NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think this is true or do you think it’s just anti-non-traditional family propaganda?

Abuse risk is seen as worse as families change... some snippets:

* "This is the dark underbelly of cohabitation," said Brad Wilcox, a sociology professor at the University of Virginia. "Cohabitation has become quite common, and most people think, 'What's the harm?' The harm is we're increasing a pattern of relationships that's not good for children."

* Children living in households with unrelated adults are nearly 50 times as likely to die of inflicted injuries as children living with two biological parents, according to a study of Missouri abuse reports published in the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2005.

* "It comes down to the fact they don't have a relationship established with these kids," she said. "Their primary interest is really the adult partner, and they may find themselves more irritated when there's a problem with the children."

* "The risk (of abuse) to children outside a two-parent household is greater," said Susan Orr, one of the top child-welfare specialists in the Department of Health and Human Services. "Does that mean all single parents abuse their children? Of course not. But the risk is certainly there, and it's useful to know that."

* Chahine said caseworkers need to learn as much as possible, in a nonconfrontational manner, about the personal dynamics in at-risk households. Is there an unmarried partner who spends time there, or a newly arrived stepparent? Does that person care about the children, or consider them a nuisance? Is a criminal background check warranted?

* "We look at the relationship the kid has with whomever is around — is it supportive or destructive?" Schagrin said. "Does the mother have a long-term, stable relationship with this individual, or does she have rotating list of partners coming in and out?"

* "These boyfriends increasingly have been raised without fathers and been abused themselves," said Patrick Fagan, a family-policy specialist with the conservative Family Research Council. "Among the inner-city poor, the turnover of male partners is high. Where's a boy getting the model of what a father is like?"

What do we consider “Families at Risk?” Is this a veiled attack against the gay and lesbian community? Is it a veiled attack against the African American community (which has ALL of these single parent household statistics THREE times over again)? OR, is this all real and we need to rethink our community and social expectations on individuals who bring children into this world?

What say you? I’m not sure I know the answers to the questions and issues brought up in the article. LINK (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071118/ap_on_re_us/child_abuse)

I was raised by a single mother and I turned out perfectly fine.Well... relativly fine,anyway it's all propaganda. I have a lot of friends raised by single parents and they're all fine,it's all just a bunch of crap.

I think it's true that a traditional family model does work better in some circumstances than others; if anything, it seems economics has more to do with the success of a given family model than another.

Pfft. Kids don't need a traditional family - love, support, attention, protection, etc. all come with gang initiation these days.

I was raised by a single mother and I turned out perfectly fine.Well... relativly fine,anyway it's all propaganda. I have a lot of friends raised by single parents and they're all fine,it's all just a bunch of crap.

I don't think it's a negative on the mother per-se, I think they are claiming its a negative on the step-gaurdians... Did you mother have any significant others live with you? That would be their question I think.

Pfft. Kids don't need a traditional family - love, support, attention, protection, etc. all come with gang initiation these days.

:p

That's NOT funny! ;)

* "These boyfriends increasingly have been raised without fathers and been abused themselves," said Patrick Fagan, a family-policy specialist with the conservative Family Research Council. "Among the inner-city poor, the turnover of male partners is high. Where's a boy getting the model of what a father is like?"[/INDENT]



Bolded is the part I really don't get... where does that little factoid come from?

Bolded is the part I really don't get... where does that little factoid come from?

That's a jab at the African American inner city community I think, where they have been raising more children (by percentage against the total population) in non-traditional families for three generations now.

Balderdash71964

* "These boyfriends increasingly have been raised without fathers and been abused themselves," said Patrick Fagan, a family-policy specialist with the conservative Family Research Council. "Among the inner-city poor, the turnover of male partners is high. Where's a boy getting the model of what a father is like?"

Bolded is the part I really don't get... where does that little factoid come from?


Allow me to bold the part that answers your question...

Balderdash71964

* "These boyfriends increasingly have been raised without fathers and been abused themselves," said Patrick Fagan, a family-policy specialist with the conservative Family Research Council. "Among the inner-city poor, the turnover of male partners is high. Where's a boy getting the model of what a father is like?"

...which is to say, they quite possibly manipulated a study or two till it told them what they really wanted to hear.

Bolded is the part I really don't get... where does that little factoid come from?
Read the previous point. It talks about how the mom has several partners coming in and out. The point you quoted is referring to these partners.

I think it's true that a traditional family model does work better in some circumstances than others; if anything, it seems economics has more to do with the success of a given family model than another.
QFT.

The reason the traditional family model has come about is because it works. However, socio-economic circumstances can change that, and make a traditional family model hard to create or maintain.

That's a jab at the African American inner city community I think, where they have been raising more children (by percentage against the total population) in non-traditional families for three generations now.
I guess it would have showed their hand if they replaced "boyfriends" with "black people".

Do you think this is true or do you think it’s just anti-non-traditional family propaganda?

*snip*

What do we consider “Families at Risk?” Is this a veiled attack against the gay and lesbian community? Is it a veiled attack against the African American community (which has ALL of these single parent household statistics THREE times over again)? OR, is this all real and we need to rethink our community and social expectations on individuals who bring children into this world?

What say you? I’m not sure I know the answers to the questions and issues brought up in the article. LINK (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071118/ap_on_re_us/child_abuse)

I'll have to give this some thought as I think it is a complicated issue and my reactions are similarly complicated.

But, I am curious in the meantime, what exactly is a "traditional" family and from whence does this "tradition" come?

