quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: No, but I think the deliberate representation of single parenthood as just another valid lifestyle choice, which (edit2: if I am not mistaken, and it is quite possible that I am) was done several times on the show
That was Quayle's interpretation, and not mine. I love that show, and watched it again all the way to the end of the DVDs currently available not that long ago, and it's really not accurate.
Murphy agonized over the choices involved, repeatedly. She talked about the downsides of single parenting more than once. Quayle's claims made it absolutely clear he had never watched the show.
As far as single parenting v. parenting by a married couple, I think there are ideals and reality. In reality, many single parents are far preferable than many married couples. However, the ideal married couple is better than the ideal single parent. But that just means single parenting isn't an ideal, and most people (including most single parents) would probably agree with that.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: No, but I think the deliberate representation of single parenthood as just another valid lifestyle choice, which (edit2: if I am not mistaken, and it is quite possible that I am) was done several times on the show, is a very poor one to send.
There's a difference between validating a single parent and validating "single parenthood" as a "lifestyle choice." The problem obviously comes in when one wishes to denigrate the choice being made, and yet not denigrate the individual who has, in the fullness time, within their own lives and their own personal circumstances, chosen to live a certain way, for reasons you are not likely to be able to quantify or reduce or examine as being either valid or invalid.
Thus is *always* the problem with making any kind of pronouncements about the way that people live, or choose to live- especially when it is difficult or impossible to demonstrate with consistent reasoning why those particular choices one may have made in the past were "wrong."
Because, doubt not: you cannot say (and actually mean), that it is a bad thing to call single parenthood a valid lifestyle choice *without* tacitly passing judgement on people who have made exactly that choice, and whose particular choices you *cannot* invalidate. You want your cake, and you want to eat it too. You want to say that people shouldn't validate something, even though you are unable to produce a reasonable justification for actively *invalidating* it. Does this remind you of any other patterns of prejudice that go on in most societies?
What this argumentative problem should tell you is this: you are not in a place to make such judgements. You think you are, but in fact, you have no grounding beyond your say-so; and the fact that many other people say similar things. We run into more problems than we do solutions when we start talking about what we should and shouldn't encourage, when we don't start with a concrete reason why something is harmful, beyond the fact that it is not, according to our own values, ideal.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My next question is this: If 2 Parents are superior to 1 and Single Motherhood is so bad, what do we do with single parents?
Do we take away their children and give them to state run/church run institutions?
Abortion?
Just treat them their whole life as dangerous and second rate bastard children?
Give up on them?
Or do we do everything in society's power to make sure the children reach their potentials. Making the parent live in shame can only hurt that plan.
Yeah, the single mother shouldn't have had sex out of wedlock. One universal law--people have sex out of wedlock. No matter what law, punishment, or code you enforce, you can not stop that.
Accidents happen.
But the single mother is willing to work past the accident. The single father is way to often not. Shall we brand the fathers?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: when we don't start with a concrete reason why something is harmful, beyond the fact that it is not, according to our own values, ideal.
I think there's plenty of evidence that, all other things being equal, two parent families are better for kids by a number of measurements. The problem is that all other things are rarely equal and most parents, single and partnered, are doing the best they can with what life throws at them.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think there's plenty of evidence that, all other things being equal, two parent families are better for kids by a number of measurements. The problem is that all other things are rarely equal and most parents, single and partnered, are doing the best they can with what life throws at them.
Not just is all else rarely equal, but the things that have been found in studies to help single parents parent better, such as involving additional adults more than normal as role models, are pretty much necessarily not equal.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: when we don't start with a concrete reason why something is harmful, beyond the fact that it is not, according to our own values, ideal.
I think there's plenty of evidence that, all other things being equal, two parent families are better for kids by a number of measurements. The problem is that all other things are rarely equal and most parents, single and partnered, are doing the best they can with what life throws at them.
I saw that same argument used against gay marriage. When they couldn't prove, in court, that gay parents were less effective at raising children than straight parents, the angle changed to "all things being equal." But family systems are not constructed on an "everything equal" basis. It's not stoichiometry. So, as you concede, the argument about an "everything being equal," basis is not valid.
quote: Not just is all else rarely equal, but the things that have been found in studies to help single parents parent better, such as involving additional adults more than normal as role models, are pretty much necessarily not equal.
MY contention is only that the blanket argument against "validating" single parenthood is invalid. There are single parents. It is not the business of society, in my opinion, to rule this out as a valid choice. To encourage stable multi-parent families is one thing, and it is separate from how you deal with the fact that there *will* be single parents, and those single parents will have to be as effective as they can be.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How on earth am I "conceding" anything? I agree with you -- that was pretty much the point I was making in first place.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You presented a counter argument (that you didn't claim to agree with), following by a conceding point. What's the problem here? I know what your position is.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It didn't come across that way to me, but I may have misinterpreted. If so, I apologize.
