|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:58 PM October 31st, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
It's a very thorough and objective summary of statistics about the U.K.'s dwindling two-parent family, the rising divorce rate, and the decline of marriage.
However, unless I missed it, there's not a single mention of how radical feminism has contributed to these social catastrophes.
Excellent comprehensive data, though lacking analysis and intrepretation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:26 PM October 31st, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
The proof is here:
"In the 1970s and 1980s many people argued that the traditional family – based upon a married biological father and mother and their children – was outdated. Under the guise of ‘freedom of choice’, ‘self-fulfilment’, and ‘equal respect for all kinds of families’, feminists and social rebels led a campaign to experiment with different family structures. Sometimes it was claimed that women and children did not need men, and were, in fact, often better off without them."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think what the feminists did shouldn't be considered "experiments". Experiments usually occur in closed off environments to limit all the variables that could effect it. For instance, if a drug to cure AIDS was to be tested animals and then a small set of humans would be used for testing, you would not just release it out to the general population. But this is what feminists did because they didn't care about the actual effects this would have. They just wanted to see their blind beliefs implemented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:08 AM November 1st, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
I think the main examination done in the sociology field, after the Moynihan report, was to examine families, whether married or single for functionality. If you have a married couple, one is a drug addict and one is an alcoholic is this better than a single mother working 9-5 to support the family? Many times grandparents are involved helping with child care. Points that the report missed and were later examined. Yes its better if both parents are working together and have a great marriage, but it doesn't always work that way. Two people always fighting isn't good for children also, they can sense when the adults in there lives arent happy. This is an old arguement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:18 AM November 1st, 2004 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
"Many times grandparents are involved helping with child care" do you have statistics on these? What if one of the grandparents is an alcholic and the other a drug user, then what. Is the child still better off with them?
If people want to stand before their god and proclaim their vows they should stick to it and work it out. Why do they not stand before their god then when the are getting divorced and say "we have failed" divorce has been made too easy, people no longer have to work at marriage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:16 PM November 1st, 2004 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Good points all around.
One problem that the analysis did not address is the view of marriage.
In my opinion, people (both men and women) just do not have a realistic view of marriage anymore. People watch the soap operas and idiotic reality shows and decide that is what marriage is like, but when they actually get married, they realize that marriage is much more than just exclusive sex and living together and they decide that they made the wrong decision.
Instead of looking at it rationally, feminists decided that men are to blame for a myriad of reasons that are not true.
This report simply proves what people all over the world have known for quite sometime: That the traditional family is the best environment in which to raise a child.
In order to bring about meaningful change we have to first bring back a realistic view getting married and making a family. This means getting rid of stupid reality shows that mock the family and confronting problems with facts--not half-baked feminist "research".
~Joseph Quincy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:08 PM November 1st, 2004 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
you are right, people both men and women jump out of marriages extremely quick these days, however, the fact remains if they can't work it out, is it fair for the children to have to deal with two miserable and tense people?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:22 PM November 1st, 2004 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry, but they have to work it out. I am married, and I've sworn to my maker, through better or for worse.... maybe the fear of these people losing their children instead of mommy takes all. There is no reason for people to work things out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:31 AM November 2nd, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
you cant make that decision for everyone, and there are situations that can't be worked out. I feel its unrealistic to believe that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:01 PM November 2nd, 2004 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
No I can't, I agree situations can't be worked out, but what is the divorce rate, 67%, its just too easy. And when you have the feminists saying divorce is good for women. I bet it is, men get smoked alot in the courts. Is it good for the children?, I believe usually it isn't. Depends on the situation. This is what feminists want, destruction of the family unit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:44 PM November 1st, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
This is typicle feminist logic, using yeahbutwahtabouthis.
There are always cases which may be different. This study shows that the greater good is an intact two parent family. The research shows that even though two parent families may fight, that there is a greater chance in having problems, no matter what socioeconomic level if the parents are not together.
So while I may drive off a bridge, fall into water and drown because I could not get my seat belt off, I should still wear my seatbelt because there is a much higher chance of me getting hurt or killed without it. You cannot make broad statements based on exceptions. You have to make broad statements based on the overall data.
The overall data shows that kids are better off in two parent families. Policy should be made for the greatest good, so policy should support intact families.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:37 AM November 2nd, 2004 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Well I choose to deal with the state of the world today, not what it should be(in your eyes) and that is to deal with the facts of high divorce, single parent families, and try to work within those groups to help those children and parents that function (quite nicely in fact) within their communities. Policy should support all families, and not condemn them for not doing things by what the conservative christian right wing says to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:11 PM November 2nd, 2004 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
I think what this is boiling down to is the treatment of fathers by the feminists and by the courts. I've seen first hand what a womens lies can do to the relationship of the father and his children. There is a reason for a high divorce rate, people just aren't trying anymore. Or would you have me believe that the 2/3 rds of women initiating divorced are the poor battered type like on lifetime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Well I choose to deal with the state of the world today, not what it should be(in your eyes) and that is to deal with the facts of high divorce, single parent families, and try to work within those groups to help those children and parents that function (quite nicely in fact) within their communities."