I'm surprised at AP for publishing such an article. It gives no details about the experts quoted in it. It just says "professor at this unversity" or "social worker at that city." It presents the topic as if it exists in a vacuum and never addresses the vehement public debate about family lifestyles that's going on in the US today. Without knowing who, precisely, they talked to, there's no way to know whether their remarks are biased or not. It also gives no information for readers to track down information from the studies it says exists but never identifies, so it's impossible to know whether they are legitimate sources or not, either.

I think the best and most honest quote from the article is this:

"We can ask the questions," Sedlak said. "But it's hard to look at cohabiting. It could well be there will be too much missing data to make definitive statements."
It applies to both the topic of family lifestyles and to the article itself.

Bottom line: This article is clearly presenting one point of view. It completely fails to mention that there are many points of view and widespread disagreement about this topic. It fails to mention that the point of view in the article has been politicized by certain conservative groups. It gives no information that would lead a reader to accept that it is presenting facts, rather than just some people's interpretations of data based on biased opinion. Also, the case history examples it uses are all sensationalistic. For all these reasons, I dismiss the article as likely propaganda. Shame on the AP.

The reason the traditional family model has come about is because it works. However, socio-economic circumstances can change that, and make a traditional family model hard to create or maintain.

It does work.

It is not, however, by a LONG shot, the ONLY model that works. Extended families, communes, gay couples, single parents, divorced parents who split the care, adoptive families, etc. can also be absolutely stellar homes for children. If the people who spent so much time trying to tear down the 'non-traditional' family model were to put even just half as much effort into supporting those families instead, think how many kids would be so much better off.

I'll have to give this some thought as I think it is a complicated issue and my reactions are similarly complicated.

But, I am curious in the meantime, what exactly is a "traditional" family and from whence does this "tradition" come?

I was equally curious why they seemed to equate the biological family as the traditional family… But I also noticed that one of them asked if we should watch “At Risk” families, and to put it that way, you would think, yes, sure, of course! But then when you think, who gets to decide who is an “At risk” family and I get more and more suspicious.

Allow me to bold the part that answers your question...
Balderdash71964

* "These boyfriends increasingly have been raised without fathers and been abused themselves," said Patrick Fagan, a family-policy specialist with the conservative Family Research Council. "Among the inner-city poor, the turnover of male partners is high. Where's a boy getting the model of what a father is like?"

...which is to say, they quite possibly manipulated a study or two till it told them what they really wanted to hear.
Ah, I missed that citation when quick reading the article. That makes it certain: It's right-wing propaganda, and the AP should have their journalism credentials suspended for publishing it without, apparently, having critiqued or fact-checked it first.

Read the previous point. It talks about how the mom has several partners coming in and out. The point you quoted is referring to these partners.
It would make sense if it were referring to one mother but reading it again, it seems like it is talking about single mothers in general who have the uncanny ability to find a rotating list of inner-city fatherless abused men to showcase to their children, which is how I read it the first time.

Do you think this is true or do you think it’s just anti-non-traditional family propaganda?


What do we consider “Families at Risk?” Is this a veiled attack against the gay and lesbian community? Is it a veiled attack against the African American community (which has ALL of these single parent household statistics THREE times over again)? OR, is this all real and we need to rethink our community and social expectations on individuals who bring children into this world?

What say you? I’m not sure I know the answers to the questions and issues brought up in the article. LINK (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071118/ap_on_re_us/child_abuse)

It's extremely racist to assume that just because a white professor happens to attack a family style that is gaining in popularity amongst all races,that he is specifically singling out African Americans and making a "veiled attack" against them. Not all things white people do are racist, believe it or not.

The article has some truth behind it. Traditional families, statistically speaking, do better economically than other families. Probably because both parents can pool their resources.

It's extremely racist to assume that just because a white professor happens to attack a family style that is gaining in popularity amongst all races,that he is specifically singling out African Americans and making a "veiled attack" against them. Not all things white people do are racist, believe it or not.

The article has some truth behind it. Traditional families, statistically speaking, do better economically than other families. Probably because both parents can pool their resources.

Institutions initiated by James Dobson have that effect on me.

It's extremely racist to assume that just because a white professor happens to attack a family style that is gaining in popularity amongst all races,that he is specifically singling out African Americans and making a "veiled attack" against them. Not all things white people do are racist, believe it or not.


Hah. That brings back some memories. I don't remember how many white (or white-looking) professors I had that felt they needed to assure the class that it was "okay" that they were speaking on some race issue because they were half Mexican/Chinese/Pakistani/Filipino/whatever. :p

Institutions initiated by James Dobson have that effect on me.

I really don't know what you're talking about. The article, posted on Yahoo, sites multiple well-known universities, including UVA and Cornell.

Now if I said that I didn't like rap, and rap being the music of choice for a majority of African Americans, would that make me a racist? No, just not a rap enthusiast. You can't assume a white person is making a racist statement just because they're white.

I stand by my original statement.

I really don't know what you're talking about. The article, posted on Yahoo, sites multiple well-known universities, including UVA and Cornell.

Now if I said that I didn't like rap, and rap being the music of choice for a majority of African Americans, would that make me a racist? No, just not a rap enthusiast. You can't assume a white person is making a racist statement just because they're white.

I stand by my original statement.

Your rap analogy doesn't work for me. I don't know why you think I think you are being racist for not liking a genre of music. Unless you said, "I don't listen to what black people listen to because I don't want to do what black people do." then I might think you are a bit of a racist.

The person I quoted was from the Family Research Council and has been attacked before for cherry picking statistics. I stand by my statements, as well. But! After a while I will sit by my statements as my legs get tired from too much standing. I assumed he was being racist because of what he said and because of what institution he hails from.

