We used to not tolerate out-of-wedlock pregnancies. Girls that got "into trouble" went away to visit their "Aunt Sue" for a few months and the child then put up for adoption. Those children were then reared in a two parent home and turned out fine. Now a single lady gets pregnant and not only raises the child on her own but brags that she doesn't <B><I>NEED</I></B> any man helping her out thank-you-veery-much! Gay couples are demanding the "right" to raise children yet we're all homophobic if we don't think that's in a child's best interest. Most of these kids have big problems with no father in the picture. But we accept that as a society because we don't want to stigmatize pregnant single ladies or alternative lifestyles.
The thing that gets me the most about this is that it's the girl who gets in trouble. What about the guy who got her pregnant? Why is the girl has to carry the stigma? I know a man can't carry a child, but it sucks that the guy doesn't carry the same stigma.
I come from a part time 2 parent family. I can say when my dad was home, it was terrible for us. He thought he was doing his duty when he brought home a paycheck. He thought he was a good guy doing that. He didn't realize that being a father and a husband required more than bringing home a paycheck. Men who are completely clueless on how to relate to their children and then want nothing to do with their upbringing is a much worse thing than a single-parent household. I know from my own experience and the lives of other friends growing up with the same kind of dad.
Maybe that's why some women today feel they don't need a man. They don't want one who is there only mentally. Men need to be there emotionally too. It's hard for a lot of men to do that.
As a child, I felt much more peaceful when dad didn't live with us. I definitely felt like an unwanted burden to him. I think he regrets it today. I forgive him.
Re:"The thing that gets me the most about this is that it's the girl who gets in trouble. What about the guy who got her pregnant?"
If the girl decides to raise the child the guy has to pay child support for 18 years. That seems fair to me for what might have been a one night thingee. *BUT* and this is a big but... the right thing for that girl would be to put that baby up for adoption. Listen, Nottawayfer, due to the fact that there is now no stigma for women raising out-of-wedlock children and that abortions are now legal, there are hardly any children for people of means to adopt anymore. They have to go to foreign countries to get a child to raise.
I'm truly sorry you had a rotten dad but facts are facts and children raised in homes without fathers present are at a SEVERE disadvantage. You seem to have turned OK, right? Well guess what the statistics say.... yep... even when the dad wasn't the best in the world, the fact that he was in the home almost guarantees the kids will turn out better than if he weren't.... rotten dad or not.
Not sure why this is so but its's so. I'm thinking that even a drunken out of work slob of a father won't take shinola from the kids and thereby teach them accepting authority and keeping them out of trouble with the law as mothers tend to be (believe me I know what I'm talking about here) much more permissive. I don't know for sure why it works with both parents. I'm just guessing. But It DOES work better with both parents in the home. No debate.
Which takes us right back to what we were talking about... what we allow as acceptable behavior in our culture. And having kids out of wedlock??? Naw... that's not good for a society.
So are you saying it is bad for women who are in their 40s and never married to adopt children if they want them and can afford them?
Since you don't seem to have lived with an emotionally retarded father, you obviously don't know the effect it has on kids. It seems you are spewing out facts you read on the internet. Ask people who have actually lived through it.
"............ facts are facts and children raised in homes without fathers present are at a SEVERE disadvantage"
My poor children, how have they managed?
I'll run out and find an SOB abusive drunk, so they can have a daddy. He might beat their mama only once a day and treat them like sh!t and do unspeakable things but they'll have that daddy.
Well I have to disagree with you Sudo. I don't think it is two parents v one parent in the home that makes or breaks a child. It is what kind of parent or parents the child has. Children definitely need GOOD role models from BOTH genders, but I don't believe those role models have to be parents. Nor is 18 years of child support in any way equal to 18 years of being there day in and day out, changing the diapers, going to the doc, participating in school activities, etc. etc. Finally, I most certainly wouldn't want to return to the "good ole days" when divorce was rare and the law turned a blind eye to the rape and abuse of a women simply because the perpetrator was the husband.
Having said that, I will absolutely concede on the point regarding children raising children. That is a horrible situation and rarely works out well, unless there is a lot of support from the extended family. Unfortunatly the genie is out of the bottle and it isn't likely that it is going to be put back in. The best solution at this point, IMO, is to make sure we educate our young teens about their bodies and about sexuality - telling them it is wrong isn't enough. Give them a good dose of reality regarding how much work is involved in raising a child right. Keep lines of communication open and honest so you can help ensure they are protecting themselves. In an age of blow jobs in high school bathrooms, you cannot stop your child from having sex if he/she has made up his/her mind he/she is going to. You can make sure they know how to protect themselves.
