NationStates Jolt Archive

Since we are about to embark on the ten or twenty minutes of celebration that mark Father's Day here in the U.S., I thought it might be interesting to consider whether or not fathers were even relevant in the raising of children. Of course, any assertion that fathers are critical to the well-being of children will undoubtedly offend the PC NOW crowd -- you know, those enlightened liberals who have, for the past four decades, insisted that mothers can do it all. Indeed, they've dismissed men as little more than a nuisance -- one necessary for procreation but detrimental to proper parenting.

I'm of a different opinion, it's mostly proof by contradiction. Where there are no fathers raising children, the children are badly raised. Here are some statistics from the lead editorial in the WSJ

According to the CDC, DoJ, DHHS and the Bureau of the Census, 63% of teen suicides, 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions, 71% of high-school dropouts, 75% of children in chemical-abuse centers, 80% of rapists, 85% of youths in prison, 85% of children who exhibit behavioral disorders, and 90% of homeless and runaway children are children from fatherless homes. In fact, children born to unwed mothers are ten times more likely to live in poverty as children with fathers in the home.

So, do we have any liberals out there who claim that a single mother can do as well as a mother-father team?

By the way, an all expense paid trip to Flomaton, Alabamastan goes to the first poster that can correctly explain the meaning of the fishy phrase in my title.

P.S. I lied about the trip, but you're welcome to visit Flomaton anytime you want. Make sure you stop in Meridian Mississippi, too.

The answer is: TIME

The answer is: TIME
Not what I had in mind, can you elaborate?

Spending quantity time just being with your kids, listening to them and teaching them how to do things -- like fishing and riding bicycles.



My dad didn't waste a minute thinking about my "self-esteem".

He lived a respectful and responsible life in front of me, told me what he expected of me, taught me the difference between right and wrong and the reasons for it, kicked my butt when I did wrong, spent quantity time with me showing me and teaching me how to do things, and encouraged me to "earn" what I got.

He didn't have to worry about how to blame somebody else for my misbehavior.

If some adult overreacted to my misbehavior, my dad kicked my butt and then talked to the adult outside of my presence. If someone did something to me and I was innocent, my dad was ferocious in defending me.

My 90 year old dad is one helluva man and father.

A good father provides a role model for a male child. I know that from personal experience.

Since we are about to embark on the ten or twenty minutes of celebration that mark Father's Day here in the U.S., I thought it might be interesting to consider whether or not fathers were even relevant in the raising of children. Of course, any assertion that fathers are critical to the well-being of children will undoubtedly offend the PC NOW crowd -- you know, those enlightened liberals who have, for the past four decades, insisted that mothers can do it all. Indeed, they've dismissed men as little more than a nuisance -- one necessary for procreation but detrimental to proper parenting.

I'm of a different opinion, it's mostly proof by contradiction. Where there are no fathers raising children, the children are badly raised. Here are some statistics from the lead editorial in the WSJ

So, do we have any liberals out there who claim that a single mother can do as well as a mother-father team?

By the way, an all expense paid trip to Flomaton, Alabamastan goes to the first poster that can correctly explain the meaning of the fishy phrase in my title.

P.S. I lied about the trip, but you're welcome to visit Flomaton anytime you want. Make sure you stop in Meridian Mississippi, too.


for the meaning of the title, the bitch eventually got married anyway.


And why should only liberals try and settle your claim? Haven't any conservative teenagers got knocked up at the high-school prom?

The answer, is, of course obvious.

Two GOOD parents are GENERALLY better than one. The reasons are pretty fucking obvious including doubling the chance for income, less burnout on the parenting job, nore time to devote to the kids, probably better support from two extended families, children not feeling left out in their peer groups that do talk about both parents, role models from both sexes, etc, etc.

That being said, a pair of asshole, childbeating drug addicts would be a crappy substitute for a caring, responsible single parent.

