Yet More Proof: Traditional Family is Good

[kengs333]

While I don't agree with the general anti-male tone of the article, and the fact that it will not directly come out and criticize same-sex families, I think this article is quite interesting. It further re-inforces what those of us who know that the traditional family is the best environment for raising children have long known: "the risk of child abuse is markedly higher in the nontraditional family structures."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071118/ap_on_re_us/child_abuse

Edited November 18, 2007 by kengs333

[August1991]

In each case, as in many others every year, the alleged or convicted perpetrator had been the boyfriend of the child's mother — men thrust into father-like roles which they tragically failed to embrace.

Every case is different, every family is different. Some single mothers bring men into their lives who lovingly help raise children when the biological father is gone for good.

First, this has has been happening for time eternal. (When did your great-grandfather or great-grandmother die? Did they live to raise their children? Who raised your grandmother or grandfather?)

Second, this article only touches the surface of family relations.

Third, this article attempts badly to explain a far more intriguing fact: daughters lead to divorce but sons keep marriages together. (Oh no! It's a Gril!)

Edited November 18, 2007 by August1991

[ScottSA]

So, August, talking about the forest instead of the trees for a moment, would you argue that the traditional family is NOT better for kids?

[Drea]

From the article:

Long term, many child-welfare advocates say economic and social changes are needed, so day-care options improve and young men in poor communities have job prospects that make marriage seem more feasible.

Yes! Improve day care options so that single mothers are not forced to take in any loser that walks in simply to help with the finances.

I find the second sentence to be sexist -- it is saying that young men need to be damn sure they make a decent living so they can have 2, 3, 4 or more people living off that income. It tells me that his only value is in his income.

There's also agreement that many adults in high-risk households need better parenting skills — whether it's the harried young mothers often guilty of harmful neglect or the boyfriends and stepfathers often responsible for physical abuse.

How do we reach these people to teach them better parenting skills? When do we start teaching our young people how to be good parents? Should there be classes in highschool? Elementary? Post secondary? Go into people's homes?

Ahhhhhh! What? How? When?

[Oleg Bach]

From the article:

Yes! Improve day care options so that single mothers are not forced to take in any loser that walks in simply to help with the finances.

I find the second sentence to be sexist -- it is saying that young men need to be damn sure they make a decent living so they can have 2, 3, 4 or more people living off that income. It tells me that his only value is in his income.

How do we reach these people to teach them better parenting skills? When do we start teaching our young people how to be good parents? Should there be classes in highschool? Elementary? Post secondary? Go into people's homes?

Ahhhhhh! What? How? When?

Day care is for backward soviets...what's the point of entering into corporate slavehood if you are not allowed to raise your own offspring? Plus the increase in income via the woman working has been negated by the banks and the buying power of said combined incomes of males and female partners is less than it was for the traditional male head of the family. The whole idea of female freedom though personal income did not work out.

The whole progressive idea that it was the angry and aggressive males fault that woman were oppressed and denyed their own money has come to a grinding and embarrassing halt. Partnership and offspring are power..once the banks got wind of the fact that now they could not just screw the male but also the female "wife" - they came and in effect stole her money and gave her a credit card that was a negative not a positive...to bad that the nation is now filled with divorced woman of 40 who are now married to the Beagle who grants unconditional love that is really just unconditionial hunger.

Daycare is a smelly buisness - I was poor all my life and raised four children with out day care - My older brother was rich and stuck his kids in daycare as soon as they could breath on their own - the end results after over 20 years is - his kids are nuts and mine are sane - you can't expect others to raise your children and get the best out of them...and this buisness of "early childhood learning and socialization" - socialized towards what - this messy soup of grey utilitarianism where the kids are taught to "share" and the super rich kids are not taught to share. Daycare - is abuse of the traditional family and the banks should feel shame for what they have done.

[Drea]

You lament what is happening but offer no solutions.

Women are out of the house and they are not going back, banks or no banks, mortgages and high prices be damned, women (some) find that they enjoy being out there.

My son was in daycare from 9 months on. He is now a teenager, a B+ student, a cadet, has a job, saves his money, does the dishes, knows how to do his own laundry and clean the toilet, is respectful of others, asks old people if they need help, I could go on... and on....