And with all of that, supervise, supervise, supervise. Leaving teenagers to roam the streets, leaving teenagers home alone with no structured activities for hours and hours on end is a recipe for disaster.
The old mentality of he-man and barefooted women is also gone and I am glad. Women no longer feel obligated to marry the first suitor who proposes. Ideally, the generations following ours will learn to figure out what qualities will make a good spouse for them BEFORE they get married and have kids. They will marry older, have children later, and be better parents. That to me, is what to enourage in our children - the ideal to strive for. But again, to encourage this requires honest, open communication. Simply forbidding a teenager from doing something, in this day and time, is rarely effective.
You are being argumentative and know better. You know the facts as I've stated them to be correct. The fact that some women through no fault of their own have to raise children by themselves (who then turn out fine) is beside the point and you know it. You KNOW the data says kids raised in a single family household are generally at a great disadvantage. I don't have to post the studies because in your field you KNOW them. So.... what's your point?
Mothers can be a positive influence in their children's lives, whether or not they are single parents. A new multiethnic study at Cornell University has found that being a single parent does not appear to have a negative effect on the behavior or educational performance of a mother's 12- and 13-year-old children.
What mattered most in this study, Cornell researcher Henry Ricciuti says, is a mother's education and ability level and, to a lesser extent, family income and quality of the home environment. He found consistent links between these maternal attributes and a child's school performance and behavior, whether the family was white, black or Hispanic.
"Over all, we find little or no evidence of systematic negative effects of single parenthood on children, regardless of how long they have lived with a single parent during the previous six years," says Ricciuti, who is professor emeritus of human development in the College of Human Ecology at Cornell.
....
"In this follow-up study, we wanted to assess whether adverse effects of single parenthood emerged as children reached 12 and 13 years of age, and they did not," says Ricciuti, whose latest study is published in the April issue of the Journal of Educational Research (Vol. 97, No. 4).
I think being a good parent is far more important than being a married parent. If my the dad's an alcoholic who comes home from work, gets drunk and passes out by 9:00pm and when he IS awake all he does is criticize the kids and/or Mom, then the kids would be much better off without that kind of influence. It's good parenting and open, honest communication with kids so that they feel comfortable talking with the parents about life issues that's important, not the marital status.
Sudo, are you saying that you think my idea of adopting a child, even though I can afford it, would be wrong just because I'm single?
Ya know, Sudo, I think I'll make sure she applies to Ole Miss when she graduates from high school.
My point is that I can't believe you typed that stuff. And I'm not being argumentative, I was being sarcastic. I was stunned you considered it and reminded of our society that sets strong parents back so far with generic suggestions and doesn't look at the bigger picture.
I know, in my field, that a daddy in the home just to have a daddy in the home is the worst scenerio.
The facts as you've stated them are not as I know them, not at all. And why is it beside the point when it's through no fault of their own? I could have given my children a daddy after theirs died, I still can. I choose not to and it's a helluva lot more work doing it solo.
The data that suggests kids raised without a father suggests that they are at a disadvantage IF the one who IS raising them does a crappy job. We sometimes forget to finish that statement.
Just like the stats that show that it's not always the best for the mama to have physical custody, but the daddy. A woman shouldn't be able to say that just cuz she's the mama, she should raise the kids. Thankfully those stereotypes are changing slowly too.
A few words from a Princeston Study
Whether or not these outcomes are caused by the divorce itself, as opposed to something else about the family, remains controversial
In sum, the evidence is mixed with respect to whether divorce causes children to have problems, or whether the problems associated with divorce are due to poor parenting or even poor genes.
McLanahan concludes that three general factors account for the disadvantages associated with father absence: economic deprivation, poor parenting, and lack of social support
That is but a teensy tiny bit of quotes from one article. My point is not to paint with such broad strokes. It depends on the family dynamics, the familial support, the interaction of the parents, whichever one is with custody, the schools input, environment. It's not fair to make a general statement and not look at the bigger picture.
The stats are true that kids need both parents and the absent parent leaves a void that brings with it potential for great problems. But, my point is that it's not black or white.
What about the mom who isn't in the home? The stats are similiar and it's up to the dad or whomever is doing the lions share of the child raising to see that the disadvantages are lessened for their children.
