Marriage and Family

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Of course there is no evidence, which is why none of the religious nutjobs on here has any.

https://www.purdue.edu/hhs/hdfs/fii/wp- ... s02c04.pdf

https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index ... nwxnl-hL4A

https://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/f ... c332c1.pdf

https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/c ... challenges

The truth is that there's so much evidence out there that you couldn't read it all in a lifetime.

Since Americans only stay married for 5 minutes then there must be VERY few of what YOU would call 'successful' people there

Then there is terrible abuse rate of stepfathers against their stepchildren.

But of course, when your only yardstick is money (a typically kristian world view) then I suppose two people can make more money than one, but that means that someone other than a parent will have to care for very young children for most of the time...

Are you also against chlldcare centres? There's is also plenty of evidence that they are detrimental to children. I've seen what those places are like.

[Immanuel Can]

The best thing for chldren (in fact the only thing they need) is a loving, nurturing mother who puts them first.

Well, let me ask you this: is being a single mother easy, or is it hard?

If it's easy, as easy as having two parents, say, then you're right; but then, there's no reason for any of us to waste special concern on the plight of single mothers -- for as you would be saying, then, they are not in any special straits in comparison to families with a mother and a father.

But if being a single mother is difficult in some way, then in what way is it difficult? And if it's difficult, then how is it plausible to think children are not hurt by having no father? After all, you would now be saying that their mother is under special strain -- say, anxiety, loneliness, poverty, lack of time, lack of resources... How could kids not be hurt if their mother is hurting? That would take some explaining.

So we have to pick a horse and ride it. Either single parents deserve our special sympathy, consideration, support and help, or they are completely the same as anybody else, and thus do not need or deserve it at all.

Which is your hypothesis?

[Immanuel Can]

Then there is terrible abuse rate of stepfathers against their stepchildren.

Yes, there is.

But that just makes a stronger case for keeping bio parents together.

Are you also against chlldcare centres? There's is also plenty of evidence that they are detrimental to children. I've seen what those places are like.

Yes, if there is any alternative. Two bio parents would be a better alternative.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The best thing for chldren (in fact the only thing they need) is a loving, nurturing mother who puts them first.

Well, let me ask you this: is being a single mother easy, or is it hard?

If it's easy, as easy as having two parents, say, then you're right; but then, there's no reason for any of us to waste special concern on the plight of single mothers -- for as you would be saying, then, they are not in any special straits in comparison to families with a mother and a father.

But if being a single mother is difficult in some way, then in what way is it difficult? And if it's difficult, then how is it plausible to think children are not hurt by having no father? After all, you would now be saying that their mother is under special strain -- say, anxiety, loneliness, poverty, lack of time, lack of resources... How could kids not be hurt if their mother is hurting? That would take some explaining.

So we have to pick a horse and ride it. Either single parents deserve our special sympathy, consideration, support and help, or they are completely the same as anybody else, and thus do not need or deserve it at all.

Which is your hypothesis?

It's often a lot easier.

[Immanuel Can]

Either single parents deserve our special sympathy, consideration, support and help, or they are completely the same as anybody else, and thus do not need or deserve it at all.

Which is your hypothesis?

It's often a lot easier.

Okay. So we should stop listening to single mothers when they whine about needing our sympathy. We should stop giving them special government money. We should deny the truth of what they say when they say their lot is hard, and they aren't able to do as much for their kids as if they had help, and we should realize that the only reason so many single mothers are in poverty is that they are lazier than two parents, and aren't trying hard enough.

Is that your position?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Either single parents deserve our special sympathy, consideration, support and help, or they are completely the same as anybody else, and thus do not need or deserve it at all.

Which is your hypothesis?

It's often a lot easier.

Okay. So we should stop listening to single mothers when they whine about needing our sympathy. We should stop giving them special government money. We should deny the truth of what they say when they say their lot is hard, and they aren't able to do as much for their kids as if they had help, and we should realize that the only reason so many single mothers are in poverty is that they are lazier than two parents, and aren't trying hard enough.

Is that your position?

Women who are good mothers should be applauded, not treated with contempt by kristian misogynistic hypocrites like you. Your comments drip with hatred and resentment. Don't pretend to 'care' about children. You would be happy to live in the times when 'immoral' women were thrown to the wolves and were totally dependent on a male sticking around. What you are in fact saying is that the only reason children need a father around is for money Actually a lot of women are financially independent these days, especially now that so many people are working from home.
The ridiculous kristian concept of the mythical 'perfect nuclear family' has never existed. Women have been bringing up children alone for as long as they have been having children. They just died a lot of the time, along with their children. Have you ever heard of the workhouse?

