Family and Society

[phk]

It's utterly impossible for a family without a male parent and a female parent to function normally.

No Jake, you're wrong. After my father died, my single mother was able to raise me just fine, thank you very much.

Same here.

[J.R. Brown]

The worst abnormal two parent family type is one with gay parents, because the kid is screwed from the get go socially.

Yeah, because they are tortured by ignorant, narrow minded people such as yourself, who can't seem to get out of the 1950s.

[Nation]

It's utterly impossible for a family without a male parent and a female parent to function normally. The worst abnormal two parent family type is one with gay parents, because the kid is screwed from the get go socially.

Gotta disagree with you Jake. While two heterosexual parents is almost always preferable in most situations -- there are more than one I can think of where having two gay parents would just be fine. I've known only one person with gay parents (two women) and she was actually quite normal (I know that's pretty subjective ) and didn't have an extreme amount of social difficulties. It was high school -- people rarely got singled out.

[angus]

What's more important, a traditional family accepted by society and defined as the only true family by the moral right, in which father goes to work and mother stays home with kids, but there is no love in that family or a non-traditional family built on love and trust.

Essentially I am asking if a having a traditional family defined by the norms of society and the Christian Coalition is more important than having a family no matter how strange it may be built on love and trust? Which is more important to you and why?

Tedrick, if you're watching, this is an excellent example of what I'd call "bias" as it relates to my post in your thread.  That said, I don't think it was intentional, just another product of public schooling.  So in the spirit of giving the presenter the benefit of the doubt, I'd say the latter is preferable to me.  Why?  because I don't really give a damn about what the Christian Coalition, or Planned Parenthood or any other group for that matter, has to say about my family.  What my prime family value is concerns acceptance, love, and trust.  I have a hard time believing that the members of the Christian Coalition don't feel the same way, despite what their agenda-driven talking heads might say.  I think the thread grossly oversimplifies their position, though again I'll say I don't think it was intentional.  Scratch a Christian Coalition member and you just might find a human hiding below the surface, with the same fears, hopes, and insecurities that we all have.

[Storebought]

Aspects of the nontraditional family that are essential ingredients for poverty:

1. Head of household is a female, of any age
2. The head of household is a teenager, of either sex
3. The parents (one or two..or ) are high-school dropouts
4. English is not the first language spoken at home

Even if only one of these factors is present, then the family is nearly determined to be poor. Lack of income, parental dysfunction (drug/alcohol addiction, physical violence, absenteeism, etc.) are factors that make home life miserable, but not necessarily poor.

People living in families like this are nearly (but not absolutely) guaranteed to have a rough path in life.

Lets be honest: most nontrad families fall into that catagory. But what the question of this post presumes is a high-income same-(male) sex couple rearing adopted offspring, a household structure that is not nearly as well characterized as the "traditional" non-traditional household.

The most rational course would be to study, clinically, the few same-sex couples living like this. But sociology today isn't nearly the same discipline it was 50 or 60 years ago--the simple observation of people's day-to-day interactions of the old days has long since given way to the agenda pushing of today. Whatever results sociologists will find will inevitably be contorted to suit the political agenda of the department doing the investigation.

Personally, I think same-sex parents qualifies as "parental dysfunction", but it's complicated and I'll have to sort out the arguments to myself later

*One such illustration of my own 'parental dysfunction' bias
Lesbian Couple Case Heads to Court

[John Dibble]

Aspects of the nontraditional family that are essential ingredients for poverty:

1. Head of household is a female, of any age.

I don't want to sound PC, but that doesn't really apply to contribution to poverty. For almost my whole life my mom made more money than my dad - and he was no slouch, he made a fair amount.

[Gabu]

Aspects of the nontraditional family that are essential ingredients for poverty:

1. Head of household is a female, of any age
2. The head of household is a teenager, of either sex
3. The parents (one or two..or ) are high-school dropouts
4. English is not the first language spoken at home

Even if only one of these factors is present, then the family is nearly determined to be poor. Lack of income, parental dysfunction (drug/alcohol addiction, physical violence, absenteeism, etc.) are factors that make home life miserable, but not necessarily poor.

Uh, I don't understand the first ingredient.  My mother has always been the breadwinner in our family and she's been very successful at it.  I don't see why having the mother be the head of the household is an ingredient for poverty.

