How are you going to make no sex outside of marriage happen? Sex outside of marriage has been common for forty years, since the PILL.
That seems like a denial of reality. True, couples having sex do not have your beliefs, but then they don't have to. Ignoring a problem or saying that it just shouldn't exist doesn't make the problem go away!
Many people, especially those who never saw the conformity of cult life, HATE to be preached at, so that method of social change is hardly effective outside of maybe your chuch--but I've seen good church girls get pregnant, too.
I doubt we will ever go back in time to the fifties. I think it is beyond your control, outside of your own life. You can't even 'make' your young adult children abstain--they have to decided and make their own decisions.
And people actually can have sex outside of marriage and Not have pregnancy after pregnancy. Yes, some oops, but there is effective birth control out there.
How are you going to make no sex outside of marriage happen? Sex outside of marriage has been common for forty years, since the PILL.
That seems like a denial of reality. True, couples having sex do not have your beliefs, but then they don't have to. Ignoring a problem or saying that it just shouldn't exist doesn't make the problem go away!
Many people, especially those who never saw the conformity of cult life, HATE to be preached at, so that method of social change is hardly effective outside of maybe your chuch--but I've seen good church girls get pregnant, too.
I doubt we will ever go back in time to the fifties. I think it is beyond your control, outside of your own life. You can't even 'make' your young adult children abstain--they have to decided and make their own decisions.
And people actually can have sex outside of marriage and Not have pregnancy after pregnancy. Yes, some oops, but there is effective birth control out there.
Are you taking to ME?
I wouldn't presume to make anyone do anything against their will. All I can do is what I choose for me and how I train my son.
Sorry bud, go read some Margo, I'm sure she'll carry your torch.
As there is a legal right for one or two such attempts on the National Health Service (ie, free), I just wonder about the breach of MY human rights in supporting such behavior which runs counter to what I consider best.
But then, I guess that goes along with my taxes that pay for bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Exactly, our country is about equality and liberty among other things (at least it is supposed to be). If we held back spending on everything that some individual or group found offensive there would be no spending at all. Unfortunately, spending our tax dollars in ways we disagree with is not a breach on any of our human rights.
from Rhino
My point is the big problem is with so many young single people having children,
Safe sex and condoms seem a big issue in schools, but is there much emphasis on the importance of a whole family?
from Abi
It is not the school system's job to teach moral values, nor (IMO) safe sex and abstinence. Likewise, I do not believe the school is the place to emphasis the importance of the "whole family."
I don' think young kids having children is a good thing either. Anyone who feels the same way should have no problem with sex education. It has been shown that sex ed reduces the likelihood of intercourse, pregnancy, and STDs. The rates of kids under 15 having sex drops dramatically with sex ed. Abstinence only classes on the other hand do not reduce the rates for intercourse, while pregnancies are more likely when abstinence only is taught. This shows that not only is abstinence only teaching not reducing intercourse or pregnancy, but that sex ed does not increase sexual activity either.
While I think it would be great if all parents would teach their kids about sex and contraception and abstinence, they don't and they won't. That being the case it is a public health issue, and sex ed seems to be working to some degree (of course there are always improvements to be made). Not only do you not what your kids making stupid mistakes that potentially turn into stupid practices (which could potentially permanently effect their future and education), but you don't want them to pay a hefty, potentially life-long, penalty for making a mistake or several mistakes sexually, by getting a bad STD. You can try to educate your kids and hope they make the right choices, but kids do make mistakes and they do have raging hormones and you can't control what their potential partner's parents teach them. That is why it is and should be taught in schools. The importance of family is not a public health issue. Maybe put that in a civics class or something.
A lot of this stuff came out of things like the sexual revolution, the women's movement, women's reproductive rights, and the homosexual revolution. You know all those evil leftist things. If we could only get back to the good old days of women being stuck in abusive relationships, having fewer rights, no voice, fewer options, and could be raped by their own husbands with no recourse. Gay people were way way in the closet, many times starting families the "old fashioned way" while slowly going crazy in an unhappy home. Bored and depressed housewives were inventing things like methamphetamine. Teen moms were stigmatized. While teens had less sex in general out of the fear of shunning, the wrath of their parents, and the fact that they literally would have no options as a teen mom. Ah yes, the good ol' days.
Perhaps it is not a leftist agenda but maybe society is just progressive. I think society always wants to move forward and evolve and it has. As we learn new things about the world around us, other people, and ourselves, we all change and collectively evolve and society pushes and changes bit by bit, with an occasional burst, while dragging the naysayers kicking and screaming. The less we learn the more we stay the same. It is the nature of a free society.
As I said, there are much greater threats to children and society than the unwed mother.
My school system teaches no sex ed, though in highschool they can take an elective called Home and Family, but that is more of a sociology class. The schools don't want to touch the issue due to the vocal abstinence only folk in the area.
But the highschool does have a childcare coop for all the babies of teens. The parent is required to take a child development class and work in the coop around their class schedule.
I've educated my teens, plus I never let them out of the house(kidding). This area is huge on teen drinking which only increases bad decisions. There was a study done, something like 95% of teen pregnanacies started with the teens drinking.
None of my kids chose to take the home & family class(its lame), they all prefer woodshop. But I figure if they are in the shop all summer using the scroll saw(Dad bought them fairy and dragon patterns) with visions of sales in their minds, they aren't out at keggers getting pregnant.
Re:"As I said, there are much greater threats to children and society than the unwed mother."
Yeah, its probably a bigger threat for children to have a crack ho as a mother. That minimizing of the problem could be what has maximized the problem. There are worse things after all. And what's the real harm of having young unmarrieds shacking up together anyways? Well.. I guess this is why I started this thread.