[Immanuel Can]

Women who are good mothers should be applauded,

Of course. But that's not an answer.

Do you believe that single mothers are equal in every important way to women who have a husband to help them?

If you do, what would be the rationale for giving single mothers any more "applause" than married mothers get?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Women who are good mothers should be applauded,

Of course. But that's not an answer.

Do you believe that single mothers are equal in every important way to women who have a husband to help them?

If you do, what would be the rationale for giving single mothers any more "applause" than married mothers get?

What a stupid, fucked up rhetorical question. Where did you get any of that from anything I wrote?
Your vileness is just an extra irritation I don't need at the moment. There's nothing more to say on the matter.

[Immanuel Can]

Women who are good mothers should be applauded,

Of course. But that's not an answer.

Do you believe that single mothers are equal in every important way to women who have a husband to help them?

If you do, what would be the rationale for giving single mothers any more "applause" than married mothers get?

What a stupid, fucked up rhetorical question.

Not at all. It needs an answer. You may not be able to provide one without committing yourself to something you would rather not. I understand. But that's because your claim that single motherhood is equal to two-parenting is problematic.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Of course. But that's not an answer.

Do you believe that single mothers are equal in every important way to women who have a husband to help them?

If you do, what would be the rationale for giving single mothers any more "applause" than married mothers get?

What a stupid, fucked up rhetorical question.

Not at all. It needs an answer. You may not be able to provide one without committing yourself to something you would rather not. I understand. But that's because your claim that single motherhood is equal to two-parenting is problematic.

The fact that I never said anything of the sort makes your 'question' a moot point. You are welcome to feel terribly 'clever' with your rhetorical 'question' and blatant dishonesty. I really don't care.
You resent any of you precious taxes going to help women and children avoid starvation. I get it. I don't. What more needs to be said??

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It's very eye-opening when you start researching your genealogy (very easy with the internet). Women struggling with children (and often MANY children) on their own seems to be more the rule than the exception. Family myths go by the wayside. It turns out that my 3x great grandfather, who allegedly got 'eaten by the Maori', was an Irish drunkard who was found dead outside a pub. He was so awful that my GGG grandmother refused to accept the body for burial. She had six children. Fuck knows how she supported them after that. Her own mother had a brood of children that she left in Australia (or they all died) before she had children here, to more than one father. (These are all catholics, or doesn't that count as 'christian' )Then her daughter (my GG grandmother) had a baby at 15 and no one has a clue who the father was. I only found out that the 'father' of my great grandmother wasn't her biological father via recent research. Another branch had an entire family in the workhouse.
So much for the 'perfect nuclear family'

[Immanuel Can]

You may not be able to provide one without committing yourself to something you would rather not. I understand. But that's because your claim that single motherhood is equal to two-parenting is problematic.

The fact that I never said anything of the sort...

Oh? So you don't regard single mothers as equal to a two parent team? Because it has to be one or the other: other they are, or they aren't.

Well, then, you admit you were wrong, and have nothing more to say, I'm sure.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Then my great grandmother had a child out of wedlock before being 'rescued' by a violent and dangerous man and going on to have several more children.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You may not be able to provide one without committing yourself to something you would rather not. I understand. But that's because your claim that single motherhood is equal to two-parenting is problematic.

The fact that I never said anything of the sort...

Oh? So you don't regard single mothers as equal to a two parent team? Because it has to be one or the other: other they are, or they aren't.

Well, then, you admit you were wrong, and have nothing more to say, I'm sure.

Mothers are mothers.

[Immanuel Can]

The fact that I never said anything of the sort...

Oh? So you don't regard single mothers as equal to a two parent team? Because it has to be one or the other: other they are, or they aren't.

Well, then, you admit you were wrong, and have nothing more to say, I'm sure.

Mothers are mothers.

Wow. You've discovered tautology. Very well done.

But if you mean "single mothers are the equivalent of a mother-father duo," then the implication is that single mothers deserve no special consideration, no special government help, and all their complaining about how hard it is to be a single parent is just codswallop. They're the same.

Good to know.