Your rap analogy doesn't work for me. I don't know why you think I think you are being racist for not liking a genre of music. Unless you said, "I don't listen to what black people listen to because I don't want to do what black people do." then I might think you are a bit of a racist.

The person I quoted was from the Family Research Council and has been attacked before for cherry picking statistics. I stand by my statements, as well. But! After a while I will sit by my statements as my legs get tired from too much standing. I assumed he was being racist because of what he said and because of what institution he hails from.


I wasn't attacking what you said, I was attacking what Balderdash said, which was strongly racist. I assumed you were defending him.

However, on the subject of the Family Research Council, the possibility of what he said as being racist is minimal at best. I'd give it a 2 out of 10 chance for racism. I just visited their site and they make no mention of race. They seem more concerned with Christian family values than racial issues.
And inner city families do have a high rate of male partners leaving. We all know that. That's a statistic, not a racial slur.

I wasn't attacking what you said, I was attacking what Balderdash said, which was strongly racist. I assumed you were defending him.


Really? What I said, by posting many options, was strongly racist?

Interesting how I tried to hide that in the multiple options I put in the poll options then isn't it. ;)

It's also interesting that you assumed all those different people I quoted was from a sole white male professor. If you don't mind, maybe you could explain this:

It's extremely racist to assume that just because a white professor happens to attack a family style that is gaining in popularity amongst all races,that he is specifically singling out African Americans and making a "veiled attack" against them. Not all things white people do are racist, believe it or not.

How do you know it's a HE and that HE is WHITE? Maybe it's a red she, or a yellow he, or a black male? Or do you just assume that all educated people in charge of departments at Universities or in charge of research institutes are white males to save yourself the trouble of finding out?

I'd like you to point out how I'm the one that made a racist assumption?

I wasn't attacking what you said, I was attacking what Balderdash said, which was strongly racist. I assumed you were defending him.

However, on the subject of the Family Research Council, the possibility of what he said as being racist is minimal at best. I'd give it a 2 out of 10 chance for racism. I just visited their site and they make no mention of race. They seem more concerned with Christian family values than racial issues.
And inner city families do have a high rate of male partners leaving. We all know that. That's a statistic, not a racial slur.
I doubt they would mention anything racist on their website but they have shown multiple times that they are not adverse to cherry picking the work of researchers to promote their own agenda. I don't understand where he got the idea that the majority of the boyfriends of single mothers were abused bastards and, unless (and I'm seriously asking, not being snotty) I see some statistic which shows that single mothers lust after fatherless victims of child abuse, I'm going to assume that the statement was pulled with great vigor out of his asshole and sprayed down with a light coat of thinly veiled racism. As for the rest of what was presented in the OP, I'm willing to leave the racism out of it and content myself with assuming it was largely cherry picked in order to declare that the Nuclear Family is the end-all be-all of a healthy family environment.

Really? What I said, by posting many options, was strongly racist?

Interesting how I tried to hide that in the multiple options I put in the poll options then isn't it. ;)

It's also interesting that you assumed all those different people I quoted was from a sole white male professor. If you don't mind, maybe you could explain this:

It's extremely racist to assume that just because a white professor happens to attack a family style that is gaining in popularity amongst all races,that he is specifically singling out African Americans and making a "veiled attack" against them. Not all things white people do are racist, believe it or not.

How do you know it's a HE and that HE is WHITE? Maybe it's a red she, or a yellow he, or a black male? Or do you just assume that all educated people in charge of departments at Universities or in charge of research institutes are white males to save yourself the trouble of finding out?

I'd like you to point out how I'm the one that made a racist assumption?

The crux of my argument was that you assumed the professors were making a subtle racist charge because they are white and therefore have to be racist. Unless you were suggesting that the professors were black, and that it was black against black racism. In which case you aren't racist, merely stupid.

The crux of my argument was that you assumed the professors were making a subtle racist charge because they are white and therefore have to be racist. Unless you were suggesting that the professors were black, and that it was black against black racism. In which case you aren't racist, merely stupid.

Really? Now I'm stupid because I based my question on what was said instead of knowing what color or gender the speaker of that thing was? Interesting yet again.

I doubt they would mention anything racist on their website but they have shown multiple times that they are not adverse to cherry picking the work of researchers to promote their own agenda. I don't understand where he got the idea that the majority of the boyfriends of single mothers were abused bastards and, unless (and I'm seriously asking, not being snotty) I see some statistic which shows that single mothers lust after fatherless victims of child abuse, I'm going to assume that the statement was pulled with great vigor out of his asshole and sprayed down with a light coat of thinly veiled racism. As for the rest of what was presented in the OP, I'm willing to leave the racism out of it and content myself with assuming it was largely cherry picked in order to declare that the Nuclear Family is the end-all be-all of a healthy family environment.

That's just it. Their agenda isn't racist, it's pro-christian family. When they cherry pick data, it's to prove the superiority of the christian family, not some racial issue. I agree, cherry picking is a stupid tactic, but they aren't doing it for racial issues. Just because they're pro-Christian family, and the majority of african americans aren't in a "christian" family doesn't mean that they're secretly attacking african americans.
The point is that there is not a single piece of direct evidence, either from the quote or their website to prove that they are racist.
If you dislike the nuclear family and want to attack them based on that, go ahead, because that's clearly what they support.