Did I mention that we met his stepdad only 5 years ago? Do you realize that means that I, a single mother, raised a male child on her own and he TURNED OUT OK. Friggin' amazing. We must be the one single anomoly in all of North America. Damn I'm proud!

My sister's family, mom and dad in the house, she stayed home. Her second youngest got pregnant at 17. She has just had her second baby with a guy she knew for 6 months before she got pregnant. He is trying to stick around.. The youngest one is 17 and she is now very sporadic with her schooling.

Frig. She should have raised them on her own I guess then they would've turned out better, like mine.

OR perhaps it's not ALL about who stays at home and who works. Perhaps it's about being a parent when it counts. For example, one begins with the toddler -- no means no, if you say no Jimmy you cannot jump on the couch, mean it. If you say Jimmy you are not going to have ice cream if you continue jumping on the couch -- don't feed the kid ice cream! Follow through.

You see, it's not about having two parents. It's about having a strong parent with follow-through skills.

[ScottSA]

Do you realize that means that I, a single mother, raised a male child on her own and he TURNED OUT OK. Friggin' amazing. We must be the one single anomoly in all of North America. Damn I'm proud!

You're using the specific to prove the general; an impossibility. It shows about the same level of understanding of this debate as your understanding of the religious debate. Traditional families work better economically, emotionally, and socially. Everyone knows it, the studies show it, and it's not even debatable. The fact that there are exceptions to the rule doesn't negate the rule.

[Oleg Bach]

You lament what is happening but offer no solutions.

Women are out of the house and they are not going back, banks or no banks, mortgages and high prices be damned, women (some) find that they enjoy being out there.

My son was in daycare from 9 months on. He is now a teenager, a B+ student, a cadet, has a job, saves his money, does the dishes, knows how to do his own laundry and clean the toilet, is respectful of others, asks old people if they need help, I could go on... and on....

Did I mention that we met his stepdad only 5 years ago? Do you realize that means that I, a single mother, raised a male child on her own and he TURNED OUT OK. Friggin' amazing. We must be the one single anomoly in all of North America. Damn I'm proud!

My sister's family, mom and dad in the house, she stayed home. Her second youngest got pregnant at 17. She has just had her second baby with a guy she knew for 6 months before she got pregnant. He is trying to stick around.. The youngest one is 17 and she is now very sporadic with her schooling.

Frig. She should have raised them on her own I guess then they would've turned out better, like mine.

OR perhaps it's not ALL about who stays at home and who works. Perhaps it's about being a parent when it counts. For example, one begins with the toddler -- no means no, if you say no Jimmy you cannot jump on the couch, mean it. If you say Jimmy you are not going to have ice cream if you continue jumping on the couch -- don't feed the kid ice cream! Follow through.

You see, it's not about having two parents. It's about having a strong parent with follow-through skills.

Passionate post and I see the point - you will get the pat on the back later. What I find tiresome is the age old abuse of males by their so-called superiours..men who were traditionally pressured in an artificial industrial environment...poor creatures driven to drink and now to cocaine...then he comes home from his miserable job feeling powerless over his users that he takes it out on the female who has been more loyal to the oppressors than to the mate - because the oppressors keep her base and money hungry....that's one small angle..secondly - I stuck it out for 25 years with one person and raised the children - for every step I took - she yanked me back two..all because she was the product of abuse that generated from her drunken cop father...and gambling white trash mother...what's a guy to do when he becomes a father under such conditions - I stuck it out because I believe in family and I live with an inapproprate mate that I finally figured out was mentally ill - like her father and disloyal like her mother..

but....I did my best and did not allow the divorce industry to rape and pillage what was mine - my children...so as an old man - I am ward of my adult daughters and still watch over my youngest son - but for all intent and purpose - I appreciate the care and labour of the mother...and am grateful for her fulfilling her maternal duty..but it was like living alone - with a crazy person - and in todays society I took the brunt because of eccentric intrusive feminism that offered me no care or portection...bitter? a bit...25 years is a substantial sacrafice..but I still love...and my children are free thinkers. I got more enjoyment hanging out with my kids in our wonderful rural setting..poor as a church mouse - but - I lived the beautiful dream that was fatherhood...and dodged the bull that society tryed to toss my way...all is well that ends well - now it is my turn. Did my tour of duty....just like you.