What if both parents are absent, and uncle, aunt or grandparents are raising the babies, as has been mentioned. They have to work twice, or thrice or more as hard to see that the needs get met.
It's just not a stat that we should feel comfortable throwing around with assumptions that it takes a mommy and a daddy for the family to be a healthy happy one. And we can't assume that because one is gone that the kid is doomed.
Finally, no it's not about my knowing better. Arguing about this kind of thing is what's needed in this society that feels if daddy is gone, the kids are sunk.
Disadvantage? Yes, the kids are, but it also depends on the sex of the child; again it's not just black or white. A male child needs some male influence, be it dad or someone else. A female child needs the same. If mom is absent and dad is raising her, he needs female influence to help with that child. It always depends on so many things, so many variables.
What I do know better about is what I do study when a mom refuses to leave the daddy that should not be in the home and her kids pay the biggest price.
What I do know better about is the mom who sells her kids to get a daddy for them.
What I do know better about is the daddy that should never be there and the mama that should never be there. And worse, I do know better about the kids who suffer greatly because they are.
What I do know better about is the system that messes it all up and leaves us with statements that need so much more and beliefs that a woman somehow can't be strong enough to make it work when daddy blows.
Re:<B><I><font color=maroon>"It may have more to do with where you grew up, Sudo. I grew up in NYC, and although my parents didn't cuss (or they cussed in another language ) I certainly heard cussing."</font></I></B>
I don't want to disparage your upbringing but you didn't hear cusssing even on TV until the 70's. And it started off mild. I remember Johnny Carson saying Hell and damn and the audience roared with laughter because he was being naughty. Then you could say other words on TV like bitch and bastard. My my and this was considered progress? But you know... its really not about the curse words. They are just words after all. Its about what we as a people decide to allow as acceptable behavior and words are just a barometer.
We used to not tolerate out-of-wedlock pregnancies. Girls that got "into trouble" went away to visit their "Aunt Sue" for a few months and the child then put up for adoption. Those children were then reared in a two parent home and turned out fine. Now a single lady gets pregnant and not only raises the child on her own but brags that she doesn't <B><I>NEED</I></B> any man helping her out thank-you-veery-much! Gay couples are demanding the "right" to raise children yet we're all homophobic if we don't think that's in a child's best interest. Most of these kids have big problems with no father in the picture. But we accept that as a society because we don't want to stigmatize pregnant single ladies or alternative lifestyles.
Aw... I could go on about the trash that's on TV, the filthy and even violent lyrics on songs on the radio that we all have just insulated ourselves to but I think you get my point. We hear this stuff over and over... get used to it thereby accepting it for all intents and purposes... and then... our culture goes even more into the toilet.
<center>sudo</center>
Sudo- Plain and simple- my parents didn't cuss! The teens on the block did, though.
That was my point. I'm not getting into a discussion on the other points.
I'm incredulous that you guys are even debating the marriage issue. Just stick "single mother absent father" or some such into a search engine and just see what pops up. Here's a typical article... HERE! because even sociologists can't deny the overwhelming evidence. Where are ya'll coming from?
Belle.. you asked me:
"Sudo, are you saying that you think my idea of adopting a child, even though I can afford it, would be wrong just because I'm single?"
No it's not morally WRONG fer Heaven's sakes. Lots of kids are reared in single parent homes and do very well thank-you-very-much... but it would be a better scenario for that child to be adopted by a married couple that were desirous of having children. Look at the studies.
Shell..
Re:"I know, in my field, that a daddy in the home just to have a daddy in the home is the worst scenerio."
I accept what you say as you deal with these issues every day and I respect that you know what you're talking about. Surely you know that I didn't mean to imply that women and their children stay in abusive situations.... "for the sake of the kids".
I'm just decrying the breakdown of used to be accepted norms of behavior that has seriously wounded our way of life. And the breakdown of traditional marriages is just one part of it. Hmmm... and we got to this discussion by talking about little children using vulgar language, huh? :blink:
I'm just decrying the breakdown of used to be accepted norms of behavior that has seriously wounded our way of life. And the breakdown of traditional marriages is just one part of it. Hmmm... and we got to this discussion by talking about little children using vulgar language, huh? :blink:
<center>sudo</center>
Sudo, I would be curious as to what your perception and description of the "traditional marriage" is, beyond the overly simplistic man and woman married to each other and raising their biological kids together. I mean, the day in day out, what it looks like.