[Beet]

you just might find a human hiding below the surface

"might"? "might"? Woah, that's one of the worst put-downs of the CC I have heard in a while. Anyhoo, I'm sure they are ok folks. It is what they want to do with the government that scares me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Storebought]

I thought I had meant sole head of household is a female of any age, but just in case...

I could go on to qualify myself further--an original two-parent household becoming a single-mother household through divorce, widowhood, separation and mutual hatred, etc.--but that seems to me to fall more under the "dysfunctional parents" catagory.

All the same, a woman, teenage or otherwise, who has a child with no intentions of including the father as a responsible parent (i.e., the "baby daddy") is almost condemning her child to poverty

[Jake]

It's utterly impossible for a family without a male parent and a female parent to function normally.

No Jake, you're wrong. After my father died, my single mother was able to raise me just fine, thank you very much.

John, you became a libertarian. Something went wrong somewhere

[Gabu]

I thought I had meant sole head of household is a female of any age, but just in case...

I could go on to qualify myself further--an original two-parent household becoming a single-mother household through divorce, widowhood, separation and mutual hatred, etc.--but that seems to me to fall more under the "dysfunctional parents" catagory.

All the same, a woman, teenage or otherwise, who has a child with no intentions of including the father as a responsible parent (i.e., the "baby daddy") is almost condemning her child to poverty

My mother has been the sole head of the household since I was 12 or so; we haven't had any financial problems because of it.  I would agree that it is perhaps detrimental to the child's upbringing not to have a father figure to balance the mother (although it wasn't in my case), but I don't see how there's any correlation between the female being the head of the household and the family having financial troubles.

[John Dibble]

I thought I had meant sole head of household is a female of any age, but just in case...

I could go on to qualify myself further--an original two-parent household becoming a single-mother household through divorce, widowhood, separation and mutual hatred, etc.--but that seems to me to fall more under the "dysfunctional parents" catagory.

All the same, a woman, teenage or otherwise, who has a child with no intentions of including the father as a responsible parent (i.e., the "baby daddy") is almost condemning her child to poverty

My mother has been the sole head of the household since I was 12 or so; we haven't had any financial problems because of it.  I would agree that it is perhaps detrimental to the child's upbringing not to have a father figure to balance the mother (although it wasn't in my case), but I don't see how there's any correlation between the female being the head of the household and the family having financial troubles.

Mine since my dad died when I was 10. Female head of household, single or otherwise, does not in my experience in of itself cause poverty.

[John Dibble]

It's utterly impossible for a family without a male parent and a female parent to function normally.

No Jake, you're wrong. After my father died, my single mother was able to raise me just fine, thank you very much.

John, you became a libertarian. Something went wrong somewhere

Yes, it's wrong to care about my freedom and the freedom of others.

[Gabu]

Yes, it's wrong to care about my freedom and the freedom of others.

The correct way to go is to care about your freedom and to hell with everyone else's; just ask opebo.

[Storebought]

I thought I had meant sole head of household is a female of any age, but just in case...

I could go on to qualify myself further--an original two-parent household becoming a single-mother household through divorce, widowhood, separation and mutual hatred, etc.--but that seems to me to fall more under the "dysfunctional parents" catagory.

All the same, a woman, teenage or otherwise, who has a child with no intentions of including the father as a responsible parent (i.e., the "baby daddy") is almost condemning her child to poverty

My mother has been the sole head of the household since I was 12 or so; we haven't had any financial problems because of it.  I would agree that it is perhaps detrimental to the child's upbringing not to have a father figure to balance the mother (although it wasn't in my case), but I don't see how there's any correlation between the female being the head of the household and the family having financial troubles.

Not to 'get up in your business', but before age 12, was a father or other stable male presence in your family? My father wasn't in mine--even though I could pick him out of a lineup, so to speak. It really does make a difference in the quality of life of a family--having a 'father', even if briefly, and having none at all.

Moreover, exceptions exist to each of the four observations of mine. What about first-generation Indian engineers who speak Bengali at home and never utter a syllable of English? They sure as hell aren't 'poor'. Or kids who grow up in the care of high-school educated grandparents? They have an immensly better life now than they would have with their (rotten) parents.