[Guest American Woman]

You're using the specific to prove the general; an impossibility. It shows about the same level of understanding of this debate as your understanding of the religious debate.

You mean like this--

Daycare is a smelly buisness - I was poor all my life and raised four children with out day care - My older brother was rich and stuck his kids in daycare as soon as they could breath on their own - the end results after over 20 years is - his kids are nuts and mine are sane -

-- is using the specific to prove the general? Which, btw, is what Drea was responding to.

Traditional families work better economically, emotionally, and socially. Everyone knows it, the studies show it, and it's not even debatable. The fact that there are exceptions to the rule doesn't negate the rule.

No. Everyone doesn't know it and it is debatable.

you can't expect others to raise your children and get the best out of them...and this buisness of "early childhood learning and socialization" - socialized towards what - this messy soup of grey utilitarianism where the kids are taught to "share" and the super rich kids are not taught to share.

I don't get what you're saying here at all. Are you saying learning to share in daycare is a bad thing? Are you saying the super rich kids not being taught to share is a good thing?

Btw, when kids are in daycare, the parents are still "raising" them. The daycare provider isn't getting up with them for midnight feedings. The daycare provider isn't taking care of them when they're sick. The daycare center isn't going to parent-teacher conferences. The daycare center isn't taking them on vacation. The daycare center isn't tucking them in at night. Different choices for different people. What works best for individual situations is what's best for that household.

The choice of daycare is an important one. Choosing a good center/provider is important. Beyond that, kids of single parents/two working parents turn out fine. Since the majority of households today are single parents/duel income families, the vast majority of kids would be turning out rotten if this were not true.

Edited November 18, 2007 by American Woman

[Drea]

You're using the specific to prove the general; an impossibility. It shows about the same level of understanding of this debate as your understanding of the religious debate. Traditional families work better economically, emotionally, and socially. Everyone knows it, the studies show it, and it's not even debatable. The fact that there are exceptions to the rule doesn't negate the rule.

Didn't you read Oleg Bach's post above mine? Or are you just wandering around the board looking for "Drea" and responding only to me? Oooooh I have a fan!

He said his bro's family is messed up 'cause his kid's went to daycare. Could be the ONLY case of this kind couldn't it?

I was simply responding to his message about his brother's family.

So he is "allowed" to use a specific example, and I am not?

The so called Traditonal Family is no longer the norm. Nothing anyone says or does is going to bring it back. So the best we can do is to help find solutions. Good daycare, parenting classes, etc. Could be at least a start.

Have you ever watched any of those "Nanny" shows? Most of them are two parent families with stay at home moms and kids out of control. How does this happen? In an ideal situation where mom is there 24/7 and dad is a big strong guy? How do these kids get to be such imps? Could it be that it is the fault of the individual family and not society as a whole?

The new mantra of the right is to blame all society's ills on career women and single mothers in particular. Don't worry, most of us can take it, we have very large shoulders.

[margrace]

Day care is for backward soviets...what's the point of entering into corporate slavehood if you are not allowed to raise your own offspring? Plus the increase in income via the woman working has been negated by the banks and the buying power of said combined incomes of males and female partners is less than it was for the traditional male head of the family. The whole idea of female freedom though personal income did not work out.

The whole progressive idea that it was the angry and aggressive males fault that woman were oppressed and denyed their own money has come to a grinding and embarrassing halt. Partnership and offspring are power..once the banks got wind of the fact that now they could not just screw the male but also the female "wife" - they came and in effect stole her money and gave her a credit card that was a negative not a positive...to bad that the nation is now filled with divorced woman of 40 who are now married to the Beagle who grants unconditional love that is really just unconditionial hunger.