Here's my thinking, if the "traditional marriage" was such a wonderful, or even fairly good thing for the majority of couples and families, it seems to me the divorce rate wouldn't be so high. We have this idealistsic view of how the good ole days used to be, but perhaps the reality of those good ole days wasn't as great as we'd like to think it was. My guess is there were very very few happy, "leave it to beaver" type families.
People don't get divorced just for the hell of it. Divorce is hard and very very painful, even for the person who is requesting it. It is a huge loss, not unlike a death and there is a long grieving process that goes with it. Likewise, I think most women would love to have the father of their children as a true partner in parenting. Raising kids with two parents is hard work and as I am sure you are aware. Doing it right without a partner is twice as hard. I don't think the high rate of divorce and single mother homes can be reduced to a "degredation of society" issue, it is far more complicated than swear words, sex, and violence on t.v.
Wanted to add - I think the one way where you could put some blame on TV and Hollywood with respect to divorce is their promulgation of the confusion between sexual attraction/desire and a real love based on a true knowledge of who the person is combined with the whole idea of riding off to live happily ever after, as if it is just that easy.
I'm flattered that you are even interested in what *my* opinions on traditional marriage are. But since you've flattered me I have no choice but to reply do I?? OK then as to your post:
Re:"...if the "traditional marriage" was such a wonderful, or even fairly good thing for the majority of couples and families, it seems to me the divorce rate wouldn't be so high."
OK then here's my opinion... divorce rates started up back in the 60's when more and more women went into the workplace. That's beyond dispute. But the reason for the initial increase IMNSHO is that these working women no longer had to suffer abuse at the hands of men who were abusing them or their children. Before they were in the work force in large numbers, women pretty much had to endure abuses of their husbands as they had almost no options. There were no safe houses for abused women. But now since they had incomes of their own... they could just leave the brutes.
The downside to this phenomenon is that divorce was losing its stigma so that both men and women could bail out of a situation and divorce when circumstances really weren't that bad. We became the selfish generation where our own happiness mattered more than our children who do lots better in a two parent (married... read the article I linked to) situation.
And since you asked for my opinion on "traditional marriages", I still think they are best for all concerned because.... they are recognized universally as the best. I'm not being ethnocentric and talking about just American culture either. Traditional marriage is the norm (OK, with a few exceptions) throughout the entire world.... Hindu India, Shinto Japan, animistic Africa, All of the Poynesian islands etc... its truly universal. That again.. is beyond dispute.
But why would all these people practice the essence of traditional marriage even though their religions and many other cultural aspects varied so much?? Well there you have to get my opinion (sorry now you asked for it, huh? ) which is that what we call traditional marriage has been the model that produced superior cultures. In short... its what works. The modern studies all show this of course. However some folks don't like the results. They want to practice alternative lifestyles and say its just hunky dory for both children and society.
That's my opionion. Feel free to express your opinion.. unless it contradicts mine. Hee-hee!
Sudo, I don't think our opinions are so very far apart. I would agree that the traditional marriage would be the ideal for raising children, provided the marriage is one that functions in a healthy manner.
I recently was listening to NPR and they were talking about cheating spouses. A survey that was done showed that in the U.S., we don't cheat on our spouses nearly as often as we leave them altogether for someone else. In other countries, having an affair isn't viewed in the same manner it is here - it doesn't equate to the death of the marriage.
This would suggest to me that among the cultural differences, the entire marriage partnership is viewed differently in many other cultures. Sexuality is viewed differently in many other cultures. In other words, the married couples in other countries tend to stay together, but they seek out other people to fill those unhappy places left by their marriages.
I am not saying this is the ideal solution, rather it tells me that their marriages aren't really any better than the ones here, they just deal with it differently. I still think the best way to reinstitute anything akin to the traditional family is by teaching our children the differences between sexual attraction and a true love built on knowledge and acceptance of another person. Teaching them it is better to wait to get married and have children until they are a bit older, more mature, and more sure of what qualities the do and do not want in a spouse. Regardless of whether they abstain from sex until they are married or not.
In other words, fine - go have SAFE sex, use a condom AND spermicides and make sure you protect your body. But don't get pregnant/knock them up and don't confuse sex with love! Sure, ideally I would love it if my son's abstained until they were married. Hell I'd be happy if they would abstain until they were at least half way through college. But I'm not niave either, so I'd rather make sure they are educated in how to protect their bodies and their futures than stick my head in the sand and hope it all works out okay.