My point earlier, though, is that there are measurable advantages of two-parent families (much more so than in the same-sex vs opposite sex parent debate) that don't come down to "values." Two parent families tend to be financially better off. There's a better chance that at least one parent will be able to take off work on any given day to stay home with a sick kid. No, that doesn't mean the way to improve the situation is to denigrate single parents, but it isn't fair to say that the only reason people have for thinking two-parent families are an advantage is that they better match a traditional values ideal. If there are ways to encourage parents to stick together -- in addition to, not at the expense of supporting single parents -- I think there is a valid societal interest there.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
People have myriad reasons for thinking a two parent family has advantages. But the reasoning behind a tacit denigration of single parenthood is based on ideals, I think, and not the advantages of the traditional family. Else, you focus on promoting stable families, you don't ( not you, specifically), focus on making sure people *don't* validate single-parenthood. The active exlusion of alternative arrangements as non-valid is values based, and the values it is based on are necessarily subjective.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Yeah. Sorry about that. I posted before it became all about how we all need to express our opinions in Dag approved ways or he gets pissy and the everyone defends him. (Why I no longer post there, BTW.)
It's truly a thing of unintending wonder, but it really doesn't look like he's being universally defended. Why, some people even seem aware of the actual dynamic!
That said, though.
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: My next question is this: If 2 Parents are superior to 1 and Single Motherhood is so bad, what do we do with single parents?
Do we take away their children and give them to state run/church run institutions?
Abortion?
Just treat them their whole life as dangerous and second rate bastard children?
Give up on them?
CONTROVERSY AHOY
From a practically utilitarian (and even somewhat empathetic and caring) standpoint, abortion does have its place in planning a family. This relates most to how people should be willing to understand and accept where they are in terms of being able to raise children in a healthy environment. So you already solve a lot of the issues by being sure that people clearly understand what parenthood entails, and to only be a parent when they feel that they are ready — and that this definition of readiness isn't some outdated quiverfull more reliant on someone's 'duty' to get married and have children.
Then, necessarily, pairing this with options people have for not having children when they don't want to. If you don't like abortion, then it's time to get behind the number one viable way to prevent most abortions: effective birth control availability and education. The promotion of culturally feminist attitudes. Real sex education. The removal of harmful old mores about responsibilities or obligations towards parenthood, or structural submission of women to men. The promotion of childrearing as a joint effort between mom and dad, or dad and dad or mom and mom, whether or not it has a marriage attached or the Seal of Abrahamic Religious Approval. A true understanding of what "I am ready to be a responsible parent" means.
Then that leaves the issue of what to do with single parents. The answer, as has been determined by many of our evil socialist neighbors, is financial and structural support for single moms, as well as better schools in general. Most of our problems relate to socioeconomic challenges and barriers more than anything else; you're better off being a child of a single parent from a rich family than a child of a united traditional family living around the poverty line. Most anything even slightly less pathetic than our current net can offer would provide huge benefits to working moms and dads everywhere; better education systems not tied to regional socioeconomics, anything. There's pretty hefty benefits, we 'mericans just don't like the implications of these systems in general, so we resist. We are in a fight with a few rotten infrastructures that we should not have put in this state to begin with, as well as some Old Guard mentalities which, in their earnest attempt to improve families and preserve cherished old family structures, are degrading the quality of children's upbringing in aggregate.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Supreme Court strikes down Canada's prostitution laws
The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down the country’s major prostitution laws, saying that bans on street soliciting, brothels and people living off the avails of prostitution create severe dangers for vulnerable women and therefore violate Canadians’ basic values.
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, writing for a unanimous court, stressed that the ruling is not about whether prostitution should be legal or not, but about whether Parliament’s means of controlling it infringe the constitutional rights of prostitutes.
...
The ruling is one of the most important since the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted in 1982 and will alter a longstanding feature of the Canadian legal landscape, much like previous Charter rulings on gay marriage on abortion did. Laws against brothels and pimps go back to pre-Confederation days.
...
The court – with a majority of judges appointed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper – followed the line it established two years ago, when only two Harper appointees sat on the nine-member court, in unanimously ordering the federal government not to close down a Vancouver clinic at which people could inject illegal drugs under medical supervision.
The ruling does not necessarily mean open season for prostitution. The Conservative government could still craft new laws that make prostitution or related offences criminal activities. If prostitution becomes legalized, cities would be faced with the challenge of where to permit prostitution and – if they refuse to permit it at all, or try to confine it to out-of-the-way places – potential constitutional challenges of their own.