If the average American watches ET Tonight, they'll hear not ONE negative word or the ramifications about children being brought into this world by a single mother. The Dear Margo column is a microcosm of the way America is supposed to feel about family structure today.
And Bramble.. you never commented on the source I posted showing you how divorce was NOT so prevalent in Iceland.. Sheesh.. hey guys, condemning labeling single mothers as unfit is appropriate but we have taken that to APPROVING all births of out-of-wedlock children as no different. Is this a GOOD thing for the long term success of a culture?
... but kids do make mistakes and they do have raging hormones and you can't control what their potential partner's parents teach them. That is why it is and should be taught in schools. The importance of family is not a public health issue. Maybe put that in a civics class or something.
Or sociology or whatever ...it seems some simple statistics and real life examples of the effects on the lives would be helpful.
Ah yes, the good ol' days.
Perhaps it is not a leftist agenda but maybe society is just progressive. I think society always wants to move forward and evolve and it has.
well positive changes can be made without going overboard. Not all change is good ... societies rise and fall. You just said all the teen pregnancies are not good ... why is there such an explosive rise?
Perhaps totally removing the stigma of being an unwed mother is akin to making kids feel good about themselves in the school system, whether they actually learn to read and write or not.
Sorry Sudo--it looked like divorce statistics to me. Was there more? That wouldn't factor in the never married parents, would it?
Really the statistics part was not really of great interest to me, I was more interested in the family leave/childcare/ extended family/community support aspect.
One reason the article was so interesting to me was personal -- a friend of mine recently moved to Scotland( rated as #4 best place to live I think) and she is so thrilled --she was raised by a single mom, lived in near povery(preschool teacher) without health insurance most of her life, and is happy with both the minimum wage being actually liveable, and the healthcare that is provided to citizens. She is married to a Scot. They lived in western Montana for a number of years where prices are high and wages are low and really struggled at times. Before she married she raised her neice after parents died, but she had $ from social security for the child. Since they are only 10 years from retirement they feel much more secure with the move.
Raising children with sufficient healthcare, food, childcare, and education and decent housing--how can that not help society? I don't get where approval or disapproval even matters. I don't think disapproval will stop any young woman from getting pg, outside of a family unit. Withholding such things to demand cpmpliance or whatever--throwing them to the wolves so to speak--what kind of adult will that child become? Healthy and well adjusted?
I do think that birth control should be taught and easily available for young people, no matter what their income level.
Lots of moms of my aquaintance, with teen daughters, initiate the trip to the gynocologist so their daughters won't be heading for college and partying unprotected, or have open enough communiation that the older teen asks mom to take her. I would much prefer that than to learn that daughter drank a bunch of beer at the freshman mixer and is now pg, which happens.
It is what it is, whether I approve or not. Do I want my daughters to be single moms? No--but if it happens, their child would not have huge unmet needs if I can help. But not all young moms have family that is willing or able to help.
Haven't births to teens actually gone down? This is not a new thing.
i think that the point sudo was trying to make was that the information in his article countered the thesis statement (1st paragraph) of the article you posted...
in other words, if icelanders are indeed the "happiest" people on earth, then it would not be a result of their having the highest divorce rate in europe... (since iceland is far from the top of the list)
btw, as a single parent of 3 teenage boys, i support abstinence for a variety of reasons: unwanted pregnancy is one of them, but also for prevention of disease and emotional upheaval... as well as for biblical reasons... i personally am celibate (by choice)... because how is that gonna look and what kind of example would i set if i was not celibate... imo, when you have children you should put their interests above your own...
A lot of this stuff came out of things like the sexual revolution, the women's movement, women's reproductive rights, and the homosexual revolution. You know all those evil leftist things. If we could only get back to the good old days of women being stuck in abusive relationships, having fewer rights, no voice, fewer options, and could be raped by their own husbands with no recourse. Gay people were way way in the closet, many times starting families the "old fashioned way" while slowly going crazy in an unhappy home. Bored and depressed housewives were inventing things like methamphetamine. Teen moms were stigmatized. While teens had less sex in general out of the fear of shunning, the wrath of their parents, and the fact that they literally would have no options as a teen mom. Ah yes, the good ol' days.
Perhaps it is not a leftist agenda but maybe society is just progressive. I think society always wants to move forward and evolve and it has. As we learn new things about the world around us, other people, and ourselves, we all change and collectively evolve and society pushes and changes bit by bit, with an occasional burst, while dragging the naysayers kicking and screaming. The less we learn the more we stay the same. It is the nature of a free society.
As I said, there are much greater threats to children and society than the unwed mother.
You're not the only person on these threads who's attempted to "stigmatize" the traditional family,but the easiest to quote, I guess...Between this thread and the 'God bless California thread' it seems that the traditional mom and pop family is getting quite the bum rap...I don't know where you're getting your information about bored and depressed, raped and abused housewives inventing things like methamphetamines in that old backwards society we call 'the good old days', but in your progressive mind how is our society now rid of all of those evil things, or are we?...I know on the other thread, you are very much for gay marriage(which, by the way, I'm not particularly agin'), but how are we progressing by opening the door to another faction of our population to engage in such an abusive practice as marriage?...
I am all for de-stigmatizing any group of people for whoever they happen to be, and in general, I think we've progressed in that department...Maybe folks learned that when they protested the Viet Nam war by calling returning vets "baby killers" and "murderers" they were not actually addressing the issues...