There is a girl I work with, she is 38 and a single mom. Her husband was killed when they were still a relatively young married couple in their 20's. She has raised a son and is almost done raising a daughter. Our tech guy has a crush on her and has asked her out 3 times now. He is okay looking - not gorgeous but not bad either. He seems to be nice, has a good sense of humor, is divorced and has a son - so he knows a bit about the score on parenting, and he works. She won't go out with him because 'there's no spark.' I asked her, "how will you know if there really is a spark or not unless you get to know him better?"
Now, on the other hand, she is dying to go out with her mechanic who has all the makings of the stereotypical "bad boy" because with him there is "a spark." And she wonders why her now 14 year old daughter is "madly in love with" the 18 year old bad boy at school. DUH!
See, sexual attraction v true knowledge of someone. I'm not saying the tech guy is the right guy for her. But I am pointing out the mentality that exists - that confustion between desire and love. THAT, IMO, is the downfall of the traditional family unit. You fall in lust, but lust only lasts so long. You grow in love and the desire and sexual attraction will continue to grow also. People don't want to take the time to really get to know each other. They think it should all happen from begining to end in a few hours like it does in the movies or romance novels.
It isn't the graphic sex or foul language that causes all the confusion, it is portraying desire as love that causes them. You don't need graphic sex to send out that confusion message - just watch Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty - it is ingrained in little girls long long before they ever see a titty shot or hear a swear word.
Recommended Posts
Nottawayfer
The thing that gets me the most about this is that it's the girl who gets in trouble. What about the guy who got her pregnant? Why is the girl has to carry the stigma? I know a man can't carry a child, but it sucks that the guy doesn't carry the same stigma.
I come from a part time 2 parent family. I can say when my dad was home, it was terrible for us. He thought he was doing his duty when he brought home a paycheck. He thought he was a good guy doing that. He didn't realize that being a father and a husband required more than bringing home a paycheck. Men who are completely clueless on how to relate to their children and then want nothing to do with their upbringing is a much worse thing than a single-parent household. I know from my own experience and the lives of other friends growing up with the same kind of dad.
Maybe that's why some women today feel they don't need a man. They don't want one who is there only mentally. Men need to be there emotionally too. It's hard for a lot of men to do that.
As a child, I felt much more peaceful when dad didn't live with us. I definitely felt like an unwanted burden to him. I think he regrets it today. I forgive him.
Edited by NottawayferLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Nottawayfer,
Re:"The thing that gets me the most about this is that it's the girl who gets in trouble. What about the guy who got her pregnant?"
If the girl decides to raise the child the guy has to pay child support for 18 years. That seems fair to me for what might have been a one night thingee. *BUT* and this is a big but... the right thing for that girl would be to put that baby up for adoption. Listen, Nottawayfer, due to the fact that there is now no stigma for women raising out-of-wedlock children and that abortions are now legal, there are hardly any children for people of means to adopt anymore. They have to go to foreign countries to get a child to raise.
I'm truly sorry you had a rotten dad but facts are facts and children raised in homes without fathers present are at a SEVERE disadvantage. You seem to have turned OK, right? Well guess what the statistics say.... yep... even when the dad wasn't the best in the world, the fact that he was in the home almost guarantees the kids will turn out better than if he weren't.... rotten dad or not.
Not sure why this is so but its's so. I'm thinking that even a drunken out of work slob of a father won't take shinola from the kids and thereby teach them accepting authority and keeping them out of trouble with the law as mothers tend to be (believe me I know what I'm talking about here) much more permissive. I don't know for sure why it works with both parents. I'm just guessing. But It DOES work better with both parents in the home. No debate.
Which takes us right back to what we were talking about... what we allow as acceptable behavior in our culture. And having kids out of wedlock??? Naw... that's not good for a society.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nottawayfer
So are you saying it is bad for women who are in their 40s and never married to adopt children if they want them and can afford them?
Since you don't seem to have lived with an emotionally retarded father, you obviously don't know the effect it has on kids. It seems you are spewing out facts you read on the internet. Ask people who have actually lived through it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shellon
"............ facts are facts and children raised in homes without fathers present are at a SEVERE disadvantage"
My poor children, how have they managed?
