental stress, lost social networks, witnessing conflict, moving homes and socioeconomic hurdles.
Children of single mothers may face additional challenges. For instance: Depression, which can negatively impact parenting, is common among recently divorced mothers.
Such hardships would be difficult for any child. But kids can recover and thrive — particularly when raised with the benefits of nurturing relationships, stability, and mental health support.
It is no accident that the majority of single parent families are found in minority (black/brown) populations
it is with clap trap like the last couple pages that they (Leftists) not only justify it but even promote it
the family is a barrier between the child and the state that must be, if not removed, weakened
Do you guys have any suggested solutions? Brummie mentioned a few, and I mentioned one, but what are your ideas to solve this problem?
It is well that such things are discussed here in this thread
Encouraging single parent families has been the agenda of the left
Brummies solutions are at least in line with his Leftist thought, forcing people to be one way or another
Your ‘solution’ is beyond the pale and does not merit any further comment
the way I see it, the OP suggested that usually a two parent family is better then single parent families
all he got for saying that was a flood of half baked theories and insults
posters here are even afraid to admit that two parent families might usually (not always, but usually) be better
not every view or opinion comes with a solution
Sometimes just noticing a problem is enough
claiming that someone cannot voice an opinion unless he provides a solution is not helpful and detriment to open debate
Simply pointing out the problem is also used to discriminate. "It's those people over there (you know who I'm talking about) who are the problem. They need to shape up and start acting right. Until that happens, they shouldn't get the benefits we offer to the good people (you know who I'm talking about)."
If it's a problem, why can't you offer any policy suggestions to make the situation better?
Ok, I got one suggestion
stop lying about how there are no benefits to having a two parent family
admit the fact that the surest way for any child (regardless of color/race/religion) to succeed is to have two parents, stay in school, find work and have children only after marriage
If cancer is a problem, why can’t you offer any medications to make the situation better?
Rock solid logic.
How does that help solve the problem?
Just to be clear, I agree that two parent households are better for kids, in general, than single parent households. But the problem is that there are cases where they're not, and we need to accept that in those cases, the single parent household is better for the kids. An example is if one of the parents is abusive. The blanket statement that two parent households are better does not apply if the kids are getting beaten by one of the parents. Other examples are if one of the parents dies, or goes to prison. It's a reality that we have to deal with, that there are going to be families where both parents aren't available, or where it's better for the kids if one or both parents aren't in the picture.
So how do we support those cases where a single parent household happens? What's best for the kids in those cases?
Poppycock! I'm from a 2 parent family with a stay at home mom and just look at how I turned out! The only way for a kid to have a decent childhood is to have pony....that and a villa in Ipanema!
I've read through the last few pages of this thread and feel like I've gone back in time about 20 years. Here's a few general comments.
First, the opening statement does not appear correct, at least based on this gallup poll of single mothers (as opposed to single parents).
Second, I would be curious to see how the increased difficulty of obtaining an abortion in the US affects the rate of single motherhood and the impact on the children.
Third, it is interesting that a much greater percentage of single mothers fall into the lowest economic levels in many Western countries compared to the global median. This suggests something cultural is going on related to the high levels of individualism in Western society, and especially in the US which takes it to the extreme. However, the US does not fare as poorly as some other Western countries, most notably Australia. This further highlights issues as to how the economic situation of the single mother would affect the child(ren).
Fourth, the argument that two parents are better for the child than one parent, is generally correct for specific cultural contexts. However, there are major qualifications on this. Specifically, are there multiple generations in the household or not? When you examine collectivistic cultures, such as those in the Pacific, single parenthood is not an issue because multiple generations generally live in the same household and share responsibilities for raising children. In reality, we are dealing with larger issues related to Western culture rather than simply looking at two parents or one parent. The problem is many on the right try to frame this issue into their religious beliefs and, as such, demonstrate a lack of understanding of the underlying relevant issues related to the nature of cultural systems. For example, pre-Christian Pacific cultures encouraged sex before marriage, women would not normally marry until after they had children, households were multi-generational, and the introduction of Christianity based on Western norms created a destabilizing force into those cultures.
Fifth, one poster has commented that marriage is relevant. It is not. Nor is "a mother and a father" as opposed to "two fathers" or "two mothers". The former was long debated ad nauseum by those who opposed marriage equality. And the data did not support them. The data show that two parents, regardless of marital status and regardless of gender, are better than one parent - once again generally speaking.
Sixth, some posters are arguing that it is the "Leftist" goal to have single parent families. Can we dispense with such utter moronic stupidity that is based on nothing but pseudo-scientific religious arguments drummed up by the proponents of the Religious Right, including Paul Cameron and James Dobson, who deliberately misused data in attempts to create animosity toward LGBT+ people?
Seventh, just because a child only has one parent does not mean the child has no close or meaningful bonds with adults of both genders. There are uncles, aunts, grandparents, neighbors, scout leaders, coaches, teachers, religious leaders, etc who all often play important roles in the lives of children, oftentimes mentoring and supporting them.
Finally, children of single parents can grow up to be well-functioning if other stresses on the single parent are alleviated. There are many reasons why children can only have one parent. It is simply ludicrous to ignore that this happens naturally, it happens artificially, it happens unfortunately, it happens fortunately, etc. It is highly irresponsible to insist on two-parent families or to benefit two-parent families at the expense of one-parent families because doing so hurts the children, in addition to creating additional stress on the parent.
disappointing it was only some ‘but mah government programmes discourse’
Voting for the guy who meets with neo-nazis?
Lower taxes for billionaires & let's not let Blah People vote on Saturdays.
Tax breaks and public land giveaway for soccer stadiums.
So make divorce Illegal?
How about forced abortions for unwed would be mother's?
yes of course these are the logical endpoints. Great stuff.
or perhaps we could stop financially incentivizing single parenthood for poor people. That’s also an option.
holy shit man. strawman after strawman. it’s really amazing. the logical contortions.
Supporting and encouraging environments that lead to two parent households does not equal denigrating single parent households.
it’s like saying encouraging people to become educated is discrimination against the non-educated. So Alice in wonderland. Strange.
So single parent homes with less income will do better than single parent homes with more income.
I doubt that you will find any study that sudjest that.
You sound very confused. Please go back, read my post again, and consider a new response.
You want to take government money away from people who have children and not spouse.
So a poor single parent will have less income to raise a child.
You know who else liked 2 parent families?
I don't think you read my post because if you did, then your comprehension skills are extremely poor.