That's just it. Their agenda isn't racist, it's pro-christian family. When they cherry pick data, it's to prove the superiority of the christian family, not some racial issue. I agree, cherry picking is a stupid tactic, but they aren't doing it for racial issues. Just because they're pro-Christian family, and the majority of african americans aren't in a "christian" family doesn't mean that they're secretly attacking african americans.
The point is that there is not a single piece of direct evidence, either from the quote or their website to prove that they are racist.
If you dislike the nuclear family and want to attack them based on that, go ahead, because that's clearly what they support.

I took what that man said as being tinted with racism. Perhaps, he misspoke. I don't dislike the Nuclear Family. I think they are one of the many types of families which get a gold sticker. I wouldn't attack them because they support Nuclear Families, I'd attack them for attacking other types of families.

Really? Now I'm stupid because I based my question on what was said instead of knowing what color or gender the speaker of that thing was? Interesting yet again.

Your argument is the most incoherent thing I've ever had to read through ever.

HERE's what was said. Just so you don't get confused.

YOU said: These people are racist because they attack the non-traditional family, which the majority of african americans are in.

I said: Just because they're white doesn't make them a racist. There are no references, direct or implied, that would suggest that these people are racist. You shouldn't automatically assume that a white person is racist. That in and of itself is racist.

YOU said: You shouldn't assume that all professors are white. That makes you a bit of a racist, doesn't it?

I said: No. YOU suggested the professors were white when you accused them of being racist. Unless you were suggesting that the professors were actually black and being racist against themselves. Which I find utterly ridiculous.

YOU said: ...you're...shifting...viewpoints....my...argument...isn't...coherent

Your argument is the most incoherent thing I've ever had to read through ever.

HERE's what was said. Just so you don't get confused.

YOU said: These people are racist because they attack the non-traditional family, which the majority of african americans are in.

I did NOT say that. Your are making stuff up and reading what you want to see...Then you are trying to put those words into my mouth and pretend that I’ve said them...

I gave three options in that paragraph, you quoted it yourself, I said: What do we consider “Families at Risk?” Is this a veiled attack against the gay and lesbian community (option 1)? Is it a veiled attack against the African American community (which has ALL of these single parent household statistics THREE times over again) (option 2) ? OR, is this all real and we need to rethink our community and social expectations on individuals who bring children into this world (option 3)?

And then I went further and gave MY opinion, which was:
What say you? I’m not sure I know the answers to the questions and issues brought up in the article.

Then in the poll I made for that question I gave 2 options for possible bigotry answers, a third negative answer for no bigotry but religious premise, and 4 positive answer options, and 2 BS answers. I don't think the single answer for racism on Blacks in that list of 9 options makes my question an inherently reverse racist poll.

I said: Just because they're white doesn't make them a racist. There are no references, direct or implied, that would suggest that these people are racist. You shouldn't automatically assume that a white person is racist. That in and of itself is racist.

I never assumed they were white or racist. How does it make me a racist because I was able to see that what some of them said could be be perceived that way?

YOU said: You shouldn't assume that all professors are white. That makes you a bit of a racist, doesn't it?

Really? I said you were a bit of a racist did I? Interesting. Maybe you could quote that for us hmmm?

While you are looking for that quote (that I never said) maybe you could answer this: Do you only read between the lines or do you sometimes read the words themselves too?

I didn't call you a racist, I asked why you assumed the person in the article was a white male... I did that to make you understand that you had to re-read the quotes and the article, because obviously you had made some erroneous assumptions about who said what...

I said: No. YOU suggested the professors were white when you accused them of being racist. Unless you were suggesting that the professors were actually black and being racist against themselves. Which I find utterly ridiculous.

I never accused them of being racist, I put the question out there for others to consider. I never suggested they were white, in fact, until you assumed it I assumed they were mixed and a wide multitude of people just by the sounds of their names... But, meh, whatever floats your boat. You want to assume they are all white males and then pretend that I said it, fine, whatever.

YOU said: ...you're...shifting...viewpoints....my...argument...isn't...coherent


Hmmm, I think you need to go back and start over. I didn't say they were white or racist. I quoted multiple people, I never mentioned their races or genders. I then asked if their conclusions were bigoted, racist of homophobic, and/or, if the topic is real and if so, what should we do about it.

You read what you wanted to read. You assigned your perceived reverse racism position onto me, even though you had to ignore every other option to get there, and then blamed me because I pointed out the flaw in your logic and how you reached your conclusions.

I took what that man said as being tinted with racism. Perhaps, he misspoke. I don't dislike the Nuclear Family. I think they are one of the many types of families which get a gold sticker. I wouldn't attack them because they support Nuclear Families, I'd attack them for attacking other types of families.

Therein lies the problem. Assuming what he said was racist, either because he works for a christian group, because he was white and attacking a family style loosely associated with blacks, or even because he has a name that sounds vaguely like Jerry Falwell (Jim Fargon? There is a weak similarity). Or any combination of the three.

I did NOT say that. Your are making stuff up and reading what you want to see...Then you are trying to put those words into my mouth and pretend that I’ve said them...

I gave three options in that paragraph, you quoted it yourself, I said: What do we consider “Families at Risk?” Is this a veiled attack against the gay and lesbian community (option 1)? Is it a veiled attack against the African American community (which has ALL of these single parent household statistics THREE times over again) (option 2) ? OR, is this all real and we need to rethink our community and social expectations on individuals who bring children into this world (option 3)?

And then I went further and gave MY opinion, which was:
What say you? I’m not sure I know the answers to the questions and issues brought up in the article.

Then in the poll I made for that question I gave 2 options for possible bigotry answers, a third negative answer for no bigotry but religious premise, and 4 positive answer options, and 2 BS answers. I don't think the single answer for racism on Blacks in that list of 9 options makes my question an inherently reverse racist poll.