I'll run out and find an SOB abusive drunk, so they can have a daddy. He might beat their mama only once a day and treat them like sh!t and do unspeakable things but they'll have that daddy.
hmmmmmm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Well I have to disagree with you Sudo. I don't think it is two parents v one parent in the home that makes or breaks a child. It is what kind of parent or parents the child has. Children definitely need GOOD role models from BOTH genders, but I don't believe those role models have to be parents. Nor is 18 years of child support in any way equal to 18 years of being there day in and day out, changing the diapers, going to the doc, participating in school activities, etc. etc. Finally, I most certainly wouldn't want to return to the "good ole days" when divorce was rare and the law turned a blind eye to the rape and abuse of a women simply because the perpetrator was the husband.
Having said that, I will absolutely concede on the point regarding children raising children. That is a horrible situation and rarely works out well, unless there is a lot of support from the extended family. Unfortunatly the genie is out of the bottle and it isn't likely that it is going to be put back in. The best solution at this point, IMO, is to make sure we educate our young teens about their bodies and about sexuality - telling them it is wrong isn't enough. Give them a good dose of reality regarding how much work is involved in raising a child right. Keep lines of communication open and honest so you can help ensure they are protecting themselves. In an age of blow jobs in high school bathrooms, you cannot stop your child from having sex if he/she has made up his/her mind he/she is going to. You can make sure they know how to protect themselves.
And with all of that, supervise, supervise, supervise. Leaving teenagers to roam the streets, leaving teenagers home alone with no structured activities for hours and hours on end is a recipe for disaster.
The old mentality of he-man and barefooted women is also gone and I am glad. Women no longer feel obligated to marry the first suitor who proposes. Ideally, the generations following ours will learn to figure out what qualities will make a good spouse for them BEFORE they get married and have kids. They will marry older, have children later, and be better parents. That to me, is what to enourage in our children - the ideal to strive for. But again, to encourage this requires honest, open communication. Simply forbidding a teenager from doing something, in this day and time, is rarely effective.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Shell,
You are being argumentative and know better. You know the facts as I've stated them to be correct. The fact that some women through no fault of their own have to raise children by themselves (who then turn out fine) is beside the point and you know it. You KNOW the data says kids raised in a single family household are generally at a great disadvantage. I don't have to post the studies because in your field you KNOW them. So.... what's your point?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
:huh:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/May04...arents.ssl.html
I think being a good parent is far more important than being a married parent. If my the dad's an alcoholic who comes home from work, gets drunk and passes out by 9:00pm and when he IS awake all he does is criticize the kids and/or Mom, then the kids would be much better off without that kind of influence. It's good parenting and open, honest communication with kids so that they feel comfortable talking with the parents about life issues that's important, not the marital status.
Sudo, are you saying that you think my idea of adopting a child, even though I can afford it, would be wrong just because I'm single?
Ya know, Sudo, I think I'll make sure she applies to Ole Miss when she graduates from high school.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shellon
My point is that I can't believe you typed that stuff. And I'm not being argumentative, I was being sarcastic. I was stunned you considered it and reminded of our society that sets strong parents back so far with generic suggestions and doesn't look at the bigger picture.
I know, in my field, that a daddy in the home just to have a daddy in the home is the worst scenerio.
The facts as you've stated them are not as I know them, not at all. And why is it beside the point when it's through no fault of their own? I could have given my children a daddy after theirs died, I still can. I choose not to and it's a helluva lot more work doing it solo.
The data that suggests kids raised without a father suggests that they are at a disadvantage IF the one who IS raising them does a crappy job. We sometimes forget to finish that statement.
Just like the stats that show that it's not always the best for the mama to have physical custody, but the daddy. A woman shouldn't be able to say that just cuz she's the mama, she should raise the kids. Thankfully those stereotypes are changing slowly too.
A few words from a Princeston Study
Whether or not these outcomes are caused by the divorce itself, as opposed to something else about the family, remains controversial
In sum, the evidence is mixed with respect to whether divorce causes children to have problems, or whether the problems associated with divorce are due to poor parenting or even poor genes.
McLanahan concludes that three general factors account for the disadvantages associated with father absence: economic deprivation, poor parenting, and lack of social support
http://www.asanet.org/cs/03262002_5
That is but a teensy tiny bit of quotes from one article. My point is not to paint with such broad strokes. It depends on the family dynamics, the familial support, the interaction of the parents, whichever one is with custody, the schools input, environment. It's not fair to make a general statement and not look at the bigger picture.
The stats are true that kids need both parents and the absent parent leaves a void that brings with it potential for great problems. But, my point is that it's not black or white.