Anyway, I wanted to point out here that not everything that we would call "progressive" is without it's downside...This may be tangentical(tangical?), ok, off on a tangent, but I found some interesting U. S. Census figures from 1968 to 2006 that might explain the downside:
1968....Median house price.....20,100
Median income for all families was $8,632 or 2.32 x annual income
Median income for families with two income-earners: $10,686
Median income for families with one wage earner: $8,215
2006....Median house price.....$219,000
Median income for all families was $58,407 or 3.64 x annual income
Median income for families with two income earners was $82,788
Median income for families with one income earner was $45,757
Now, obviously, in 1968 there was no such thing as equal pay for equal work among the sexes and minorities, but an interesting thing I noticed about 1968, besides the fact that median houses cost much less proportionate to one's median income, was not much disparity between the median income and that of a single wage earner...Mom and dad both working was a little over $2000 a year more...In 2006, note the disparity between the median income, the single earner income and the dual earner income...
Now, of course there are other factors involved, but it seems to me that slowly adding millions of women to the work force that are required by law to receive equal pay as men has had the effect of overall keeping wages lower to the cost of living...In short, in today's dollars women's incomes went up and men's incomes went down to meet the demands of prevalant wages and the law...It took some time, but companies no longer have to meet the demands of a single wage earner to maintain a workforce...
Now, I'm not going to offer commentary here about the working mom versus the stay-at-home mom because this thread isn't about that, but I do remember a time when our society was very split on that issue...And while there really is no stigma attached to a working mother, anymore, I have to wonder if there isn't a connection somewhere to overall wages not keeping up and the increased divorce rate...Are we better off?....
" We must now say proudly and without any exaggeration that apart from Soviet Russia, there is not a country in the world where women enjoy full equality and where women are not placed in the humiliating position felt particularly in day-to-day family life. This is one of our first and most important tasks.... Housework is the most unproductive, the most barbarous and the most arduous work a woman can do. It is exceptionally petty and does not include anything that would in any way promote the development of the woman...The building of socialism will begin only when we have achieved the complete equality of women and when we undertake the new work together with women who have been emancipated from that petty stultifying, unproductive work.... We are setting up model institutions, dining-rooms and nurseries, that will emancipate women from housework.... These institutions that liberate women from their position as household slaves are springing up where it is in any way possible." -- V.I. Lenin, The Task of the Working Women's Movement in the Soviet Republic , 1919.
Without venturing an opinion one way or the other...mostly because I don't actually have one, why is it that todays Eastern European women are, by and large, rejecting all this and seeking more traditional lifestyles of mothering, being wives and maintaining a "cozy home"?
You're not the only person on these threads who's attempted to "stigmatize" the traditional family,but the easiest to quote, I guess...Between this thread and the 'God bless California thread' it seems that the traditional mom and pop family is getting quite the bum rap...I don't know where you're getting your information about bored and depressed, raped and abused housewives inventing things like methamphetamines in that old backwards society we call 'the good old days', but in your progressive mind how is our society now rid of all of those evil things, or are we?...I know on the other thread, you are very much for gay marriage(which, by the way, I'm not particularly agin'), but how are we progressing by opening the door to another faction of our population to engage in such an abusive practice as marriage?...
"Stigmatize" the traditional family? Mom and Pop gettting the bum rap? If you are referring to the paragraph you quoted, the point of that sarcastic paragraph was not how bad traditional marriage is, but that the good ol' days are never as good as we romantically remember them to be. I have no problem with traditional marriage as long as it is a good situation for all involved and just having a father and a mother does not guarantee that. Being traditional does not make it so either. I don't see anywhere where I have said anything different.
As the article I posted on the other thread said and as every study on the subject says, it is not the sex of marriage couples that makes for a happy home and well raised children. Loving, conscientious and nurturing adults are who raise well adjusted children. Whether they are step-parents (I have those), adopted parents, single parents (I had that for a short while), hetero parents, gay parents, working moms, stay at home dads (that was me), or whatever those are the general qualities you need to raise well adjusted kids. Not every family is going to be the same and each family needs to decide what if best for them. For us that was my wife worked and I stayed home for about three years. That decision was largely economic, but our opinion was what is best for our kids is one of us staying home. Pretty traditional concept eh? Our decision... not so much so. Our kids are great so far BTW.
The traditional family is not getting the bums rush on these threads, gay marriage is. Single parents have been saluted and that is good. It is a tough job. But gay marriage is the only family type which is getting expressions of discrimination here. You say I am "very much for gay marriage." I would say I am very much against discriminating against gay couples. But that is the other thread.
You brought up a good point with the family income stats. That is what I am talking about. Giving women equal rights both socially and in marriage was the right thing to do. Did that cure all our ills? No. Did that create new ones? Yes. Is going backwards the way to go? No. Finding new solutions is the answer. I certainly don't have them all, but single parents in a not a problem. It is a reality and single parents can raise kids that do well in school, don't do drugs, don't become teen parents, don't go killing people just like a traditional family can. Will it be harder to raise kids as a single parent? Most likely, especially with no extended family help. It is harder for traditional families without an extended family network than it is for those that do. So doing the right thing ended up bringing us to a point in which we have more single parents, is the single parent the problem or are the economics the problem?
So it is harder for single parents. Is there anything we can do as a society to regulate how people have kids? I don't think anybody is for that, except for those against gay couples adopting. Is there anything we can do as a society to make it better for parents, single or couples, and their children? Absolutely, there is quite a bit we could do if we wanted to.
-------------
For the record, I think two parents is ideal, but single parents is a reality and people adjust and there is no such thing as the perfect family. The amazing thing about children is how well they adjust. I think divorce can be a nasty process for all involved, but in the end sometimes it is the best thing for everyone involved. It isn't black and white, except for the general fact that kids need love, attention, discipline, and encouragement.