I'm a parent, and I think I'm a pretty good fucking one at that. It's a tough fucking gig, and there are times when your kids will drive you so fucking nuts that YOU need a time out. Well single parents can't get that without neglecting the child. Single parents exist without the basic support system that a team has, and that leads to frustration, stress, and exhaustion - especially in the early years.


So, are fathers NEEDED? No, not if he's an asshole. Is a GOOD father preferable to no father? Of course. Same could be said for mothers.


Here endeth the lesson from the realms of the obvious.....

Being a foster kid i can heartily endorse the idea that fathers are needed.While i didn't turn into a juvenile delinquent, close call there, and didn't go to jail, or turn into a drain on society, looking back i could have used some guidance and general backing up.I have no doubt that my life would turned out differently with a stable home and a real mother and father in the mix. That's all

Of course, any assertion that fathers are critical to the well-being of children will undoubtedly offend the PC NOW crowd -- you know, those enlightened liberals who have, for the past four decades, insisted that mothers can do it all. Indeed, they've dismissed men as little more than a nuisance -- one necessary for procreation but detrimental to proper parenting.
Please provide a quote or a site that makes this assertation. Because it sounds like you're spouting bunk.

Ooh look...the imaginary 'we hate dad's group' is coming :rolleyes:

Spending quantity time just being with your kids, listening to them and teaching them how to do things -- like fishing and riding bicycles.

That is actually a much more positive explanation that I had in mind. You might win the invite to Alabamastan after all. I was looking for something more PC-NOW related.

Sounds like your Dad is a great guy. Every Father's Day, and a lot of other days, too, I glad for the days I spent with my Dad.

Please provide a quote or a site that makes this assertation. Because it sounds like you're spouting bunk.

Ooh look...the imaginary 'we hate dad's group' is coming :rolleyes:

Straw man, get your straw man! (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html) ;)

My father, quite frankly, has taught me little, except how not to act and treat other people. He was never supportive of me, cared little for my self esteem, didn't see my own worth, and was a generally negative influence in my life. The only thing he's ever done was supply money for the rest of the family, and little else, leaving my mother to raise my sisters and I. In light of that, yes, I believe it's possible for someone to raise a child on their own, but it becomes prohibitively more difficult if you are not only raising the child, but having to provide income, as well, but certaintly not impossible.

A good father provides a role model for a male child. I know that from personal experience.

Not only male children, but female as well. By the way they conduct themselves.

Not only male children, but female as well. By the way they conduct themselves.

Yeah, I thought females too, but I couldnt be bothered to justify it.

Since we are about to embark on the ten or twenty minutes of celebration that mark Father's Day here in the U.S., I thought it might be interesting to consider whether or not fathers were even relevant in the raising of children. Of course, any assertion that fathers are critical to the well-being of children will undoubtedly offend the PC NOW crowd -- you know, those enlightened liberals who have, for the past four decades, insisted that mothers can do it all. Indeed, they've dismissed men as little more than a nuisance -- one necessary for procreation but detrimental to proper parenting.

I'm of a different opinion, it's mostly proof by contradiction. Where there are no fathers raising children, the children are badly raised. Here are some statistics from the lead editorial in the WSJ

So, do we have any liberals out there who claim that a single mother can do as well as a mother-father team?

By the way, an all expense paid trip to Flomaton, Alabamastan goes to the first poster that can correctly explain the meaning of the fishy phrase in my title.

P.S. I lied about the trip, but you're welcome to visit Flomaton anytime you want. Make sure you stop in Meridian Mississippi, too.

I'll ignore your rant, but I will explain the phrase and win the trip.

I presume it refers to a feminist slogan from the 1970s: "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle."

I'll ignore your rant, but I will explain the phrase and win the trip.

I presume it refers to a feminist slogan from the 1970s: "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle."