What about the mom who isn't in the home? The stats are similiar and it's up to the dad or whomever is doing the lions share of the child raising to see that the disadvantages are lessened for their children.
What if both parents are absent, and uncle, aunt or grandparents are raising the babies, as has been mentioned. They have to work twice, or thrice or more as hard to see that the needs get met.
It's just not a stat that we should feel comfortable throwing around with assumptions that it takes a mommy and a daddy for the family to be a healthy happy one. And we can't assume that because one is gone that the kid is doomed.
Finally, no it's not about my knowing better. Arguing about this kind of thing is what's needed in this society that feels if daddy is gone, the kids are sunk.
Disadvantage? Yes, the kids are, but it also depends on the sex of the child; again it's not just black or white. A male child needs some male influence, be it dad or someone else. A female child needs the same. If mom is absent and dad is raising her, he needs female influence to help with that child. It always depends on so many things, so many variables.
What I do know better about is what I do study when a mom refuses to leave the daddy that should not be in the home and her kids pay the biggest price.
What I do know better about is the mom who sells her kids to get a daddy for them.
What I do know better about is the daddy that should never be there and the mama that should never be there. And worse, I do know better about the kids who suffer greatly because they are.
What I do know better about is the system that messes it all up and leaves us with statements that need so much more and beliefs that a woman somehow can't be strong enough to make it work when daddy blows.
Shellon Fockler-North
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Sudo- Plain and simple- my parents didn't cuss! The teens on the block did, though.
That was my point. I'm not getting into a discussion on the other points.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
I'm incredulous that you guys are even debating the marriage issue. Just stick "single mother absent father" or some such into a search engine and just see what pops up. Here's a typical article... HERE! because even sociologists can't deny the overwhelming evidence. Where are ya'll coming from?
Belle.. you asked me:
"Sudo, are you saying that you think my idea of adopting a child, even though I can afford it, would be wrong just because I'm single?"
No it's not morally WRONG fer Heaven's sakes. Lots of kids are reared in single parent homes and do very well thank-you-very-much... but it would be a better scenario for that child to be adopted by a married couple that were desirous of having children. Look at the studies.
Shell..
Re:"I know, in my field, that a daddy in the home just to have a daddy in the home is the worst scenerio."
I accept what you say as you deal with these issues every day and I respect that you know what you're talking about. Surely you know that I didn't mean to imply that women and their children stay in abusive situations.... "for the sake of the kids".
I'm just decrying the breakdown of used to be accepted norms of behavior that has seriously wounded our way of life. And the breakdown of traditional marriages is just one part of it. Hmmm... and we got to this discussion by talking about little children using vulgar language, huh? :blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Sudo, I would be curious as to what your perception and description of the "traditional marriage" is, beyond the overly simplistic man and woman married to each other and raising their biological kids together. I mean, the day in day out, what it looks like.
Here's my thinking, if the "traditional marriage" was such a wonderful, or even fairly good thing for the majority of couples and families, it seems to me the divorce rate wouldn't be so high. We have this idealistsic view of how the good ole days used to be, but perhaps the reality of those good ole days wasn't as great as we'd like to think it was. My guess is there were very very few happy, "leave it to beaver" type families.
People don't get divorced just for the hell of it. Divorce is hard and very very painful, even for the person who is requesting it. It is a huge loss, not unlike a death and there is a long grieving process that goes with it. Likewise, I think most women would love to have the father of their children as a true partner in parenting. Raising kids with two parents is hard work and as I am sure you are aware. Doing it right without a partner is twice as hard. I don't think the high rate of divorce and single mother homes can be reduced to a "degredation of society" issue, it is far more complicated than swear words, sex, and violence on t.v.
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Wanted to add - I think the one way where you could put some blame on TV and Hollywood with respect to divorce is their promulgation of the confusion between sexual attraction/desire and a real love based on a true knowledge of who the person is combined with the whole idea of riding off to live happily ever after, as if it is just that easy.
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Abigail,
I'm flattered that you are even interested in what *my* opinions on traditional marriage are. But since you've flattered me I have no choice but to reply do I?? OK then as to your post:
Re:"...if the "traditional marriage" was such a wonderful, or even fairly good thing for the majority of couples and families, it seems to me the divorce rate wouldn't be so high."
