Is A Curfew The Answer To Youth Crime?

[dre]

I think the issue isnt one parent VS two parents.... its that a lot of kids effectively have no parents. In many cases both parents work full time, and child care isnt the primary activity for either of them.

[cybercoma]

Advantages of a single parent family (both to the parent and to the children)

• Parenting style -:Parents do not always parent in harmony; They may have vastly different expectations of their children and ideas about discipline. On may approve of spanking, while the other finds it abusive and prefers of time-outs. A single parent home has the ability to parent the way they feel is most effective and manageable. They can set the pace for getting ready for school in the morning, doing homework and completing chores in the evening and what time your child goes to bed at night. No negotiations required with the other parent.
• More bonding. Spouses can be awfully needy. Spending quality time with your kids is not always easy when there is another adult in the house. As a single parent, you and your kids can play games, talk, or just relax, without anyone else butting in or demanding attention.
• Build self-esteem. All of these extra responsibilities will show you that you can think for yourself, and you are capable of making wise decisions for your children.

  This will boost your confidence, and build up your self-esteem. Financially supporting yourself and your kids, and managing money responsibly will also boost your confidence, another of the big advantages of single parenting.

• Less stress. When you aren't spending all of your time and energy fighting with a spouse, you feel happier, your children feel happier, and there is much less stress in your home. You finally have the time and energy to spend on what really matters: the kids.

  Children learn by example. When they see you happy and stress-free, they will be able to develop healthier relationships when they grow up.

• Although you have to do all of these things as a single parent, somehow it makes you feel less resentful when there is no-one taking you for granted. There is also less work to do – one less person to cook for and clean up after, and less laundry to wash. Another of the advantages of single parenting that many people overlook.

• You get to know yourself. Being alone is a great way to really explore who you are. You are more than an extension of your spouse. For many years, everyone saw you as a couple.

  You probably started to wonder where one left off, and the other began. Being single teaches you how to be happy just being you.

  8) Children feel like part of the team. You don't want to turn your children into little adults, but they will naturally feel more like part of the team, instead of "just the kids".

  Since you will be spending much more time with them alone, they will probably have more of a voice in family decisions. They will learn that what they have to say matters, and that you are willing to listen to their opinions.

  9) Children learn valuable lessons. When your children see you managing the household, holding down a job, and taking care of the finances, they learn these things, too. These lessons will help them to develop into more mature, responsible adults, capable of taking care of themselves.

• Adults that know how to take of themselves make much better mates. The chances of them having healthy adult relationships increases, as well, one of the best advantages of single parenting.

• Freedom. The biggest advantage of single parenting is almost total freedom. Of course, you still have to make sure the children are well cared for, but other than that, you can do whatever you like. You can sleep in on your day off. You can go to bed whenever you like.

  You never have to worry about anyone keeping you up with the TV blaring, or unbearable snoring. You can wash the supper dishes, or leave them until tomorrow – who cares? You get to hold the remote control, and watch anything you like.

  After years of always considering the needs of a life partner, being on your own is like a breath of fresh air.

Kids are better off in a single-parent family than an abusive one with both parents. However, research shows time and again that family disruption can have detrimental effects on children throughout their lives. Typically, it's a result of downward mobility from the loss of an income in the family and all of the issues that come from that.

[guyser]

Typically, it's a result of downward mobility from the loss of an income in the family and all of the issues that come from that.

Careful, someone will be along any minute now to inform you the little shits suffering from downward mobility deserve it , not to mention how unfair the laws are regarding support payments.

As for the rest of your post....spot on

Edited August 13, 2014 by Guyser2

[Bonam]

Kids are better off in a single-parent family than an abusive one with both parents. However, research shows time and again that family disruption can have detrimental effects on children throughout their lives. Typically, it's a result of downward mobility from the loss of an income in the family and all of the issues that come from that.

Children are better off with non-abusive parents than abusive ones, regardless of their number, obviously. Not much content to that statement.

Reduced income is one of many reasons that single parent families would (in general) struggle to provide as well for a child as two parent families.

[Bob Macadoo]

Or time for parents to be parents again.

This is the first time I have agreed 100% with your whole post. Well said.

[-1=e^ipi]

Can we agree that children are better off with 2 parents?

I think it depends on the parents.

[WestCoastRunner]

Seriously your list sounds like its based on some feminist caricature of a superwoman being freed from her idiot oaf of a husband (as also referred to in your signature) rather than a functional relationship between two decent human beings.

My list is quoted as advantages in many parenting magazines. All you have done is point out advantages to 2 parent families. I have done the same for 1 parent families.