Shit, I beat you to that hours ago, and it wasn't a slogan - it was a direct quote by Gloria Steinham.... who, of course, eventually bought her bicycle when she got hitched, although he never confirmed whether she smelled like the fish or not....

Shit, I beat you to that hours ago, and it wasn't a slogan - it was a direct quote by Gloria Steinham.... who, of course, eventually bought her bicycle when she got hitched, although he never confirmed whether she smelled like the fish or not....

Um, Gloria Steinem used the quote, but she was not its originator.

It was a common slogan. I used to have the T-shirt.

Your derogatory asinine comments about Ms. Steinem reflect poorly only on yourself.

a WOMAN needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. a kid needs his/her parents

ive always thought it was a stupid phrase ayway since a woman has some slight use for a man while a fish has no earthly use for a bike.

a WOMAN needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. a kid needs his/her parents

ive always thought it was a stupid phrase ayway since a woman has some slight use for a man while a fish has no earthly use for a bike.

Har. Without men, women wouldn't exist. A bit more than "slight use" there. :P

And it's possible that a bicycle in a river or ocean makes a nice habitat for fish, since thats generally what happens to man-made things that wind up underwater for a long enough time.

Um, Gloria Steinem used the quote, but she was not its originator.

It was a common slogan. I used to have the T-shirt.

Your derogatory asinine comments about Ms. Steinem reflect poorly only on yourself.

Actually, the direct quote from Steinham was "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle", and she was indeed the person who brought the phrase into popular usage - hence the t-shirts.

In 2001, however, she credited Australian Irina Dunn with originating the statement (paraphrased from another philosopher who stated "Man needs God like fish needs a bicycle.").

However in the context of the women's movement, the slogan didn;t just pop up out of thin air, and it was indeed Gloria who popularized it when, as a leading feminist of the day, she began to use it.

As for Ms Steinham herself, in her day she was a leading proponent of framing feminism in ways that were seen to be as much anti-men as they were pro-women, and that level of bias has never particularly endeared her to me.

Of course, any assertion that fathers are critical to the well-being of children will undoubtedly offend the PC NOW crowd -- you know, those enlightened liberals who have, for the past four decades, insisted that mothers can do it all. Indeed, they've dismissed men as little more than a nuisance -- one necessary for procreation but detrimental to proper parenting.

So, do we have any liberals out there who claim that a single mother can do as well as a mother-father team?

Where are these phantom liberals of which you speak. Who's saying this? I know I'm not.

That is actually a much more positive explanation that I had in mind. You might win the invite to Alabamastan after all. I was looking for something more PC-NOW related.

Sounds like your Dad is a great guy. Every Father's Day, and a lot of other days, too, I glad for the days I spent with my Dad.


because Ms. Gloria had slipped my mind. My dad always seemed like John Wayne to me. When he wasn't off fighting the bad guys, he was home with the family. He was generally quiet, but knew all kinds of cool stuff...He got back from Viet Nam in '65 and retired from the Army. I enlisted just a few years later.

So, from another thread on Father's Day, I offer this tidbit about my dad:

Father's Day in Viet Nam in 1970

-- my platoon leader came by, handed me the radio, and told me that my father wanted to talk to me...my father knew folks who knew how to get things done and his call was patched to me at the fire base. He told me that he loved me, was proud of me, and looked forward to going fishing with me as soon as I got back...

Har. Without men, women wouldn't exist. A bit more than "slight use" there. :P

And it's possible that a bicycle in a river or ocean makes a nice habitat for fish, since thats generally what happens to man-made things that wind up underwater for a long enough time.
oh i hadnt thought of that, i stand corrected

the phrase is completely logical.

I'll ignore your rant, but I will explain the phrase and win the trip.

I presume it refers to a feminist slogan from the 1970s: "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle."


P.S. I lied about the trip, but you're welcome to visit Flomaton anytime you want. Make sure you stop in Meridian Mississippi, too.


Sorry about the trip and the contest. Ms Gloria was mentioned earlier in an ironic sort of way.