I never assumed they were white or racist. How does it make me a racist because I was able to see that what some of them said could be be perceived that way?



Really? I said you were a bit of a racist did I? Interesting.

Do only read between the lines or do you sometimes read the words themselves too? I didn't call you a racist, I asked why you assumed the person was a white male...



I never accused them of being racist, I put the question out there for others to consider. I never suggested they were white, in fact, until you assumed it I assumed they were mixed and a wide multitude of people just by the sounds of their names... But, meh, whatever floats your boat. You want to assume they are all white males and then pretend that I said it, fine, whatever.




Hmmm, I think you need to go back and start over. I didn't say they were white or racist. I quoted multiple people, I never mentioned their races or genders. I then asked if their conclusions were bigoted, racist of homophobic, and/or, if the topic is real and if so, what should we do about it.

You read what you wanted to read. You assigned your perceived reverse racism position onto me, even though you had to ignore every other option to get there, and then blamed me because I pointed out the flaw in your logic and how you reached your conclusions.

You are doing what my grandpa calls "picking the fly crap out of the soup", which means you are picking out obscure details because the crux of your argument has failed. The fact is that when I do a poll, I always offer the position opposite of the one I stand for, just to see how many people choose it.

Now, look, because I am about to go to sleep:
I don't believe you are a racist. I really don't. You wouldn't be working so hard just to prove the contrary otherwise. But what you said had a strong whiff of "those damn whites, beating on the blacks again". Even if you didn't state it directly. If this is what your true intention was, then don't always assume that whenever a european american makes a comment about something endorsed by african americans, that the european american is racially motivated. That is racist logic itself. If you honestly didn't mean at all the things that I have accused you of, then you are a victim of poor phrasing of your opinion, which is a forgivable offense.

And it is now 2:30 in the morning where I am, and I really need some sleep. You can respond if you'd like, but I won't recieve it for another 6-8 hours. Good night.

Therein lies the problem. Assuming what he said was racist, either because he works for a christian group, because he was white and attacking a family style loosely associated with blacks, or even because he has a name that sounds vaguely like Jerry Falwell (Jim Fargon? There is a weak similarity). Or any combination of the three.

I'd like to think that I don't think that people say racist things because their names are vaguely similar to other people's names. When you say, "Christian" I don't automatically think racist. Though you are hitting home with his attack on a family style loosely associated with blacks. Right now, I'm going back and forth with considering you right about it not being a good thing to assume that what he said was a racist comment. I can't get over the fact that I feel it was a racist comment. A feeling which though it is not unimportant, doesn't really stand up to debate. I find that trying to dissect his words and show you how he is being racist is beyond me. So, if it was a racist comment, then it was veiled - with more cleverness than I thought before we started speaking about it.

Work for you?

Traditionally, it's mostly been "non-traditional" families that raised kids.
The saying "It takes a village to raise a kid" does not come from nowhere. Humans are social animals, and for the most part of their pat lived in large social/family groups. If anything, this is what would be best for a child from an evolutionary point of view.
The nuclear family with mother, father and children is an invention of the early 20th century, and therefore most likely just as bad as the single-parent household. Children in general don't really care if they are raised by parents, or grandparents, or just their mothers or fathers, or any constellation of family, really.

However, frequently changing partners of their parent can be slightly disturbing. I imagine it would have much the same effect as moving house very often. Children don't adapt very well to that, they prefer a semi-steady circle of family and friends. Changes like that can put a child under massive amounts of stress.

I'm sure there are plenty of examples of abusive step-parents and such, but then again, there are plenty of examples of abusive biological parents, and many examples of step-parents, the boyfriend/girlfriend of a biological parent, etc. who are great with the kids.

The only suitable environment for a child has at least one male parent and one female parent, or one parent, preferably female.

I think it's true that a traditional family model does work better in some circumstances than others; if anything, it seems economics has more to do with the success of a given family model than another.

Quite true. There's been a degree of successful work carried out that shows that the model of the nuclear family is uniquely suitable to capitalism, for whatever reason that might be. I would posit, though, that the reason for its success has more to do with the presence of two parents responsible for the construction of children, rather than the specific case of having one male and one female parent.

I'll have to give this some thought as I think it is a complicated issue and my reactions are similarly complicated.

But, I am curious in the meantime, what exactly is a "traditional" family and from whence does this "tradition" come?

I think by "traditional" they mean "nuclear." That is, a family with two married parents, one or more children, and a dog named Skippy. Well, maybe not the dog, but the rest.

As for which "tradition," I'd say the tradition of middle-class Americans. Of course, in a poor community, I don't know whether this is still traditional.

The only suitable environment for a child has at least one male parent and one female parent, or one parent, preferably female.

There was actually another study at the University of Virginia which found children with two mothers or two fathers were not worse off than children in similar circumstances who had one mother and one father. I think the important thing is stability: the children grow up in a stable environment, with a person or people who are able to physically and emotionally nurture them.

There was actually another study at the University of Virginia which found children with two mothers or two fathers were not worse off than children in similar circumstances who had one mother and one father. I think the important thing is stability: the children grow up in a stable environment, with a person or people who are able to physically and emotionally nurture them.

Quite true, a stable and nurturing environment is the most important thing, when we're talking about raising children.

The only suitable environment for a child has at least one male parent and one female parent, or one parent, preferably female.

You are incorrect.

Since your argument provides no further explanation, mine doesn't need any either.

Do you think this is true or do you think it’s just anti-non-traditional family propaganda?

