|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday June 12, @11:24PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see why single motherhood is a problem as long as the mother can raise the child properly. I generally support the men's movement, but I don't buy into the dogma that a single parent, male or female, cannot raise a child properly on his or her own.
I think that what's really bothering men are the issues of child custody, visitation, child support, and the lack of a male "paper abortion" option. The bromides about how single parenthood is necessarily bad obscure the main issues--the courts and the laws are unfair to fathers. Arguing that children need fathers misses the main point--that fathers have a right to raise their children.
I don't know Flockhart personally, so I don't know what kind of philosophy she would indoctrinate her children with, but on the surface I don't see anything wrong with Flockhart's having more chilren and raising them on her own if she wants. Presumably she has the resources to do it. It is certainly in the potential childrens' self interest to have been born even if they won't have a father figure. Unless she plans to physically torture the children, to argue that it's best for them not to exist--at least for the children themselves--is ludicrous.
I urge the men's movement not to promote bromides which obscure the real issues in an attempt to rationalize our positions, but to focus on the actual issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whilst I agree that the main issues bothering men are child support, visitation rights etc. I would suggest that the real issue (for society) is the number of fatherless children. It is possible for children to be raised successfully in a single parent environment, however it is much more likely in a loving, opposite sex, two parent family. The future of our society is our children so it is our responsibility to see that we do our best to achieve the continuation of a 'civilised' society.
The other point I would make is what about the childrens rights, could they not in the future sue their single parent for abuse (of rights) due to denial of a father or mother figure?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday June 13, @06:40AM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
The only situation where I think it would be ok to raise a child alone is if someone was independently wealthy and not working, so they could devote their time to raising the child. The recent research that shows that full-time daycare can be harmful to children supports the tradition that a parent (I don't care which one) stay home with a child, and this obviously can't happen in almost all cases of single parenthood.
On top of that, I also believe that two parent households where both parents work full time is harmful to children too. Forgive me for suggesting this, but why the hell do people have kids when they aren't willing to devote their lives to them or spend time with them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately I think that they do it for their own benefit (image, filling emotional gaps, to please their parents) rather than considering the ramifications for the child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Celebrity bimbos like Flockhart and Camryn Manheim are irresponsibly choosing to raise their children independently because they seek fulfillment of themselves. Their decisions are selfish, and they take no account of what might happen to the child two, five, or ten years in the future. True enough, there are and have been many children successfully raised in a single parent home and there will be more in the future. But in the past, most of them were raised so in a home where singleness was not a choice. It came from widowhood or other forced separation. The fact remains that children raised with two parents in the home turn out to be measurably better adults. Anyone who chooses single parenthood places the lives and happiness of their children at risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just to follow up... There are parents who choose not to have their children vaccinated against the usual childhood ailments such as the poxes, measles, diptheria, etc. Their children survive better because everyone elses children are immunized. This is called "herd immunity." But their children are still many times more likely to contract one or more of these diseases. "Herd parenthood," such as described by the Clinton woman, works, some of the time, but it is far less reliable in producing healthy, happy, productive children than is the traditional home that comes equipped with both a mother and a father.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that single motherhood, in an of itself, is nothing bad. And while I don't mean to marginalize the hard work and dedication that single mothers must have to raise healthy children, I think the involvement of a male role model (be it a father or a lifetime mentor) is critical to ensuring that a child's needs are met.
Too often, it seems, the women who are raising their children alone are socializing them in anti-male ways, and for that reason (among others mentioned in this thread) it is related to men's issues. The position of Mensactivism.org is not to deny that single-parent child rearing can be successful, but it does lean toward supporting two-parent family units when possible. I hope everyone recognizes that advocating the nuclear family without considering the context is irrational dogmatism.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts,
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