Since we are about to embark on the ten or twenty minutes of celebration that mark Father's Day here in the U.S., I thought it might be interesting to consider whether or not fathers were even relevant in the raising of children. Of course, any assertion that fathers are critical to the well-being of children will undoubtedly offend the PC NOW crowd -- you know, those enlightened liberals who have, for the past four decades, insisted that mothers can do it all. Indeed, they've dismissed men as little more than a nuisance -- one necessary for procreation but detrimental to proper parenting.

I'm of a different opinion, it's mostly proof by contradiction. Where there are no fathers raising children, the children are badly raised. Here are some statistics from the lead editorial in the WSJ

So, do we have any liberals out there who claim that a single mother can do as well as a mother-father team?

By the way, an all expense paid trip to Flomaton, Alabamastan goes to the first poster that can correctly explain the meaning of the fishy phrase in my title.

P.S. I lied about the trip, but you're welcome to visit Flomaton anytime you want. Make sure you stop in Meridian Mississippi, too.
Single mothers can do it all. So can single fathers. It's best for kids if they have positive role models of each gender, but those role models don't need to be their parents. What's the problem here?

Mmm, some tasty straw man you are serving up here...

EDIT: Although, I do really like your title for this thread.

Single mothers can do it all. So can single fathers. It's best for kids if they have positive role models of each gender, but those role models don't need to be their parents. What's the problem here?

Mmm, some tasty straw man you are serving up here...

EDIT: Although, I do really like your title for this thread.
I guess it might seem to be a straw man for newcomers on to the scene. If you've read the papers for the last forty years, the way NOW has regarded men is pretty much common knowledge.

[/condescension]

Seriously, though, this isn't something I'm going to work real hard at documenting or defending because I'm just not in the mood for it anymore.

I guess it might seem to be a straw man for newcomers on to the scene. If you've read the papers for the last forty years, the way NOW has regarded men is pretty much common knowledge.

[/condescension]

Seriously, though, this isn't something I'm going to work real hard at documenting or defending because I'm just not in the mood for it anymore.
Believe me, I can understand the frustration that many men are feeling these days. New-age feminism seems to consist mostly of whining that we don't get paid enough while showing our "grrl power" by suing for child support. There are, obviously, "feminist" groups that fail to grasp the simple reality that "feminism" means "belief in the social and political EQUALITY of the sexes," rather than "pumping up womankind by ripping on the menfolk."

However, I've got to say that the vast majority of problems faced by modern fathers derive from men, not from women.

One thing that especially annoys me is the portrayal of men, by men, in the media. Look at sitcoms, for example: how many show goofy-looking and bumbling men with inexplicably attractive and capable wives? How many commercials do you see that portray men as inept and foolish, unable to clean or cook or change a diaper, while women are shown as empowered home-making superfemales? Men produce these shows and these commercials. Men perpetuate the image of males as incapable when it comes to anything remotely domestic.

Sure, images like this will help keep modern women in the kitchen, since they encourage us to see homemaking as a new form of female empowerment by insisting that only we, the womenfolk, can possibly cope with caring for a family. But the flip side is that we end up with an image of men as stupid and essentially worthless to the family, since women have also proven their ability to work outside the home and bring in the proverbial bacon.

Honestly, if you want to encourage people to view fathers as important, then your biggest enemies will be males. I'm not saying women never contribute to the problem, just that you've got to focus on the biggest foes first.

A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle - origins (http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/3255/herstory.htm)

Dangerous to argue from anecdotal evidence, but I was raised by my mother and I turned out fine - so it's more than possible. Course, it's easier if the state lends a hand (braces self for the backlash).

Now I think it might be good to also look at the correlation of single mothers and
a) income
b) time spent supervising kids
because these may very well have influence on how a kid will do in the future.
Just because correlation doesn't imply causation.