I think teen parents are not ideal and many times is a problem, but not just because they are single but because they usually not ready to be parents. Plus, the economic factors are much more likely to have an effect on teen parents than they would be on a single college grad parent.
As for the "explosion" of teen pregos Rhino referred to, that is a myth. Teen pregnancy has been steadily going down both nationally and by state since 1990. Right now we are at a lower rate than we were in the 70s and earlier. Check the data. I'm not sure if that downward turn was around the time sex ed became prevalent but I would bet that had something to do with it. Locally, the trends change. For example, in the last place I lived Boulder, CO teen sex rates and pregnancies continued to go down, while out in Longmont (same county) where they taught abstinence only intercourse rates were the same and pregnancies went up.
Not every family is going to be the same and each family needs to decide what if best for them. For us that was my wife worked and I stayed home for about three years. That decision was largely economic, but our opinion was what is best for our kids is one of us staying home. Pretty traditional concept eh? Our decision... not so much so. Our kids are great so far BTW.
And I give you kudos for that...I remember about ten or fifteen years ago, a very high government official (I think she was a cabinet member) was discovered to have hired an undocumented, live-in au paire to care for her small child...If I remember right, she was making about $600,000 a year in her job, and her husband was making about $200,000 in his job...Her reasoning behind hiring the illegal au paire was something like 'it's hard to find good help'...I remember thinking, at the time, if my wife had a prominent job making $600K a year and we had a small child at home, I'd send her off to work with a thermos of coffee and ask her what she wanted for dinner when she got home...
"Stigmatize" the traditional family? Mom and Pop gettting the bum rap? If you are referring to the paragraph you quoted, the point of that sarcastic paragraph was not how bad traditional marriage is, but that the good ol' days are never as good as we romantically remember them to be.
Studies show the mom and pop family is the gold standard, yet I agree with simon, you and others use this "that is all a myth" argument against it. Now you say it was just sarcasm, but your point was the same.
For us that was my wife worked and I stayed home for about three years. That decision was largely economic, but our opinion was what is best for our kids is one of us staying home. Pretty traditional concept eh? Our decision... not so much so. Our kids are great so far BTW.
Congrats on that ... you seem a perfect example of the strength of a mom and pop family.
You brought up a good point with the family income stats. That is what I am talking about. Giving women equal rights both socially and in marriage was the right thing to do. Did that cure all our ills? No. Did that create new ones? Yes. Is going backwards the way to go? No.
Why is having one parent at home with the kids "going backwards"? That seems very "progressive". We can have both, as your family apparently demonstrates.
Finding new solutions is the answer. I certainly don't have them all, but single parents in a not a problem.
It is a problem ... there may be situations where it is the best that can be done, and god bless the single mom, but it is a problem ... or maybe better stated, it presents some major challenges for Mom.
So doing the right thing ended up bringing us to a point in which we have more single parents, is the single parent the problem or are the economics the problem?
Why not be real progressive and have two strong parents raise a child? ... we've replaced your raped, abused, depressed meth' Mom ... with today's strong educated woman in a doubly strong household. Of course we still have to deal with the murdering, rapist, drunk, abusive, cheating husband ... With all that "stigmatizing" that has happened in these threads, it is no wonder all the alternatives seem more attractive.
As for the "explosion" of teen pregos Rhino referred to, that is a myth. Teen pregnancy has been steadily going down both nationally and by state since 1990. Right now we are at a lower rate than we were in the 70s and earlier. Check the data.
I mentioned a high rate ... I did not say explosion, though you quote me as saying that. The US teen birth rate is more than triple Australia's, according to wikipedia, and rates turned up again last year, breaking a 14 year decline.
Despite a nearly one-third decline over the past decade in teen pregnancy and birth rates in the United States:
• One in three girls still becomes pregnant by age 20.
• Half of all first out-of-wedlock births are to teenagers.
• Still high rates of teen pregnancy and birth contribute to maternal and child poverty, father absence, diminished life prospects for children born to teens, and often result in unstable relationships and marriages.
Approximately $100 million a year (FY 2006-FY 2010) is now available to promote healthy marriages. This federal funding, included in the reauthorization of welfare reform,
can be used to support education in high schools on the value of marriage, relationship skills, and budgeting
.
That last bit seems like good news to me.
It appears that policy and education most influences the poor, which probably differentiates US from Europe and Iceland and Australia. So if the state has to educate the child on birth control, they might as well teach them about the value of marriage, relationship skills, and budgeting.
Studies show the mom and pop family is the gold standard, yet I agree with simon, you and others use this "that is all a myth" argument against it. Now you say it was just sarcasm, but your point was the same.
Actually, studies show what I have been saying that loving, caring, nurturing parents are the gold standard. Mom and Pop won't help the health and well being of a child or a spouse when the other spouse is abusive, for example. Do we need to look at abuse rates?
Congrats on that ... you seem a perfect example of the strength of a mom and pop family.
Why is having one parent at home with the kids "going backwards"? That seems very "progressive". We can have both, as your family apparently demonstrates.
We CAN have both. My family is a great example of two loving caring parents that take the time and give the love and make the sacrifices needed to raise good kids. It is not easy, and there are plenty of challenges. While we are a "mom and pop" family we are by no means traditional. There is still a stigma attached to being a stay at home dad in many places coming from men and women. It is assumed at times that the dad stays home because they can't get a job or because they are not a strong enough "traditional male figure" etc etc. The going backwards is the stigmatizing of single parents that is going on here. It is sad that we have to do this so often but :
stigmatize- to describe or regard as worthy of disgrace or great disapproval.