I did not say a husband was an idiot oaf, those are your words not mine. And to take my signature as being derogatory to all men shows you are not very creative. I have been called many things on this forum, elitist, radical feminist, environmental something or other, and now you insulting me because of my post.

I have been married for many many years, and I have been single. Both times raising my children. They have not turned into criminals stealing hubcaps in the middle of the night when I was a single parent. I have not had to bail them out of jail, unlike many married couples that I personally know.

While I was a single parent, they had grandparents actively involved in their lives. Do they not count for adult figures as role models. That would add up to 6, myself, and 2 sets of grandparents and their father when he had them.

The attitude here against single parent homes is atrocious and quite judgemental. I would love to know the demographics of the men on this forum. I bet you are financially independent, wives who do not work and probably didn't work while your children were being raised.

I should point out that children with lesser incomes work harder for that first car, work to save towards their university tuition and show a high degree of respect for their single moms or dads. That alone results in a child who grows into a well-adjusted adult who did not steal hubcaps in the middle of the night because they had one parent at home and another parent who lived outside the home.

Come on folks. Don't be so judgemental.

Edited August 14, 2014 by WestCoastRunner

[WestCoastRunner]

Kids are better off in a single-parent family than an abusive one with both parents. However, research shows time and again that family disruption can have detrimental effects on children throughout their lives. Typically, it's a result of downward mobility from the loss of an income in the family and all of the issues that come from that.

A loss of income in a family can result in children growing with a greater sense of integrity and responsibility. Honestly, you folks make it seem like a bad thing to not grow up with an x amount of dollars. How much money did you all grow up with and how well did you all turn out?

[WestCoastRunner]

It all depends on the level of either one parent or two parents to get involved in their child's life. Typically two are better than one.

A single parent family usually has another parent. Just not living in the same household.

[cybercoma]

A loss of income in a family can result in children growing with a greater sense of integrity and responsibility. Honestly, you folks make it seem like a bad thing to not grow up with an x amount of dollars. How much money did you all grow up with and how well did you all turn out?

No. I'm just reporting to you what the research shows. Family disruption is hard on children for a number if reasons and many of them fare worse than those who do not experience disruption, all else being equal. They're more likely to marry sooner, which means they're more likely to divorce themselves later. They're more likely to do more poorly in school. Boys are more likely to be aggressive and exhibit other socioemotional problems. Girls are more likely to suffer depression and anxiety and other internalizing behavioural issues. They're also more likely to have children sooner and therefore not go as far in school. Even the ones who don't have children are more likely to drop out and have lower earning potential through the rest of their lives. This also makes it more likely that they'll have physical health problems, as well as the mental health issues they suffer. That greater sense of responsibility is the pressure to transition to adulthood sooner than peers who don't go through disruptions. It gives them less of an opportunity to try in roles and find their own way, as they get saddled with responsibilities earlier.

Make no mistake about it. In the absence of violence, either physical or emotional, children are much better off in a two parent, stable home. Disruption can and does affect most of them for the rest of their lives.

[WestCoastRunner]

They're more likely to do more poorly in school.

Boys are more likely to be aggressive and exhibit other socioemotional problems.

Girls are more likely to suffer depression and anxiety and other internalizing behavioural issues.

They're also more likely to have children sooner and therefore not go as far in school.

Even the ones who don't have children are more likely to drop out and have lower earning potential through the rest of their lives.

This also makes it more likely that they'll have physical health problems, as well as the mental health issues they suffer.

That greater sense of responsibility is the pressure to transition to adulthood sooner than peers who don't go through disruptions.

It gives them less of an opportunity to try in roles and find their own way, as they get saddled with responsibilities earlier.

Make no mistake about it. In the absence of violence, either physical or emotional, children are much better off in a two parent, stable home. Disruption can and does affect most of them for the rest of their lives.

Then, we best gather up all these children in single parent families and forewarn them of what their future holds. Let's not deceive them and tell them they can have quite successful lives, because research shows their quality of life is severely hampered and they will end up becoming failures in life.

[WestCoastRunner]

Make no mistake about it. In the absence of violence, either physical or emotional, children are much better off in a two parent, stable home. Disruption can and does affect most of them for the rest of their lives.

And of course, we should tell them 'make no mistake about it, as the result of your parents divorcing, it will affect you negatively for the rest of your lives.' So you may as well give up now.

Edited August 14, 2014 by WestCoastRunner

[Big Guy]

All youngsters have challenges as they progress into adulthood. I feel that many of those who have been brought up in a loving 2 parent family are better adjusted and have access to more financial support then many brought up in a loving one parent family. Four grandparents in the picture makes it even easier.