But wouldn't it be interested to debate about what the purpose of the male originally was?
I always kind of thought the male more or less tried to spread his DNA wherever he could, and then not really bother with the kid so much. Now that is of course not completely true, but does anyone know what originial human society (ie cavemen) present us with as far as male and female roles in bringing up a child are?

Women do not NEED men to survive... but many like having them around.
I believe a woman CAN be a single parent --- just as a man CAN be a single parent --- but that a child is better off with two loving parents to raise, teach, and nurture them.

I've never agreed with "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle." It's too trite, and I feel demeaning toward men and looking down its nose at any woman who chooses to be in a relationship with a man.

I always kind of thought the male more or less tried to spread his DNA wherever he could, and then not really bother with the kid so much. Now that is of course not completely true, but does anyone know what originial human society (ie cavemen) present us with as far as male and female roles in bringing up a child are?

Not really, because of the long gestation and immaturity of human children it's pretty essential that the father stays around to provide. There's strong evidence that early man lived in a more communal society than we do, though, with several females looking after children (among other things) and several males hunter/gathering.

-snip-
So a communal upbringing then. Like a large family with 10 or 20 kiddies.
In that case, a mum and a dad are still not enough...

A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle - origins (http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/3255/herstory.htm)

Dangerous to argue from anecdotal evidence, but I was raised by my mother and I turned out fine - so it's more than possible. Course, it's easier if the state lends a hand (braces self for the backlash).
This kind of gets back to where I started from. The evidence in the U.S. is overwhelming that when the state does "help" in the form of a dole, the kids are way worse off. The typical requirement for welfare is poverty. It isn't unheard of for a woman to have children just to get more money from the government. This is the kind of thinking that leads to the depressing statistics that I mentioned in the first post.

I think it's clear that a father is necessary, but the government doesn't seem to go to any effort to require or encourage the presence of a father in a welfare family.

I think it's clear that a father is necessary, but the government doesn't seem to go to any effort to require or encourage the presence of a father in a welfare family.


No, I think that it is clear that a two-parent familly is the prefered scenario, but the idea of fucking forcing someone to be a parent if they are unwilling would undoubtably lead to bad parenting which would be decidedly worse than absence. Encouragement is one thing. Requirement would be assinine. And punishing the mother and kids for cases where it turns out that the guy mom was fucking is an irresponsible prick doesn't exactly help anyone either.


If you had kids, you would understand why the notion of people having kids just for the fucking money is pretty fucking unlikely in most cases. Frankly, the government just doesn't pay enough to turn a profit after food and diapers, and the workload that it puts on you makes it a pretty fucking dumb way to try and earn extra cash.

Since we are about to embark on the ten or twenty minutes of celebration that mark Father's Day here in the U.S., I thought it might be interesting to consider whether or not fathers were even relevant in the raising of children. Of course, any assertion that fathers are critical to the well-being of children will undoubtedly offend the PC NOW crowd -- you know, those enlightened liberals who have, for the past four decades, insisted that mothers can do it all. Indeed, they've dismissed men as little more than a nuisance -- one necessary for procreation but detrimental to proper parenting.

I'm of a different opinion, it's mostly proof by contradiction. Where there are no fathers raising children, the children are badly raised. Here are some statistics from the lead editorial in the WSJ
Human beings have evolved in such a way that we need the parents of both sexes to develop into fully functional adults.

No, I think that it is clear that a two-parent familly is the prefered scenario, but the idea of fucking forcing someone to be a parent if they are unwilling would undoubtably lead to bad parenting which would be decidedly worse than absence. Encouragement is one thing. Requirement would be assinine. And punishing the mother and kids for cases where it turns out that the guy mom was fucking is an irresponsible prick doesn't exactly help anyone either.