Daycare is a smelly buisness - I was poor all my life and raised four children with out day care - My older brother was rich and stuck his kids in daycare as soon as they could breath on their own - the end results after over 20 years is - his kids are nuts and mine are sane - you can't expect others to raise your children and get the best out of them...and this buisness of "early childhood learning and socialization" - socialized towards what - this messy soup of grey utilitarianism where the kids are taught to "share" and the super rich kids are not taught to share. Daycare - is abuse of the traditional family and the banks should feel shame for what they have done.

Funny but in our family it was the stay at home mothers kids who got into trouble. The rest didn't and their mothers worked. Making assesments such as the last paragraph above just don't work. It may also have been because so many of our family are farmers, farm kids work.

[Drea]

but....I did my best and did not allow the divorce industry to rape and pillage what was mine - my children...so as an old man - I am ward of my adult daughters and still watch over my youngest son - but for all intent and purpose - I appreciate the care and labour of the mother...and am grateful for her fulfilling her maternal duty..but it was like living alone - with a crazy person - and in todays society

I took the brunt because of eccentric intrusive feminism that offered me no care or portection...bitter? a bit...25 years is a substantial sacrafice..but I still love...and my children are free thinkers.

I congratulate you for sticking it out in the face of such desparity.

Today, and moreso 25 years ago, women traditionally get custody of the kids no matter how "crazy" she may be. This is not good. Courts have yet to look at the best interest of the child and place them with the father. Father's still are not getting the kids. This needs to change. I am not saying all women are crazy and shoud lose custody -- I am saying that in many instances (yours Oleg) the father should get custody. My bro has been fighting for his daughter for years.. it's a long sad story that I won't go into here.

I got more enjoyment hanging out with my kids in our wonderful rural setting..poor as a church mouse - but - I lived the beautiful dream that was fatherhood...and dodged the bull that society tryed to toss my way...all is well that ends well - now it is my turn. Did my tour of duty....just like you.

Better to be poor and with your children than rich and without them. Once again congratulations (wrong word but can't think of another at the moment) on doing what was best for your kids.

[Oleg Bach]

Funny but in our family it was the stay at home mothers kids who got into trouble. The rest didn't and their mothers worked. Making assesments such as the last paragraph above just don't work. It may also have been because so many of our family are farmers, farm kids work.

My mother ran a buisness from home..she was always occupied - my dad worked outside the home. We grew up in an area of woods - farms and lakes. We raised ourselves and were always getting into trouble - but never got caught..seeing we operated under heavey cover.. Still - there were two parents in the house...life was richer and better with the two of them...even though my mother once stated that the fact my father died kept the family together..she had horrible judgement. Today it is difficult because both parents are undermined and really do not have authority over their kids -

the kids seem to belong to the state these days - When we were caught being deviate and wayward..my dads voice was enough to ensure there was no repeat performance. It was better...and for my kids to have had two parents was also richer...even though we were at odds - two is still better and stronger than one...all the people that were our detractors for us not fomally being wed...are all divorced and all miserable..we survived and we came out in tact as a family and as people..other than problems that originated prior to mating.

[ScottSA]

The so called Traditonal Family is no longer the norm. Nothing anyone says or does is going to bring it back. So the best we can do is to help find solutions. Good daycare, parenting classes, etc. Could be at least a start.

Your premise is completely ridiculous. The traditional family is of course the norm. Even the feminists weren't able to destroy it as a touchstone against which every other contortion is measured (and found wanting, as this thread illustrates). Thew homosexual lobby won't be able to destroy it either, anymore than your wishful thinking will.

The best and only solution is to bring back the traditional family. Not through law, but through a cultural realization that it is the preferred and only workable solution. Yes, our generation screwed up. We forgot the kids in favor of our own selfish wants, which we couch in the terminology of 'rights.' Instead of defending our poor choices, we ought to admit we were wrong and rectify it.

[Oleg Bach]

Your premise is completely ridiculous. The traditional family is of course the norm. Even the feminists weren't able to destroy it as a touchstone against which every other contortion is measured (and found wanting, as this thread illustrates). Thew homosexual lobby won't be able to destroy it either, anymore than your wishful thinking will.