It is not the one parents fault for that situation. I suggest that was not the plan and that the children were planned or conceived under the assumption that there would be a partner with which to share the parenting responsibilities. I also think that the parent in a one parent family would appreciate the assistance if there was a suitable and loving partner in the picture.

[cybercoma]

Then, we best gather up all these children in single parent families and forewarn them of what their future holds. Let's not deceive them and tell them they can have quite successful lives, because research shows their quality of life is severely hampered and they will end up becoming failures in life.

We better teach you what an ecological fallacy is first. There's a lot of variation and I think I made that clear. But yes, there are targeted intervention for youth who go through divorce. This is typically delivered through schools, but also mental health workers that might be dealing with other family members.

The other thing that I might not have made clear is that these problems are associated with disruption not just being in a single-parent family. A child who's consistently in a single-parent family, where the parent doesn't have partners moving in and moving out all the time is in a better place than a child who's experiencing frequent disruptions to their family life. It's not single-parenthood that's the problem. It's the disruption.

Edited August 14, 2014 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

And of course, we should tell them 'make no mistake about it, as the result of your parents divorcing, it will affect you negatively for the rest of your lives.' So you may as well give up now.

That's not what I said.

Let me spell out your misunderstanding for you.

An ecological fallacy (or ecological inference fallacy)^[1] is a logical fallacy in the interpretation of statistical data where inferences about the nature of individuals are deduced from inference for the group to which those individuals belong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy

[Black Dog]

It seems to me like an attempt by the city to take over a role of the family. A commentator and the mayor stated that the new law was supported by most mothers. Perhaps this is just another problem that results in an increasing problem of families consisting of only single mothers (or single parents) to look after children. The state then has to become the other parent to enforce child behaviour that should be the responsibility of the supervising adults.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-number-of-children-living-in-single-parent-homes-has-nearly-doubled-in

This report, I can't.

Vincent DiCaro, vice president of the National Fatherhood Initiative, blames this trend for many of society’s ills. He claims the way to deal with poverty, drugs, crime and other hot-button cultural issues is to strengthen the two-parent family. Deal with absent fathers, he says, and the rest follows.

This is exactly backwards. There are 1.5 million kids in the U.S. who have a parent in jail. Of those in federal prison, half are there for drug related crimes. The state, through its ineffectual and racist war on drugs, tears families apart, leading to more poverty, crime and state dependency. Deal with the failure of the war on drugs (which is actually a war on minorities) and the rest follows.

[cybercoma]

In any case, curfews are a ridiculous way to try to curb crime. What's needed are after school programs and activities for youth to get involved in and be part of their communities. And not just the youth that voluntarily sign up for them, but they should be encouraging youth that might be headed down the wrong path to get involved. After-school organized arts, sports, and recreation have been shown to reduce youth involvement with risky behaviours, including crime.

[Big Guy]

The young, energetic and active youth with leadership qualities can be the captain of the football team, the captain of the basketball team or the lifeguard at a youth camp - or he can be the leader of the local gang.

It will depend on the opportunities available to him.

[-1=e^ipi]

I would love to know the demographics of the men on this forum. I bet you are financially independent, wives who do not work and probably didn't work while your children were being raised.

You think that men on this forum are wives? What?

Is this a typo?

[-1=e^ipi]

Still waiting for an explanation as to how I am a wife...

[GostHacked]

Still waiting for an explanation as to how I am a wife...

The comma. I guess grammar and punctuation are important even when reading.

[GostHacked]

Good time for this thread to interconnect with the Ferguson.

[WestCoastRunner]

The comma. I guess grammar and punctuation are important even when reading.

[-1=e^ipi]

The comma. I guess grammar and punctuation are important even when reading.

"I bet you are financially independent, wives who do not work and probably didn't work while your children were being raised."

The verb is 'are'. There is no other verb that is using the subject 'I'. That is why I asked if there was a typo. But yes, not matter how you look at it, the comma usage is bad.

It could be:

"I bet you are financially independent wives who do not work and probably didn't work while your children were being raised."

or

"I bet you are financially independent and have wives who do not work and probably didn't work while your children were being raised."

or

"I bet you have financially independent wives who do not work and probably didn't work while your children were being raised."

Edited August 17, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

The young, energetic and active youth with leadership qualities can be the captain of the football team, the captain of the basketball team or the lifeguard at a youth camp - or he can be the leader of the local gang.

People who have the qualities that make them a good leader of a local gang don't necessarily make for good leaders in other areas. People that are gang leaders will often have qualities such as lack of morals, aggressiveness, pushing others around, willingness to resort to violence, etc. Are these qualities you want in a leader?

Edited August 18, 2014 by -1=e^ipi