I am not doing that of "mom and pop". That is being done of single unwed mothers.
It is a problem ... there may be situations where it is the best that can be done, and god bless the single mom, but it is a problem ... or maybe better stated, it presents some major challenges for Mom.
It is not a problem if the kid(s) are getting the love and support they need. The real problem if we are talking about divorce is what led to the divorce be it abuse or getting into marriage for the wrong reasons etc. If we are talking about teen moms then again it is not the single parent factor as much as it is the teen pregnancy factor and the economic factors that follow. Address the real issues instead of saying a single educated adult shouldn't have a kid on their own. You said in another place that people get married to have kids or least with that assumption. I say people get married because they are in love and want to spend the rest of their life together and want make to a commitment establishing and confirming that. Getting married for kids or because of kids is the exact type of thing that lends itself to divorce.
Why not be real progressive and have two strong parents raise a child? ... we've replaced your raped, abused, depressed meth' Mom ... with today's strong educated woman in a doubly strong household. Of course we still have to deal with the murdering, rapist, drunk, abusive, cheating husband ... With all that "stigmatizing" that has happened in these threads, it is no wonder all the alternatives seem more attractive
.
Again, see the definition above. It would be great to have two strong parents for every household, but that is not going to happen and that is not enforceable. You want a education on marriage for teens? How about education on parenting? I don't think most right wing people would find that appealing but that would be more effective than just the importance of marriage. Again, two parents does not ensure a healthy household or proper parenting.
These are broad strokes you are making. We don't necessarily have a doubly strong household with the modern woman. We have all new problems, of which I listed some earlier. As a stay at home parent I have seen that first hand among other SAHMs and SAHDs. For example, with as many play groups and classes and this, that, and the other that SAHPs sometimes do, they might as well be in daycare. I've been in Barnes and Noble plenty of times when SAHPs come in and leave their kids for hours in the kids section while they go and have their mommy social gathering at the cafe. Meanwhile, their kids are running amuck and and acting up, leaving me there to discipline their kids. Quite possibly discipline like they've never had it. I'm not saying that is the norm, but this happens with quite a few parents in numerous parts of the country that I have lived and visited. Just one small example.
I mentioned a high rate ... I did not say explosion, though you quote me as saying that. The US teen birth rate is more than triple Australia's, according to wikipedia, and rates turned up again last year, breaking a 14 year decline.
Despite a nearly one-third decline over the past decade in teen pregnancy and birth rates in the United States:
• One in three girls still becomes pregnant by age 20.
• Half of all first out-of-wedlock births are to teenagers.
• Still high rates of teen pregnancy and birth contribute to maternal and child poverty, father absence, diminished life prospects for children born to teens, and often result in unstable relationships and marriages.
Approximately $100 million a year (FY 2006-FY 2010) is now available to promote healthy marriages. This federal funding, included in the reauthorization of welfare reform,
can be used to support education in high schools on the value of marriage, relationship skills, and budgeting
.
That last bit seems like good news to me.
It appears that policy and education most influences the poor, which probably differentiates US from Europe and Iceland and Australia. So if the state has to educate the child on birth control, they might as well teach them about the value of marriage, relationship skills, and budgeting.
Again, are they going to talk about parenting if they are talking about marriage in light of kids? Relationship skills would be good. Situational coping skills would be better. Critical thinking skills would be great (something that was more left to college when I was in school). From your same source it says that sex before the age of 20 is a global norm. It also says that the hight of teen pregnancy rates was in the 1950s. It also says that while most kids have sex before 20 many girls feel pressured before they were ready. It also said that the globally, effective sex education has been the key to reducing teen pregnancy.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
13
5
7
5
Popular Days
May 25
12
May 23
12
May 24
11
May 27
11
Top Posters In This Topic
Bramble 13 posts
lindyhopper 5 posts
rhino 7 posts
kimberly 5 posts
Popular Days
May 25 2008
12 posts
May 23 2008
12 posts
May 24 2008
11 posts
May 27 2008
11 posts
Bramble
How are you going to make no sex outside of marriage happen? Sex outside of marriage has been common for forty years, since the PILL.
That seems like a denial of reality. True, couples having sex do not have your beliefs, but then they don't have to. Ignoring a problem or saying that it just shouldn't exist doesn't make the problem go away!
Many people, especially those who never saw the conformity of cult life, HATE to be preached at, so that method of social change is hardly effective outside of maybe your chuch--but I've seen good church girls get pregnant, too.
I doubt we will ever go back in time to the fifties. I think it is beyond your control, outside of your own life. You can't even 'make' your young adult children abstain--they have to decided and make their own decisions.
And people actually can have sex outside of marriage and Not have pregnancy after pregnancy. Yes, some oops, but there is effective birth control out there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
For some, it's their personality or looks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Sex outside of marriage? Oh, my!
HeeHee
The Whole World's Fightin' About The Same Thing.
Always has been.
Here's a clip that addresses that very subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steveo
OK so I have read all these posts and its time for me to put in my two cents!
If they dont want no more babies they should call up the stork and tell him not to deliver no more babies!
There! problem solved
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
Are you taking to ME?
I wouldn't presume to make anyone do anything against their will. All I can do is what I choose for me and how I train my son.
Sorry bud, go read some Margo, I'm sure she'll carry your torch.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
??? I wasn't talking to you, bud.
BTY I am a 50 something woman.
I was ranting about the abstinece is the only answer viewpoint. It obviously misn't working well for many many young parents.
I've never read Margo, not sure the local paper carries her..
Edited by BrambleLink to comment
Share on other sites
kimberly
Calling the stork is the way to go.