Abuse risk is seen as worse as families change... some snippets:

* "This is the dark underbelly of cohabitation," said Brad Wilcox, a sociology professor at the University of Virginia. "Cohabitation has become quite common, and most people think, 'What's the harm?' The harm is we're increasing a pattern of relationships that's not good for children."

* Children living in households with unrelated adults are nearly 50 times as likely to die of inflicted injuries as children living with two biological parents, according to a study of Missouri abuse reports published in the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2005.

* "It comes down to the fact they don't have a relationship established with these kids," she said. "Their primary interest is really the adult partner, and they may find themselves more irritated when there's a problem with the children."

* "The risk (of abuse) to children outside a two-parent household is greater," said Susan Orr, one of the top child-welfare specialists in the Department of Health and Human Services. "Does that mean all single parents abuse their children? Of course not. But the risk is certainly there, and it's useful to know that."

* Chahine said caseworkers need to learn as much as possible, in a nonconfrontational manner, about the personal dynamics in at-risk households. Is there an unmarried partner who spends time there, or a newly arrived stepparent? Does that person care about the children, or consider them a nuisance? Is a criminal background check warranted?

* "We look at the relationship the kid has with whomever is around — is it supportive or destructive?" Schagrin said. "Does the mother have a long-term, stable relationship with this individual, or does she have rotating list of partners coming in and out?"

* "These boyfriends increasingly have been raised without fathers and been abused themselves," said Patrick Fagan, a family-policy specialist with the conservative Family Research Council. "Among the inner-city poor, the turnover of male partners is high. Where's a boy getting the model of what a father is like?"

What do we consider “Families at Risk?” Is this a veiled attack against the gay and lesbian community? Is it a veiled attack against the African American community (which has ALL of these single parent household statistics THREE times over again)? OR, is this all real and we need to rethink our community and social expectations on individuals who bring children into this world?

What say you? I’m not sure I know the answers to the questions and issues brought up in the article. LINK (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071118/ap_on_re_us/child_abuse)

Where in there did they hint at African-Americans or gays and lesbians? I thought it was specifying "non-marrieds", myself, as have a higher risk of being abusive -- and that it was by no means a foregone conclusion.

That's a jab at the African American inner city community I think, where they have been raising more children (by percentage against the total population) in non-traditional families for three generations now.

Because there are no cases of Hispanic families, or Asian families, or Caucasian families in which a boyfriend abuses the kids?

Really? Now I'm stupid because I based my question on what was said instead of knowing what color or gender the speaker of that thing was? Interesting yet again.

Ironic, considering that no one said anything about African-Americans or gays and lesbians, yet you posited it was an attack on their lifestyles.

Ironic, considering that no one said anything about African-Americans or gays and lesbians, yet you posited it was an attack on their lifestyles.

I ‘asked’ if it was an attack. Yes or no?

But lets examine what all the non-racial aspects of who was isolated for examination in the quote "Among the inner-city poor, the turnover of male partners is high. Where's a boy getting the model of what a father is like?"

Is the spouse turnover rate in rural America trailer park communities any better than in urban inner city poor? Were they mentioned? Do the native American reservations have better spouse marriage rates and lower single parenthood households? Were they mentioned by location? Hispanic families do not fit the stereotype talked about, and the Asian community does not either, by percentage of total families with children, that are single parent families in the inner city and are poor. So who do you think represents the inner city poor with fathers that were raised in single parent households as well, from the statement? Maybe 10% of all white families fit that category but 50% of all African American families do and 24% of all black people are in poverty status… Am I wrong? Did I lie?


African Americans represent only 10-13% of the American population. HOWEVER, African Americans are disproportionately represented in the inner city poor population, are they not? So what about the same-sex couples with children? Where do they live? It’s harder to tell with this group, seeing as how they are such a small percentage of the population, but the vast majority of same-sex couples with children live in the inner city communities, yes or no?

So why focus the attack on the inner city poor and not everywhere there are single parents? I asked was it a bigoted attack or not, I didn’t say it was.

There are a few ‘very touchy’ people around here that can’t even stand to have the question raised apparently, I wonder why that is?

Traditionally, it's mostly been "non-traditional" families that raised kids.
The saying "It takes a village to raise a kid" does not come from nowhere. Humans are social animals, and for the most part of their pat lived in large social/family groups. If anything, this is what would be best for a child from an evolutionary point of view.
The nuclear family with mother, father and children is an invention of the early 20th century, and therefore most likely just as bad as the single-parent household. Children in general don't really care if they are raised by parents, or grandparents, or just their mothers or fathers, or any constellation of family, really.

Exactly.

However, frequently changing partners of their parent can be slightly disturbing. I imagine it would have much the same effect as moving house very often. Children don't adapt very well to that, they prefer a semi-steady circle of family and friends. Changes like that can put a child under massive amounts of stress.

I agree here as well.

The only suitable environment for a child has at least one male parent and one female parent, or one parent, preferably female.

And do you base this on anything other than bigotry?

I think by "traditional" they mean "nuclear." That is, a family with two married parents, one or more children, and a dog named Skippy. Well, maybe not the dog, but the rest.

As for which "tradition," I'd say the tradition of middle-class Americans. Of course, in a poor community, I don't know whether this is still traditional.

See, that is exactly what I think is meant by "traditional" and it is a bogus tradition, as Cabra West points out.

Here is a good article on the subject: In Search Of A Golden Age: A look at families throughout U.S. history reveals there has never been an "ideal form" (http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC21/Coontz.htm)

Some people will point to the 1950s as a golden age. Of course that ignores segregation, higher poverty rates, higher teen pregnancy rates, etc. And rates of child abuse, domestic violence, etc, are not comparable because of a lack of reporting until relatively recently.