If you had kids, you would understand why the notion of people having kids just for the fucking money is pretty fucking unlikely in most cases. Frankly, the government just doesn't pay enough to turn a profit after food and diapers, and the workload that it puts on you makes it a pretty fucking dumb way to try and earn extra cash.
You seem to be making the assumption that parents cynical enough to have children just to qualify for more benefits actually use the money for things the children need. This is not necessarily so.

I don't think fathers are necessary nor needed. And neither are mothers.

What a child needs is at least one person of either sex he/she can focus on, one person to take full responsibility of a child.
That can be a father, a mother, a grandmother, a foster mother, an older sibling, anybody really.
Children grow up more balanced in a larger family than in a small one, as there are more role models available, more people providing care and education for the child.
A child groing up without siblings might have a difficult time same as a child growing up with just one parent.

In my case, having a father was actually the worst bit about my childhood, things greatly improved once my mother found the courage to leave him. But I'm just one example.
It's hard to statistically prove anything in this field, as each family situation is different, each parent and each child is different. Circumstances that are beneficiary for one child can have devastating effects on another.

No, I think that it is clear that a two-parent familly is the prefered scenario, but the idea of fucking forcing someone to be a parent if they are unwilling would undoubtably lead to bad parenting which would be decidedly worse than absence. Encouragement is one thing. Requirement would be assinine. And punishing the mother and kids for cases where it turns out that the guy mom was fucking is an irresponsible prick doesn't exactly help anyone either.


If you had kids, you would understand why the notion of people having kids just for the fucking money is pretty fucking unlikely in most cases. Frankly, the government just doesn't pay enough to turn a profit after food and diapers, and the workload that it puts on you makes it a pretty fucking dumb way to try and earn extra cash.
If I had kids :). They're all in college now, so I know a little. Not as much as when I was twenty-five, but still enough to remember their birthdays and favorite foods. By the way, how does the profanity help make your point? I could point you to a good thesaurus if you are a little short on vocabulary.

Problem with the folks on welfare is that a lot of them can't think rationally. They haven't been raised well and they won't raise their kids well. It may be a stretch to say that the sole reason for a woman to have a baby is to get the extra couple hundred bucks a month. But, it is completely accurate to say that there are a disproportionate number of single mother families on welfare. This didn't happen before our "Great Society" of the mid '60s. The government got it wrong and now the process is institutionalized.

I don't think fathers are necessary nor needed. And neither are mothers.


Without a father and mother a child simply doesn't exist so, yes, they are both needed.

You seem to be making the assumption that parents cynical enough to have children just to qualify for more benefits actually use the money for things the children need. This is not necessarily so.


And you seem cynical enough to asume that this is a rampant cause of welfare pregnancies. While it makes for a nice talking point it does not exactly have a lot of empirical support that I have seen.


Does it happen? Yeah, probably. There are indeed calous and stupid people out there.

But is it a leading reason in most instances and so worthy of being the central precept to defining a welfare strategy? I'd bet not.

If I had kids :). They're all in college now, so I know a little. Not as much as when I was twenty-five, but still enough to remember their birthdays and favorite foods. By the way, how does the profanity help make your point? I could point you to a good thesaurus if you are a little short on vocabulary.

Problem with the folks on welfare is that a lot of them can't think rationally. They haven't been raised well and they won't raise their kids well. It may be a stretch to say that the sole reason for a woman to have a baby is to get the extra couple hundred bucks a month. But, it is completely accurate to say that there are a disproportionate number of single mother families on welfare. This didn't happen before our "Great Society" of the mid '60s. The government got it wrong and now the process is institutionalized.
so your objection is really about the existance of afdc?

Without a father and mother a child simply doesn't exist so, yes, they are both needed.

Oh, for making kids... I thought we're talking about raising them???

Human beings have evolved in such a way that we need the parents of both sexes to develop into fully functional adults.
I strongly disagree. Human children will probably be best adjusted if they have strong and active role models of each gender in their lives, but those role models do NOT need to be their parents. For instance, my buddy grew up with a single Dad, but his grandparents were very active in rearing him; because his grandmother kicks ass, he had a great female role model and didn't "miss out" simply because he didn't have a mommy. A girl I know grew up with two lesbian parents, but her uncle (brother of one of her mommies) was the male role model who involved himself in her life...she also has turned out just great.