The number is 227-846-3623.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Or shooting Cupid..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
You just have to have rhythm ... who could ask for anything more?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
from Rhino
from AbiI don' think young kids having children is a good thing either. Anyone who feels the same way should have no problem with sex education. It has been shown that sex ed reduces the likelihood of intercourse, pregnancy, and STDs. The rates of kids under 15 having sex drops dramatically with sex ed. Abstinence only classes on the other hand do not reduce the rates for intercourse, while pregnancies are more likely when abstinence only is taught. This shows that not only is abstinence only teaching not reducing intercourse or pregnancy, but that sex ed does not increase sexual activity either.
While I think it would be great if all parents would teach their kids about sex and contraception and abstinence, they don't and they won't. That being the case it is a public health issue, and sex ed seems to be working to some degree (of course there are always improvements to be made). Not only do you not what your kids making stupid mistakes that potentially turn into stupid practices (which could potentially permanently effect their future and education), but you don't want them to pay a hefty, potentially life-long, penalty for making a mistake or several mistakes sexually, by getting a bad STD. You can try to educate your kids and hope they make the right choices, but kids do make mistakes and they do have raging hormones and you can't control what their potential partner's parents teach them. That is why it is and should be taught in schools. The importance of family is not a public health issue. Maybe put that in a civics class or something.
A lot of this stuff came out of things like the sexual revolution, the women's movement, women's reproductive rights, and the homosexual revolution. You know all those evil leftist things. If we could only get back to the good old days of women being stuck in abusive relationships, having fewer rights, no voice, fewer options, and could be raped by their own husbands with no recourse. Gay people were way way in the closet, many times starting families the "old fashioned way" while slowly going crazy in an unhappy home. Bored and depressed housewives were inventing things like methamphetamine. Teen moms were stigmatized. While teens had less sex in general out of the fear of shunning, the wrath of their parents, and the fact that they literally would have no options as a teen mom. Ah yes, the good ol' days.
Perhaps it is not a leftist agenda but maybe society is just progressive. I think society always wants to move forward and evolve and it has. As we learn new things about the world around us, other people, and ourselves, we all change and collectively evolve and society pushes and changes bit by bit, with an occasional burst, while dragging the naysayers kicking and screaming. The less we learn the more we stay the same. It is the nature of a free society.
As I said, there are much greater threats to children and society than the unwed mother.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
My school system teaches no sex ed, though in highschool they can take an elective called Home and Family, but that is more of a sociology class. The schools don't want to touch the issue due to the vocal abstinence only folk in the area.
But the highschool does have a childcare coop for all the babies of teens. The parent is required to take a child development class and work in the coop around their class schedule.
I've educated my teens, plus I never let them out of the house(kidding). This area is huge on teen drinking which only increases bad decisions. There was a study done, something like 95% of teen pregnanacies started with the teens drinking.
None of my kids chose to take the home & family class(its lame), they all prefer woodshop. But I figure if they are in the shop all summer using the scroll saw(Dad bought them fairy and dragon patterns) with visions of sales in their minds, they aren't out at keggers getting pregnant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Lindy,
Re:"As I said, there are much greater threats to children and society than the unwed mother."
Yeah, its probably a bigger threat for children to have a crack ho as a mother. That minimizing of the problem could be what has maximized the problem. There are worse things after all. And what's the real harm of having young unmarrieds shacking up together anyways? Well.. I guess this is why I started this thread.
If the average American watches ET Tonight, they'll hear not ONE negative word or the ramifications about children being brought into this world by a single mother. The Dear Margo column is a microcosm of the way America is supposed to feel about family structure today.
And Bramble.. you never commented on the source I posted showing you how divorce was NOT so prevalent in Iceland.. Sheesh.. hey guys, condemning labeling single mothers as unfit is appropriate but we have taken that to APPROVING all births of out-of-wedlock children as no different. Is this a GOOD thing for the long term success of a culture?
sudo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Or sociology or whatever ...it seems some simple statistics and real life examples of the effects on the lives would be helpful.
well positive changes can be made without going overboard. Not all change is good ... societies rise and fall. You just said all the teen pregnancies are not good ... why is there such an explosive rise?
Perhaps totally removing the stigma of being an unwed mother is akin to making kids feel good about themselves in the school system, whether they actually learn to read and write or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Sorry Sudo--it looked like divorce statistics to me. Was there more? That wouldn't factor in the never married parents, would it?
Really the statistics part was not really of great interest to me, I was more interested in the family leave/childcare/ extended family/community support aspect.
One reason the article was so interesting to me was personal -- a friend of mine recently moved to Scotland( rated as #4 best place to live I think) and she is so thrilled --she was raised by a single mom, lived in near povery(preschool teacher) without health insurance most of her life, and is happy with both the minimum wage being actually liveable, and the healthcare that is provided to citizens. She is married to a Scot. They lived in western Montana for a number of years where prices are high and wages are low and really struggled at times. Before she married she raised her neice after parents died, but she had $ from social security for the child. Since they are only 10 years from retirement they feel much more secure with the move.
Raising children with sufficient healthcare, food, childcare, and education and decent housing--how can that not help society? I don't get where approval or disapproval even matters. I don't think disapproval will stop any young woman from getting pg, outside of a family unit. Withholding such things to demand cpmpliance or whatever--throwing them to the wolves so to speak--what kind of adult will that child become? Healthy and well adjusted?
I do think that birth control should be taught and easily available for young people, no matter what their income level.
Lots of moms of my aquaintance, with teen daughters, initiate the trip to the gynocologist so their daughters won't be heading for college and partying unprotected, or have open enough communiation that the older teen asks mom to take her. I would much prefer that than to learn that daughter drank a bunch of beer at the freshman mixer and is now pg, which happens.