Hurling a toddler accross the room, or suffocating them in a headlock - are extreme situtations. This article should focus more on irresponsible parents. It doesn't necessairily take statistics to show that some single parents are irresponsible. So, what's the solution? Foster homes? Maybe in some cases, but people can't be forced to marry.. and many single parent families work just fine. It's an unimportant issue which was fueled by a few exceptional situations.

I ‘asked’ if it was an attack. Yes or no?

*snip*

There are a few ‘very touchy’ people around here that can’t even stand to have the question raised apparently, I wonder why that is?

I think the article you brought up raises some serious questions (although in one sense it isn't suprising that a child raised by two loving parents is less likely to be abused than a child living with strangers).

But your attempt at being coy about your own response is tired. To keep saying "I only asked the question" is pedantic and disingenuous.

There is nothing in the article that condemns gay and lesbian families other than the author's vague notions of a "traditional" family. Two loving LGBT parents are as good and safe as two loving "traditional" parents.

You are right that at least the one quote from the Family Research Council is talking about the inner-city poor and, by implication, is disproportionately represented by African-Americans. The other statistics and quotes are more about family structure and not other demographics. I submit the FRC isn't a very good source for information as they have a definite agenda. I am not convinced, however, that merely raising the question of family structures is a racist attack.

EDIT: I would note that I have tried--mostly in vain--to track back the various cherry-picked sources used in the article. One for example is the study in Pediatrics in November 2005 regarding child deaths from inflicted injuries. The study (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/116/5/e687?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&fulltext=Missouri&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&fdate=//&tdate=//&resourcetype=HWCIT) does appear to support the single statistic cited in the article, but the article is clearly being selective in its reporting. The study also showed that "Children in households with a single parent and no other adults in residence had no increased risk of inflicted-injury death" and "The majority of known perpetrators were male (71.2%), and most were the child's father (34.9%)." Apparently these facts didn't fit the authors agenda.

Some people will point to the 1950s as a golden age. Of course that ignores segregation, higher poverty rates, higher teen pregnancy rates, etc. And rates of child abuse, domestic violence, etc, are not comparable because of a lack of reporting until relatively recently.
It's like The Onion headline, "'Domestic abuse no longer a problem,' says bruised researcher."
This seems to be a cyclical thing. The time people point to is always about forty-fifty years ago: in other words, when most of them were between one- and five-years-old. Funny, how the years where we did squat, get to play all day and are spoon-fed by our parents is the one we think is the best.

I'm not sure what to make of the article given. I would accept that, generally speaking, a two parent family is preferable to a single parent family; bad parents exist, and always will, and a number of single parents raise excellent, productive children, just as a good number of married couples will be abysmal parents. However, as a general rule, two married parents do represent the best framework for raising children.

Cohabitation should, provided both adults are parents, or the child has a relationship with both parents, be just as effective. The only objection one could make against cohabtitation is that the absence of a marriage contract can lead to adults leaving with rather more ease than in a marriage, although the significance of this seems to be in a terminal decline.

I'd defer to Cabra's opinion, having just scrolled down, in this case. Stability is crucial to a child's upbringing.

...
EDIT: I would note that I have tried--mostly in vain--to track back the various cherry-picked sources used in the article. One for example is the study in Pediatrics in November 2005 regarding child deaths from inflicted injuries. The study (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/116/5/e687?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&fulltext=Missouri&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&fdate=//&tdate=//&resourcetype=HWCIT) does appear to support the single statistic cited in the article, but the article is clearly being selective in its reporting. The study also showed that "Children in households with a single parent and no other adults in residence had no increased risk of inflicted-injury death" and "The majority of known perpetrators were male (71.2%), and most were the child's father (34.9%)." Apparently these facts didn't fit the authors agenda.

I read the article as an attack on parents who bring adults into the household that are not the child's parent. It isn't a straight up attack on single parenting at all, not the way I read it. ALL of their examples are attempting to show that parents who bring in other adults into the household are putting their children at a higher risk... should back ground checks be required, etc., etc., etc.

Who are the households that bring in non-related adults into homes with children? Is this not the vast majority of ALL same-sex households? Is this not a quarter of all African American households?

The article attacked making new families, not single parenting. How is that not clear from the article? They are saying that the danger is from the non-parent adult.

I read the article as an attack on parents who bring adults into the household that are not the child's parent. It isn't a straight up attack on single parenting at all, not the way I read it. ALL of their examples are attempting to show that parents who bring in other adults into the household are putting their children at a higher risk... should back ground checks be required, etc., etc., etc.

Who are the households that bring in non-related adults into homes with children? Is this not the vast majority of ALL same-sex households? Is this not a quarter of all African American households?

The article attacked making new families, not single parenting. How is that not clear from the article? They are saying that the danger is from the non-parent adult.

1. I'm not sure why you chose to respond only to my edit and not to the rest of what I said.

2. The article does a lot of speculating. The only real hard data is from three studies/sources:

_Children living in households with unrelated adults are nearly 50 times as likely to die of inflicted injuries as children living with two biological parents, according to a study of Missouri abuse reports published in the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2005.

_Children living in stepfamilies or with single parents are at higher risk of physical or sexual assault than children living with two biological or adoptive parents, according to several studies co-authored by David Finkelhor, director of the University of New Hampshire's Crimes Against Children Research Center.

_Girls whose parents divorce are at significantly higher risk of sexual assault, whether they live with their mother or their father, according to research by Robin Wilson, a family law professor at Washington and Lee University.