But in the laws of averages, there are more poor people who can't speak English than there are middle class Indian postdocs who speak Bengali; likewise, there are more poor families than middle income ones headed by high school dropouts.

[dazzleman]

I thought I had meant sole head of household is a female of any age, but just in case...

I could go on to qualify myself further--an original two-parent household becoming a single-mother household through divorce, widowhood, separation and mutual hatred, etc.--but that seems to me to fall more under the "dysfunctional parents" catagory.

All the same, a woman, teenage or otherwise, who has a child with no intentions of including the father as a responsible parent (i.e., the "baby daddy") is almost condemning her child to poverty

My mother has been the sole head of the household since I was 12 or so; we haven't had any financial problems because of it.  I would agree that it is perhaps detrimental to the child's upbringing not to have a father figure to balance the mother (although it wasn't in my case), but I don't see how there's any correlation between the female being the head of the household and the family having financial troubles.

Mine since my dad died when I was 10. Female head of household, single or otherwise, does not in my experience in of itself cause poverty.

Generally, it does.  Those are the statistics.  I don't know the particulars of your family's finances, but most likely your father left behind some life insurance, plus your mother probably got social security for you, and maybe even herself.  That's a lot different from a family which never had a father.

The typical single parent household is a never-married mother who had her children too young, before she was able to establish herself, acquire skills,etc.  She has no shot of being able to support her kids decently, and once she has the kids, the difficulty of getting an education, starting a career, etc., increases exponentially.

People who are saddled with sole responsibility for raising children generally don't do well in the workplace because they don't have the time and energy to commit to making themselves successful.  It doesn't happen on its own.  Women can make more than men, but they are usually not the women who are heading single parent households.

In terms of the non-financial aspects of raising children, while Jake overstated the case, it is far more difficult for one person to raise children than two.  It is also the case that kids who are raised in single parent homes due to death of a parent fare much better than those raised in a single parent home because one of the parents chose to be absent.  Children of never-married parents who lack a stable relationship with one of their parents fare the worst financially, emotionally, and educationally.

There will always be exceptions to these generalities, but the statistics on one-parent homes are damning, and there's no getting around that.

[opebo]

Aspects of the nontraditional family that are essential ingredients for poverty:

1. Head of household is a female, of any age
2. The head of household is a teenager, of either sex
3. The parents (one or two..or ) are high-school dropouts
4. English is not the first language spoken at home

What a narrow and deluded view!  You forgot the most important requirements for poverty -

1) Lack of unionization
2) Lack of meaningful minimum wages ($15/hour)
3) Lack of a comfortable welfare state
4) Lack of State services such as medical care and free education

To sum up, a lack of the political will to prevent poverty - a thing which can only be prevented by political action, as it is a normal and integral part of our economic heirarchy. 

To blame some poor person for being poor is assinine.  They had nothing to do with it.

[opebo]

What my prime family value is concerns acceptance, love, and trust.  I have a hard time believing that the members of the Christian Coalition don't feel the same way, despite what their agenda-driven talking heads might say.

Acceptance, love, and trust?!  Have you ever observed any actual families in operation?  They are almost entirely the opposite of that.

[opebo]

Aspects of the nontraditional family that are essential ingredients for poverty:

1. Head of household is a female, of any age
2. The head of household is a teenager, of either sex
3. The parents (one or two..or ) are high-school dropouts
4. English is not the first language spoken at home

What a narrow and deluded view!  You forgot the most important requirements for poverty -

1) Lack of unionization
2) Lack of meaningful minimum wages ($15/hour)
3) Lack of a comfortable welfare state
4) Lack of State services such as medical care and free education

To sum up, a lack of the political will to prevent poverty - a thing which can only be prevented by political action, as it is a normal and integral part of our economic heirarchy. 

To blame some poor person for being poor is assinine.  They had nothing to do with it.

I think the problem is that you, sir, are a poor.

Actually, I'm not, though I don't see how that has anything to do with my comments.  Can you argue or merely make nonsequiters?