It is what it is, whether I approve or not. Do I want my daughters to be single moms? No--but if it happens, their child would not have huge unmet needs if I can help. But not all young moms have family that is willing or able to help.
Haven't births to teens actually gone down? This is not a new thing.
Edited by BrambleLink to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
bramble,
i think that the point sudo was trying to make was that the information in his article countered the thesis statement (1st paragraph) of the article you posted...
in other words, if icelanders are indeed the "happiest" people on earth, then it would not be a result of their having the highest divorce rate in europe... (since iceland is far from the top of the list)
btw, as a single parent of 3 teenage boys, i support abstinence for a variety of reasons: unwanted pregnancy is one of them, but also for prevention of disease and emotional upheaval... as well as for biblical reasons... i personally am celibate (by choice)... because how is that gonna look and what kind of example would i set if i was not celibate... imo, when you have children you should put their interests above your own...
peace,
jen-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
simonzelotes
[quote name='lindyhopper' date='May 26 2008, 01:00 AM' post='413486'
A lot of this stuff came out of things like the sexual revolution, the women's movement, women's reproductive rights, and the homosexual revolution. You know all those evil leftist things. If we could only get back to the good old days of women being stuck in abusive relationships, having fewer rights, no voice, fewer options, and could be raped by their own husbands with no recourse. Gay people were way way in the closet, many times starting families the "old fashioned way" while slowly going crazy in an unhappy home. Bored and depressed housewives were inventing things like methamphetamine. Teen moms were stigmatized. While teens had less sex in general out of the fear of shunning, the wrath of their parents, and the fact that they literally would have no options as a teen mom. Ah yes, the good ol' days.
Perhaps it is not a leftist agenda but maybe society is just progressive. I think society always wants to move forward and evolve and it has. As we learn new things about the world around us, other people, and ourselves, we all change and collectively evolve and society pushes and changes bit by bit, with an occasional burst, while dragging the naysayers kicking and screaming. The less we learn the more we stay the same. It is the nature of a free society.
As I said, there are much greater threats to children and society than the unwed mother.
You're not the only person on these threads who's attempted to "stigmatize" the traditional family,but the easiest to quote, I guess...Between this thread and the 'God bless California thread' it seems that the traditional mom and pop family is getting quite the bum rap...I don't know where you're getting your information about bored and depressed, raped and abused housewives inventing things like methamphetamines in that old backwards society we call 'the good old days', but in your progressive mind how is our society now rid of all of those evil things, or are we?...I know on the other thread, you are very much for gay marriage(which, by the way, I'm not particularly agin'), but how are we progressing by opening the door to another faction of our population to engage in such an abusive practice as marriage?...
I am all for de-stigmatizing any group of people for whoever they happen to be, and in general, I think we've progressed in that department...Maybe folks learned that when they protested the Viet Nam war by calling returning vets "baby killers" and "murderers" they were not actually addressing the issues...
Anyway, I wanted to point out here that not everything that we would call "progressive" is without it's downside...This may be tangentical(tangical?), ok, off on a tangent, but I found some interesting U. S. Census figures from 1968 to 2006 that might explain the downside:
1968....Median house price.....20,100
Median income for all families was $8,632 or 2.32 x annual income
Median income for families with two income-earners: $10,686
Median income for families with one wage earner: $8,215
2006....Median house price.....$219,000
Median income for all families was $58,407 or 3.64 x annual income
Median income for families with two income earners was $82,788
Median income for families with one income earner was $45,757
Now, obviously, in 1968 there was no such thing as equal pay for equal work among the sexes and minorities, but an interesting thing I noticed about 1968, besides the fact that median houses cost much less proportionate to one's median income, was not much disparity between the median income and that of a single wage earner...Mom and dad both working was a little over $2000 a year more...In 2006, note the disparity between the median income, the single earner income and the dual earner income...
Now, of course there are other factors involved, but it seems to me that slowly adding millions of women to the work force that are required by law to receive equal pay as men has had the effect of overall keeping wages lower to the cost of living...In short, in today's dollars women's incomes went up and men's incomes went down to meet the demands of prevalant wages and the law...It took some time, but companies no longer have to meet the demands of a single wage earner to maintain a workforce...
Now, I'm not going to offer commentary here about the working mom versus the stay-at-home mom because this thread isn't about that, but I do remember a time when our society was very split on that issue...And while there really is no stigma attached to a working mother, anymore, I have to wonder if there isn't a connection somewhere to overall wages not keeping up and the increased divorce rate...Are we better off?....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
Without venturing an opinion one way or the other...mostly because I don't actually have one, why is it that todays Eastern European women are, by and large, rejecting all this and seeking more traditional lifestyles of mothering, being wives and maintaining a "cozy home"?
Which attitude is more "progressive"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bumpy
...or how 'bout a comprehensive 3rd world sterilization program...beginning in the good ol' USA!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
"Stigmatize" the traditional family? Mom and Pop gettting the bum rap? If you are referring to the paragraph you quoted, the point of that sarcastic paragraph was not how bad traditional marriage is, but that the good ol' days are never as good as we romantically remember them to be. I have no problem with traditional marriage as long as it is a good situation for all involved and just having a father and a mother does not guarantee that. Being traditional does not make it so either. I don't see anywhere where I have said anything different.