You will note that it is only the first study that focuses solely on unrelated adults living in the household. And what I am pointing out is that some of the facts from that study don't support the general trend of the article.

The second study appears to say that single parent families are a higher risk, but that adoptive parents are not. (So an LGBT couple that adopts would be safer than a single mother.)

The third study focuses on parents that divorce and not on the structure of the family in which the girl is raised.

You seem to verify my complaint that the article gives rise to implications that aren't really supported by the hard facts.

3. Background checks being required for an adult to live with a child? You must be kidding me.

3. Background checks being required for an adult to live with a child? You must be kidding me.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if someone tried to pass a law requiring that

1. I'm not sure why you chose to respond only to my edit and not to the rest of what I said.

Because you said it yourself, you're tired of me defending my question and I'm tired of repeating the same thing over and over again. It seems like it could be a veiled back-door attempt on their part because it is exactly like saying: Any parent who brings a non-biologically related adult into the home of a minor is choosing to be irresponsible and they are putting their child at a higher risk... If that isn't attacking SS Couples with kids or Black families that have the highest percentage of single parent households then fine, whatever, sorry I said anything....

The article said:Nonetheless, many scholars and front-line caseworkers interviewed by The Associated Press see the abusive-boyfriend syndrome as part of a broader trend that deeply worries them. They note an ever-increasing share of America's children grow up in homes without both biological parents, and say the risk of child abuse is markedly higher in the nontraditional family structures.

They attack the very concept of step parents and step families being equal too 'traditional families' and they argue that any adults that are not biologically related to the child living in the home of the child is an 'increased' risk to the child.

2. The article does a lot of speculating. The only real hard data is from three studies/sources:

I agree that they didn't support their premise, I sympathize with them for that though becuase there is probably very little research in step-parent risk to children in striaght up study results. But even so, they used single parent data because they assume that people that bring outside adults into their homes with children ARE single parents homes before they bring in those adults.... Entirely speculative on their part, I agree. And I DO NOT agree that the connection is correct and we should just accept their conclusions without questioning it.

You will note that it is only the first study that focuses solely on unrelated adults living in the household. And what I am pointing out is that some of the facts from that study don't support the general trend of the article.

The second study appears to say that single parent families are a higher risk, but that adoptive parents are not. (So an LGBT couple that adopts would be safer than a single mother.)

The third study focuses on parents that divorce and not on the structure of the family in which the girl is raised.

You seem to verify my complaint that the article gives rise to implications that aren't really supported by the hard facts.
Yes, I agree that the implications they raise are NOT supported by their facts, so WHY did they transfer their data to the non-biologically related adults in the manner that they did? Why do they believe it? Who do they think these 'at risk' families are?

3. Background checks being required for an adult to live with a child? You must be kidding me.
And yet, that's what they said,
Chahine said caseworkers need to learn as much as possible, in a nonconfrontational manner, about the personal dynamics in at-risk households. Is there an unmarried partner who spends time there, or a newly arrived stepparent? Does that person care about the children, or consider them a nuisance? Is a criminal background check warranted?

and alarm bells go off in my head and everyone else around here says I'm being paranoid and these statements aren't targeting anyone...

There was a similar story published in the Daily Mail newspaper in the UK today. The angle however was somewhat different. The argument was made that a child has the right to have both a father and a mother.
In the case of a civil partnership between two lesbians, one of them would be the biological mother, and the sperm would have come from a donor - the pregnancy would be initiated by IVF in most cases. This is possibly the most common scenario. For two gay men to raise a child, they would need a surrogate mother to bear the pregnancy and then relinquish the child once it's born. This is much more difficult to achieve than simply obtaining sperm from a donor.
So the main issue quoted was the child's right to have a father.

The alternative to this is of course adoption, which removes the technical problems. But anyway....

Apparently, there is some law or bill due to pass through Parliament soon, which will make a family consisting of a gay or lesbian couple plus one or more children legally recognised. The Archbishop has denounced this as "fundamentally wrong". No surprise there - most religions have difficulty accepting homosexuality in the first place.

But apparently, many MP's from every party are also against this, and will be voting against the bill.

There is one argument, which says that since there are so many single parent families already, it is surely better for a child to be raised by a homosexual couple than by only one parent. This has some merit to it.

There are other arguments, which require a bit more explanation.
Imagine that a couple of gay men decide to raise a female child. Once the child reaches puberty and starts to undergo the complex changes that represent a girl becoming a woman, someone will have to explain to her what is going on. The best explanation would come from another woman, someone who has undergone the same experiences. Men are typically not very good at understanding women at the best of times, and I doubt that gay men are much different in this respect. So there are some issues here that need to be addressed.

Now imagine the opposite scenario - a lesbian couple raising a male child. The issue here is not of puberty - the changes that happen to a boy in the course of becoming a man are far simpler than those experienced by girls, and are hence a lot easier to explain.
No, the issue here is this: A lot of (but not all) lesbians are also ardent feminists and as such have a great deal of negative feelings towards men. Now, even with the best of intentions, the boy they are raising is not exactly going to grow up with a lot of self esteem. In the worst case, he will gain a strong sense of self-loathing, which is never a good thing.
Of course you could argue that a feminist lesbian couple would probably not choose to raise a male child. But if they did, then there are definitely some issues which need to be addressed.

I'm not trying to say that homosexual civil unions are wrong in any way. Neither am I saying that they shouldn't be allowed to raise children. What I am saying is that the latter will in all likelihood cause some problems for the child in question.

I was weaned on intranetz arguments, and i turn'd out fine, fine!

Seriously, *everyone* says i grew up a lot here.
:p