[dazzleman]

Aspects of the nontraditional family that are essential ingredients for poverty:

1. Head of household is a female, of any age
2. The head of household is a teenager, of either sex
3. The parents (one or two..or ) are high-school dropouts
4. English is not the first language spoken at home

What a narrow and deluded view!  You forgot the most important requirements for poverty -

1) Lack of unionization
2) Lack of meaningful minimum wages ($15/hour)
3) Lack of a comfortable welfare state
4) Lack of State services such as medical care and free education

To sum up, a lack of the political will to prevent poverty - a thing which can only be prevented by political action, as it is a normal and integral part of our economic heirarchy. 

To blame some poor person for being poor is assinine.  They had nothing to do with it.

Did you ever think that Storebought, having grown up poor, may know a little more about the causes of poverty than a rich kid sponging off a trust fund from the parents he dislikes?

[angus]

What my prime family value is concerns acceptance, love, and trust.  I have a hard time believing that the members of the Christian Coalition don't feel the same way, despite what their agenda-driven talking heads might say.

Acceptance, love, and trust?!  Have you ever observed any actual families in operation?  They are almost entirely the opposite of that.

I always assume folks can tell when I'm being serious and when I'm being a troll, but I'm afraid I can't always return the favor.  Surely you're kidding.  If so, it's kinda funny.  If not, you poor bastard, this explains quite a lot of your philosophy.  Anyway, both my immediate family of my childhood and my current immediate family love and trust each other.  I think that's common.  At least I hope it is.

[dazzleman]

What my prime family value is concerns acceptance, love, and trust.  I have a hard time believing that the members of the Christian Coalition don't feel the same way, despite what their agenda-driven talking heads might say.

Acceptance, love, and trust?!  Have you ever observed any actual families in operation?  They are almost entirely the opposite of that.

I always assume folks can tell when I'm being serious and when I'm being a troll, but I'm afraid I can't always return the favor.  Surely you're kidding.  If so, it's kinda funny.  If not, you poor bastard, this explains quite a lot of your philosophy.  Anyway, both my immediate family of my childhood and my current immediate family love and trust each other.  I think that's common.  At least I hope it is.

I don't think he's kidding.  That's the sad part.  It does explain a lot about his hateful philosophy.  Poor little rich kid....

[opebo]

What my prime family value is concerns acceptance, love, and trust.  I have a hard time believing that the members of the Christian Coalition don't feel the same way, despite what their agenda-driven talking heads might say.

Acceptance, love, and trust?!  Have you ever observed any actual families in operation?  They are almost entirely the opposite of that.

I always assume folks can tell when I'm being serious and when I'm being a troll, but I'm afraid I can't always return the favor.  Surely you're kidding.  If so, it's kinda funny.  If not, you poor bastard, this explains quite a lot of your philosophy.  Anyway, both my immediate family of my childhood and my current immediate family love and trust each other.  I think that's common.  At least I hope it is.

Well, if in a few cases families are as you imply, it is sheer luck that makes them that way.  There is certainly nothing in the family dynamic that encourages love or trust.  I can assure you that in my circle, nearly all families are the opposite kind.. though I believe I may have one or two friends who have a merely indifferent rather than an actively hostile and disapproving relationship with their families. 

I don't think he's kidding.  That's the sad part.  It does explain a lot about his hateful philosophy.  Poor little rich kid....

I only hate the haters, poor little angry white male.

[angus]

oh, we have our differences.  for example my sister and I argue regularly, but that shouldn't be misconstrued as a lack of trust.  In fact, if I didn't love her, I wouldn't risk the stress just to make a point.  As for my wife, I wouldn't have married her if I didn't trust her, nor she me I suspect. 

I also think you're exaggerating just a bit.  Surely some of your buddies chose a partner out of respect and not just for convenience.

[opebo]

oh, we have our differences.  for example my sister and I argue regularly, but that shouldn't be misconstrued as a lack of trust.  In fact, if I didn't love her, I wouldn't risk the stress just to make a point.  As for my wife, I wouldn't have married her if I didn't trust her, nor she me I suspect. 

I also think you're exaggerating just a bit.  Surely some of your buddies chose a partner out of respect and not just for convenience.

I really don't know many married people.  What few friends I had that married mostly fell off my rader screen - and generally the kind of people I befriend are very skeptical of that institution. 

When I was referring to family relationships I was talking about my friends relationships with their parents.