I believe a child will do best if they have support from loving and solid adults of both genders, but to insist that those adults must be their parents is unreasonable.

I strongly disagree. Human children will probably be best adjusted if they have strong and active role models of each gender in their lives, but those role models do NOT need to be their parents. For instance, my buddy grew up with a single Dad, but his grandparents were very active in rearing him; because his grandmother kicks ass, he had a great female role model and didn't "miss out" simply because he didn't have a mommy. A girl I know grew up with two lesbian parents, but her uncle (brother of one of her mommies) was the male role model who involved himself in her life...she also has turned out just great.

I believe a child will do best if they have support from loving and solid adults of both genders, but to insist that those adults must be their parents is unreasonable.

Seconded.

Seconded.
I should add that I think a kid will do the best if they have MORE than two such role models. A kid will have much better perspective, I think, if they've got more "parents" than just a Mom and a Dad.

so your objection is really about the existance of afdc?
Not as much as my objection to the way it has created a welfare class of folks that are almost government serfs. I also object to the way the welfare system has made single mother families more desirable/advantageous than two parent families. I suspect there is a better, but less "caring" approach that might deal with these problems. It kind of reminds me of that "Give a man a fish..." idea.

you may have noticed that those rules have already been changed and there is no longer an increased benefit for extra children (over some amount i assume) and a limit on how many years a person can collect.

I should add that I think a kid will do the best if they have MORE than two such role models. A kid will have much better perspective, I think, if they've got more "parents" than just a Mom and a Dad.

That's what I meant when I said that children of larger families will find it easier. Siblings almost always help raising the younger brothers and sisters, and if you have other family members or friends living in your house as well they too will be role models for the kids and raise them in a way.
Humans weren't programed for mother-father-child families but for larger social groups and tribes. That still works best, even though it's not always practicable today.

That's what I meant when I said that children of larger families will find it easier. Siblings almost always help raising the younger brothers and sisters, and if you have other family members or friends living in your house as well they too will be role models for the kids and raise them in a way.
Humans weren't programed for mother-father-child families but for larger social groups and tribes. That still works best, even though it's not always practicable today.
I don't know if I agree that having more siblings is a good way to go. Personally, I think that the kids in a family should never outnumber the grown ups. :P

you may have noticed that those rules have already been changed and there is no longer an increased benefit for extra children (over some amount i assume) and a limit on how many years a person can collect.
You're right. I'm hopeful that the reforms will be extended. I'm also waiting to see what the long term results will show. But, it's an encouraging step that I didn't think of earlier.

I don't know if I agree that having more siblings is a good way to go. Personally, I think that the kids in a family should never outnumber the grown ups. :P

I've seen that a number of times and it always worked great. The most problematic children I came across so far were single kids.
I wouldn't say that I'm from a large family, rather average really, but we were three kids and guess how many parents?

a WOMAN needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. a kid needs his/her parents

ive always thought it was a stupid phrase ayway since a woman has some slight use for a man while a fish has no earthly use for a bike.
And a MAN needs a woman like a moose needs a hatrack I always say.

personallly i've grown up in a 2 parent and 2 children family. but i hd loads of extended family and friends around as well. I also have friends who were in single parent families and they are fine. I also know ppl who had 2 parents and where completely messed up. I think it's down to the individual ppl and the way they react 2 certain situations. If u have a crappy role model then u aint gonna have the set of relationship rules that u would have if u hav a good role model. But in the other instance, u might ave a crappy role model and fight against that and do ur best to b the best role model u can b to ensure the cycle gets broken.

Oh, for making kids... I thought we're talking about raising them???

You can't raise a kid that isn't born.