The unanimous ruling including conservative judges should be interesting reading and the government has a year to try to make new restrictions (that are constitutional) on the practice.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Supreme Court strikes down Canada's prostitution laws
The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down the country’s major prostitution laws, saying that bans on street soliciting, brothels and people living off the avails of prostitution create severe dangers for vulnerable women and therefore violate Canadians’ basic values.
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, writing for a unanimous court, stressed that the ruling is not about whether prostitution should be legal or not, but about whether Parliament’s means of controlling it infringe the constitutional rights of prostitutes.
...
The ruling is one of the most important since the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted in 1982 and will alter a longstanding feature of the Canadian legal landscape, much like previous Charter rulings on gay marriage on abortion did. Laws against brothels and pimps go back to pre-Confederation days.
...
The court – with a majority of judges appointed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper – followed the line it established two years ago, when only two Harper appointees sat on the nine-member court, in unanimously ordering the federal government not to close down a Vancouver clinic at which people could inject illegal drugs under medical supervision.
The ruling does not necessarily mean open season for prostitution. The Conservative government could still craft new laws that make prostitution or related offences criminal activities. If prostitution becomes legalized, cities would be faced with the challenge of where to permit prostitution and – if they refuse to permit it at all, or try to confine it to out-of-the-way places – potential constitutional challenges of their own.
The unanimous ruling including conservative judges should be interesting reading and the government has a year to try to make new restrictions (that are constitutional) on the practice.
If you gave our Congress 1 year to craft such laws, you could expect prostitution to become legal all over the US.
Good for you guys though.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another interesting tidbit is a study I heard referenced two days ago on a podcast (and I don't remember where the study came from, sorry I can't link it), which indicated that it is a generational trend for middle to late-aged people to idealize the past, and that they consistently idealize approximately 50 years earlier in history, regardless of which generation was studied.
In other words, people have nostalgic memories of their own childhoods, and assume that the world had that same safe, warm-fuzzy feeling in general as they did in their own experiences. Not to mention the biases in their memories about their own childhoods.
For example, my father idealized his childhood to us all of the time, yet the facts of his childhood (which I found out when I was older) were that he grew up with an extremely alcoholic mother who took the disease to her grave and was very controlling, alienated two of her other children, and disowned my father on her deathbed after he cared for her for years. My father still idealizes the 'good ole days' ad nauseum.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, it's pretty much people's childhoods.
One of the most immediate examples of that to me is listening to the album "That was the year that was" by Tom Lehrer, which covers news stories from 1965, about half of which are completely forgotten today. But an adult, listening to the news then must have thought the world was going mad.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm glad I had nothing to do with anything before the 1980's. And while the 1980's was my early childhood it didn't sound too hot either; 1982 was a hard year for my dad.
1990's seemed great! or at least a hell of a lot better for the financial reality of most folk today.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agreed. I was born in 82, and I feel like by the time I was 4 was when things really started becoming awesome.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You know before the 1920s, the number one way young men lost their virginity was with a prostitute. I'll bet conservatives don't think of that when they're calling for a return to the family values of the past.
In countries where prostitution is still legal, this is still often the case. The sex trade has been around forever, and will never go away. The strikingly non-traditional social conservative movement has been a major experiment in fundamentally altering the way society has worked for thousands of years. And it's been a failure.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a bit of a counterpoint, my mother and father were definitely not big fans of the racism and corruption in the British colonial government during their childhood. The religious discrimination was no fun either. Immigrating to Canada was slightly better, but the situation for Chinese people in Canada was still nowhere near as good as it is today.
On the other side of the family, they grew up during the Cultural Revolution, which they definitely didn't have fond memories of.
I also have a grandmother whose childhood memories were wrecked by the Japanese occupation of Hong Kong.
So I gotta say, screw 50 years ago. This, right now, is the ideal time.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: As a bit of a counterpoint, my mother and father were definitely not big fans of the racism and corruption in the British colonial government during their childhood. The religious discrimination was no fun either. Immigrating to Canada was slightly better, but the situation for Chinese people in Canada was still nowhere near as good as it is today.
On the other side of the family, they grew up during the Cultural Revolution, which they definitely didn't have fond memories of.
I also have a grandmother whose childhood memories were wrecked by the Japanese occupation of Hong Kong.
So I gotta say, screw 50 years ago. This, right now, is the ideal time.
Yeah reminiscing about the Good Old Days is stupid, because the Good Old Days were much more exclusively privileged. A lot of us americans have the 1950's listed in their heads as a The Good Old Days which is asinine because it's a time which is exclusively good for white people.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