The best and only solution is to bring back the traditional family. Not through law, but through a cultural realization that it is the preferred and only workable solution. Yes, our generation screwed up. We forgot the kids in favor of our own selfish wants, which we couch in the terminology of 'rights.' Instead of defending our poor choices, we ought to admit we were wrong and rectify it.

When a man and a woman mate who are normal - they stay together and raise a family- that is the norm..when abmormal people get together and have children and seperate like rats..that is aberant behaviour and shows lack of love, respect and an original intention of usery..which is not normal----men and woman mating and raising children is normal - not my problem that we live in a sick society...and just because a million flys like poop does not mean that poop is honey.

[Guest American Woman]

The traditional family is of course the norm.

What is your definition of the "traditional family?"

The best and only solution is to bring back the traditional family. Not through law, but through a cultural realization that it is the preferred and only workable solution.

How can we "bring back" the traditional family if it is already, according to you, "the norm?"

Edited November 18, 2007 by American Woman

[Oleg Bach]

What is your definition of the "traditional family?"

How can we "bring back" the traditional family if it is already, according to you, "the norm?"

I like the idea of being in love and raising children..if that is no longer the normal state- then bring it back.....you know as I watch the fine fathers come up the street with their kids on their sholders - as happy as heaven can be - and know that there is a woman tagging along - or at work or at home cooking...or vise versa ---- to tell you the truth..what I see is - that the traditional family is alive and thriving...and maintaining their privacy...maybe that's what happened..to many people got to know your buisness and found weakness and as professional preditors attacked the family and destroyed the stupid ones...so what - there are still many fine families and it delights me to see such bliss.

[Guest American Woman]

.....you know as I watch the fine fathers come up the street with their kids on their sholders - as happy as heaven can be - and know that there is a woman tagging along - or at work or at home cooking...or vise versa ---- to tell you the truth..what I see is - that the traditional family is alive and thriving...

You have no idea if there is a woman at home or at work-- or if there is, if that woman is the child's mother, or the man's wife. You don't even know if the man is their father. But if he is the father and there is a wife who is also the mother who is at work, I don't think that fits the definition of the "traditional family." To me the traditional family is mom, dad (both the biological parents or both the adoptive parents if the kids were adopted), with dad at work and mom at home. Maybe my definition is different from others', which is why I asked for a definition.

But with single women having babies at the rate they are, couples not getting married, gays and singles adopting, and the high divorce rate resulting in so many step families, I don't see how anyone can argue against Drea's claim that the traditional family is no longer the norm even if they consider mom working to be a "traditional family."

Edited November 18, 2007 by American Woman

[Drea]

Exactly AW.

The notion of the traditional family where dad works and mom stays home is rare. Most families today need two people working to make ends meet.

But that is not the entire crux of it. I like working. I like my career. I would not have been a happy person if I would've had to stay home. Many women feel the same. A man can have a career and a family but a woman has to choose between career and family? Not fair IMO. That's why there's been a "woman's movement". All we really want is the same choices, the same opportunites. A man's career is not held back by the fact that he has children, why should the woman's career suffer?

On the other hand, many woman would be thrilled to be able to stay home, yet are forced into working for economic reasons.

What we need to do is find how to help these families do the best for their children whether or not they are in daycare.

Being a good parent is much more than simply being there. One must actually parent no matter the circumstances.

[MountainMan]

Exactly AW.

The notion of the traditional family where dad works and mom stays home is rare. Most families today need two people working to make ends meet.

I would argue that most families have 2 people working so that they can have more "stuff".

But that is not the entire crux of it.

I like working. I like my career. I would not have been a happy person if I would've had to stay home. Many women feel the same. A man can have a career and a family but a woman has to choose between career and family? Not fair IMO. That's why there's been a "woman's movement". All we really want is the same choices, the same opportunites.

Just don't put your kids at risk in order to please yourself. I don't know that you are, just hope that you don't.

A man's career is not held back by the fact that he has children, why should the woman's career suffer?

Actually, that is not quite true, single fathers do have their careers suffer. I know from personal experience. My kids are grown up now, and all of the sudden I seem to be a hot commodity at work. Why?, because I don't have to take time off when the kids are sick, I don't have to go to parent/teacher conferences anymore, etc etc.