Not so nicely in fact based on this report. Working within these groups is fine. Favoring one group over the other is not. Policy only supports dovorced or single custodial parents (mothers) right now. Non-custodial parents (fathers), who are also family, are left out in the cold. The children are the ones who suffer from this the most. Many people do not want to hear this, because it says that divorce has reprocussions, and people do not like to know that they are responsible for their childrens problems. Women expect their new freedoms to come without cost. They have a cost, a large cost.
The problem is that giving incentives to divorce causes more divorce. Giving a mother 30% of the ex-husbands income is incentive to divorce. Giving mother sole custody dispite the father having a clean record and not being an abuser is incentive to divorce. California actually stated as law that an ex husband must keep his ex wife at the same level of living after the divorce. This is incentive to divorce. If all divorces ended with 50/50 shared custody with no money changing hands then it would not be an incentive. This does not condemn anyone, this merely makes people live with their choices. You want a divorce? You also divorce his wallet. Policy actively does not support marriage right now, and the divorce rates prove it.
"Policy should support all families, and not condemn them for not doing things by what the conservative christian right wing says to."
Why is it when someone supports marriages staying together they suddenly are "conservative christian right wing"? This report states the obvious, that children in stable homes with dads fare better. Supporting that is not Christian, it is not conservative, and it is certainly not right wing. It is common sense. If a report stated that paint thinner was poisonous, would you be a liberal left wing nut to suggest people not bath in it? No, you would have common sense.
People are threatened by this report because it makes them responsible for something. If you get a divorce you are increasing the chances your children will have major problems. Period. No one here is suggesting ban divorces. But denying this report is not making the effects of divorce go away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:20 PM November 2nd, 2004 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Good! you said "stable homes with dads" a home in which the two people involved in a marriage who are not happy is not stable. I don't understand why you keep blaming women for the majority of divorce, and I don't think that most women live high on the hog after divorce. In fact, why should that even be a consideration? iF you are unhappy, is a comfortable lifestyle going to make you feel better?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:32 PM November 3rd, 2004 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
You're BACK!!!
I thought we'd never see your posts again!!
I'm glad you decided to return!
Good to see you back!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Good! you said "stable homes with dads" a home in which the two people involved in a marriage who are not happy is not stable."
It can be very stable. Happiness is not a prerequisite of being stable. No marraige is happy all the time. This is a modern myth of marraige, and another reason why so many marraiges fail. My husband and I were very unhappy for many years yet persisted and our children were in a stable environment.
"I don't understand why you keep blaming women for the majority of divorce, and I don't think that most women live high on the hog after divorce."
Over 2/3 of marriages end because the wife files for divorce. Yes, that means women are the ones who are causing divorce. However, my position is not wrong because in some cases men ask for divorce.
I do think that women live better than men after divorce. Women are more likely to get the children (80% sole custody), so are more likely to get child support, and alimony. So that means there is a large transferance of wealth mainly from men to women. Also women have the privilage of raising their children after divorce where as most men do not. This IS living high off the hog.
"In fact, why should that even be a consideration?"
It is a causal factor. If the government is supporting giving perks to women who divorce, then the policy is anti-family. It should matter. If the perks were equitable, say every parent who divorced gets 50% of all resources which are joint, 50/50 joint custody (meaning the children spent half their time with each parent), no child support, and each depended on their own resources to get by, THEN it wouldn't matter. Right now ex-husbands are financing ex-wives divorced, down to legal bills, and that is wrong. Right now, no matter who asks for the divorce, the husband pays. That is not equitable.
"iF you are unhappy, is a comfortable lifestyle going to make you feel better?"
I am not sure where you are going with this. If you are unhappy, many people do find comfort in material goods. Lawsuits are built on the premise of making someone pay for unhappiness, be it emotional, physical, or imagined. Being unhappy should be irrelevant to the outcomes of divorce. Whatever your reasons for divorce, neither party should benefit over the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jenk, It's nice to see you back.
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have learned a lesson,
The grass is always greener.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:37 PM November 3rd, 2004 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
Really? Because in MY yard the grass is all brown and junk.
I thought it was a problem with silverfish, but that's usually just during the spring...!
(Sorry, just being silly.)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I missed you too much, Thundercloud. I still owe you that bear hug. ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:29 PM November 4th, 2004 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
Okay. I'll hold you to it.
...If you can get your arms around me, I'm kind of a fat guy. (I just can't say no to that extra helping of deer meat) :-p
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:37 PM November 1st, 2004 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
"For about 30 years we have been conducting such an experiment with the family. The time has now come to appraise the results."
This of course is nonsense. The experiment started under Carl Marx with socialism and the Communist Manifesto.
The experiment is about 100 years old and has categorically been proven a major disaster. It started with a mandate to destroy the family in favor of free-love morals.
Yet the experiment continues. Today the proponents of the continuation of the experiment are Marxist-Feminists, and they guarantee the destruction of all civilizations they touch as they destroy men with their hate.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:42 PM November 3rd, 2004 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
I've heard a saying that states; "the definition of insanity is doing the exact same thing over and over again, and expecting a DIFFERENT result."
Sounds like feminism, to me.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:40 AM November 4th, 2004 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
sounds more like Patriarchy.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