OK then here's my opinion... divorce rates started up back in the 60's when more and more women went into the workplace. That's beyond dispute. But the reason for the initial increase IMNSHO is that these working women no longer had to suffer abuse at the hands of men who were abusing them or their children. Before they were in the work force in large numbers, women pretty much had to endure abuses of their husbands as they had almost no options. There were no safe houses for abused women. But now since they had incomes of their own... they could just leave the brutes.
The downside to this phenomenon is that divorce was losing its stigma so that both men and women could bail out of a situation and divorce when circumstances really weren't that bad. We became the selfish generation where our own happiness mattered more than our children who do lots better in a two parent (married... read the article I linked to) situation.
And since you asked for my opinion on "traditional marriages", I still think they are best for all concerned because.... they are recognized universally as the best. I'm not being ethnocentric and talking about just American culture either. Traditional marriage is the norm (OK, with a few exceptions) throughout the entire world.... Hindu India, Shinto Japan, animistic Africa, All of the Poynesian islands etc... its truly universal. That again.. is beyond dispute.
But why would all these people practice the essence of traditional marriage even though their religions and many other cultural aspects varied so much?? Well there you have to get my opinion (sorry now you asked for it, huh?
) which is that what we call traditional marriage has been the model that produced superior cultures. In short... its what works. The modern studies all show this of course. However some folks don't like the results. They want to practice alternative lifestyles and say its just hunky dory for both children and society.
That's my opionion. Feel free to express your opinion.. unless it contradicts mine. Hee-hee!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Sudo, I don't think our opinions are so very far apart. I would agree that the traditional marriage would be the ideal for raising children, provided the marriage is one that functions in a healthy manner.
I recently was listening to NPR and they were talking about cheating spouses. A survey that was done showed that in the U.S., we don't cheat on our spouses nearly as often as we leave them altogether for someone else. In other countries, having an affair isn't viewed in the same manner it is here - it doesn't equate to the death of the marriage.
This would suggest to me that among the cultural differences, the entire marriage partnership is viewed differently in many other cultures. Sexuality is viewed differently in many other cultures. In other words, the married couples in other countries tend to stay together, but they seek out other people to fill those unhappy places left by their marriages.
I am not saying this is the ideal solution, rather it tells me that their marriages aren't really any better than the ones here, they just deal with it differently. I still think the best way to reinstitute anything akin to the traditional family is by teaching our children the differences between sexual attraction and a true love built on knowledge and acceptance of another person. Teaching them it is better to wait to get married and have children until they are a bit older, more mature, and more sure of what qualities the do and do not want in a spouse. Regardless of whether they abstain from sex until they are married or not.
In other words, fine - go have SAFE sex, use a condom AND spermicides and make sure you protect your body. But don't get pregnant/knock them up and don't confuse sex with love! Sure, ideally I would love it if my son's abstained until they were married. Hell I'd be happy if they would abstain until they were at least half way through college. But I'm not niave either, so I'd rather make sure they are educated in how to protect their bodies and their futures than stick my head in the sand and hope it all works out okay.
There is a girl I work with, she is 38 and a single mom. Her husband was killed when they were still a relatively young married couple in their 20's. She has raised a son and is almost done raising a daughter. Our tech guy has a crush on her and has asked her out 3 times now. He is okay looking - not gorgeous but not bad either. He seems to be nice, has a good sense of humor, is divorced and has a son - so he knows a bit about the score on parenting, and he works. She won't go out with him because 'there's no spark.' I asked her, "how will you know if there really is a spark or not unless you get to know him better?"
Now, on the other hand, she is dying to go out with her mechanic who has all the makings of the stereotypical "bad boy" because with him there is "a spark." And she wonders why her now 14 year old daughter is "madly in love with" the 18 year old bad boy at school. DUH!
See, sexual attraction v true knowledge of someone. I'm not saying the tech guy is the right guy for her. But I am pointing out the mentality that exists - that confustion between desire and love. THAT, IMO, is the downfall of the traditional family unit. You fall in lust, but lust only lasts so long. You grow in love and the desire and sexual attraction will continue to grow also. People don't want to take the time to really get to know each other. They think it should all happen from begining to end in a few hours like it does in the movies or romance novels.
It isn't the graphic sex or foul language that causes all the confusion, it is portraying desire as love that causes them. You don't need graphic sex to send out that confusion message - just watch Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty - it is ingrained in little girls long long before they ever see a titty shot or hear a swear word.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Abi is one of the wisest womenn I know who can explain things so anybody can understand them. Thanks abi.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.