On the other hand, many woman would be thrilled to be able to stay home, yet are forced into working for economic reasons.

Again I disagree, it is because they want more "stuff".

What we need to do is find how to help these families do the best for their children whether or not they are in daycare.

No government program will accomplish that.

Being a good parent is much more than simply being there. One must actually parent no matter the circumstances.

You are absolutely correct on this point. I would have preferred to raise my children in a "traditional" household, but those circumstances didn't happen for me. I was fortunate to find a private day-care provider for after school care that had the same principles as myself, but the bottom line is, I was always the parent.

Edited November 18, 2007 by MountainMan

[jennie]

I think this argument is pretty old and stale now. Afterall, we know clearly from the research that it doesn't mater whether you are single or couple, same sex or not, daycare or at home parent (who might be a Dad, btw) ... what matters is good parenting and good care, no matter who is doing it: Children who have good care turn out well. Children who have bad care may not.

And despite all the hype about single parents, samesex parents, etc, the norm still is very much the two parent male-female family.

Edited November 18, 2007 by jennie

[jefferiah]

And despite all the hype about single parents, samesex parents, etc, the norm still is very much the two parent male-female family.

I think the traditional family is a wonderful thing. But I don't hype about single parents either. I mean that is something that is no one's fault necessarily. You know sometimes when you support the idea of family people think you dislike single parents and such. That is not true. But I think it is ideal in a lot of cases, and I am sure alot of single parents would like to have a partner.

[Drea]

I would argue that most families have 2 people working so that they can have more "stuff".

Just don't put your kids at risk in order to please yourself. I don't know that you are, just hope that you don't.

Many are just getting by and need both parents working. This is life in the new millenium.

Why is a man not "putting his children at risk" by going to work and enjoying his career?

Actually, that is not quite true, single fathers do have their careers suffer. I know from personal experience. My kids are grown up now, and all of the sudden I seem to be a hot commodity at work. Why?, because I don't have to take time off when the kids are sick, I don't have to go to parent/teacher conferences anymore, etc etc.

I've been a hot commodity all these years and I had a child at home on my own.

I am good at what I do therefore I am "hot" in the job market. Doesn't matter if I have kids or not, it's all about how I perfrom at work.

Yes, the single father's career may suffer. But what about the married father? Does his career suffer? No. The married woman's, yes.

No government program will accomplish that.

I have not advocated for a government "program". As I am not in the daycare business I do not know what difficulties/issues they face. Provincially we already have daycare subsidy programs for low income families, but I don't think money is the biggest issue -- finding a space to place the child seems to be the problem.

You are absolutely correct on this point. I would have preferred to raise my children in a "traditional" household, but those circumstances didn't happen for me. I was fortunate to find a private day-care provider for after school care that had the same principles as myself, but the bottom line is, I was always the parent.

Exactly, and if your children have a good experience at daycare, chances are that moms out there that want to work will too. Which is why I have a problem with people saying that women going out to work "put their children at risk".

Edited November 19, 2007 by Drea

[kengs333]

Why is a man not "putting his children at risk" by going to work and enjoying his career?

He is. How many women divorce men because his career gets in the way of spending time of with the family? Men simply have it worse than women. On the one hand, he has to go out there and get a great job, career so he can snag himself a woman, yet in order to maintain that career he has to go along with whatever the job requirements are, such as long hours, travel, long commutes, etc. If he wants time out for the family, then he puts his career and income at risk; but if he doesn't spend time with the family, then he puts his income and family at risk. People sympathize much more with women who want to spend more time with the children and lose some income, or have to change careers; and nobody questions the sanity of a woman's decision to "choose" to remain at home with the kids. As with most women, you only see things from your (the woman's) perspective, and take for granted the sacrifices that men make to keep their women placated. If only we could return to a time where women are raised to have a more understanding and respectful attitude towards their men--there would be a definite improvement in our society.

[jawapunk]

Wow. That is all I have to say in response to that. I think I just woke up sixty years ago. I suppose that is your point, but really it seems tad sexist. I think women are intelligent enough to understand sacrifice.

Edited November 20, 2007 by jawapunk