As the article I posted on the other thread said and as every study on the subject says, it is not the sex of marriage couples that makes for a happy home and well raised children. Loving, conscientious and nurturing adults are who raise well adjusted children. Whether they are step-parents (I have those), adopted parents, single parents (I had that for a short while), hetero parents, gay parents, working moms, stay at home dads (that was me), or whatever those are the general qualities you need to raise well adjusted kids. Not every family is going to be the same and each family needs to decide what if best for them. For us that was my wife worked and I stayed home for about three years. That decision was largely economic, but our opinion was what is best for our kids is one of us staying home. Pretty traditional concept eh? Our decision... not so much so. Our kids are great so far BTW.
The traditional family is not getting the bums rush on these threads, gay marriage is. Single parents have been saluted and that is good. It is a tough job. But gay marriage is the only family type which is getting expressions of discrimination here. You say I am "very much for gay marriage." I would say I am very much against discriminating against gay couples. But that is the other thread.
You brought up a good point with the family income stats. That is what I am talking about. Giving women equal rights both socially and in marriage was the right thing to do. Did that cure all our ills? No. Did that create new ones? Yes. Is going backwards the way to go? No. Finding new solutions is the answer. I certainly don't have them all, but single parents in a not a problem. It is a reality and single parents can raise kids that do well in school, don't do drugs, don't become teen parents, don't go killing people just like a traditional family can. Will it be harder to raise kids as a single parent? Most likely, especially with no extended family help. It is harder for traditional families without an extended family network than it is for those that do. So doing the right thing ended up bringing us to a point in which we have more single parents, is the single parent the problem or are the economics the problem?
So it is harder for single parents. Is there anything we can do as a society to regulate how people have kids? I don't think anybody is for that, except for those against gay couples adopting. Is there anything we can do as a society to make it better for parents, single or couples, and their children? Absolutely, there is quite a bit we could do if we wanted to.
-------------
For the record, I think two parents is ideal, but single parents is a reality and people adjust and there is no such thing as the perfect family. The amazing thing about children is how well they adjust. I think divorce can be a nasty process for all involved, but in the end sometimes it is the best thing for everyone involved. It isn't black and white, except for the general fact that kids need love, attention, discipline, and encouragement.
I think teen parents are not ideal and many times is a problem, but not just because they are single but because they usually not ready to be parents. Plus, the economic factors are much more likely to have an effect on teen parents than they would be on a single college grad parent.
As for the "explosion" of teen pregos Rhino referred to, that is a myth. Teen pregnancy has been steadily going down both nationally and by state since 1990. Right now we are at a lower rate than we were in the 70s and earlier. Check the data. I'm not sure if that downward turn was around the time sex ed became prevalent but I would bet that had something to do with it. Locally, the trends change. For example, in the last place I lived Boulder, CO teen sex rates and pregnancies continued to go down, while out in Longmont (same county) where they taught abstinence only intercourse rates were the same and pregnancies went up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
simonzelotes
And I give you kudos for that...I remember about ten or fifteen years ago, a very high government official (I think she was a cabinet member) was discovered to have hired an undocumented, live-in au paire to care for her small child...If I remember right, she was making about $600,000 a year in her job, and her husband was making about $200,000 in his job...Her reasoning behind hiring the illegal au paire was something like 'it's hard to find good help'...I remember thinking, at the time, if my wife had a prominent job making $600K a year and we had a small child at home, I'd send her off to work with a thermos of coffee and ask her what she wanted for dinner when she got home...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Studies show the mom and pop family is the gold standard, yet I agree with simon, you and others use this "that is all a myth" argument against it. Now you say it was just sarcasm, but your point was the same.
Congrats on that ... you seem a perfect example of the strength of a mom and pop family.Why is having one parent at home with the kids "going backwards"? That seems very "progressive". We can have both, as your family apparently demonstrates.
It is a problem ... there may be situations where it is the best that can be done, and god bless the single mom, but it is a problem ... or maybe better stated, it presents some major challenges for Mom.
Why not be real progressive and have two strong parents raise a child? ... we've replaced your raped, abused, depressed meth' Mom ... with today's strong educated woman in a doubly strong household. Of course we still have to deal with the murdering, rapist, drunk, abusive, cheating husband ... With all that "stigmatizing" that has happened in these threads, it is no wonder all the alternatives seem more attractive.I mentioned a high rate ... I did not say explosion, though you quote me as saying that. The US teen birth rate is more than triple Australia's, according to wikipedia, and rates turned up again last year, breaking a 14 year decline.
Here is a little info
That last bit seems like good news to me.
It appears that policy and education most influences the poor, which probably differentiates US from Europe and Iceland and Australia. So if the state has to educate the child on birth control, they might as well teach them about the value of marriage, relationship skills, and budgeting.
From wikipedia
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Interesting tidbit--Autralia's birth rate dipped so much they give a bonus for a birth. I guess they teach effective bitrth control usage.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Exactly bramble.
Actually, studies show what I have been saying that loving, caring, nurturing parents are the gold standard. Mom and Pop won't help the health and well being of a child or a spouse when the other spouse is abusive, for example. Do we need to look at abuse rates?
We CAN have both. My family is a great example of two loving caring parents that take the time and give the love and make the sacrifices needed to raise good kids. It is not easy, and there are plenty of challenges. While we are a "mom and pop" family we are by no means traditional. There is still a stigma attached to being a stay at home dad in many places coming from men and women. It is assumed at times that the dad stays home because they can't get a job or because they are not a strong enough "traditional male figure" etc etc. The going backwards is the stigmatizing of single parents that is going on here. It is sad that we have to do this so often but :stigmatize- to describe or regard as worthy of disgrace or great disapproval.
I am not doing that of "mom and pop". That is being done of single unwed mothers.
It is not a problem if the kid(s) are getting the love and support they need. The real problem if we are talking about divorce is what led to the divorce be it abuse or getting into marriage for the wrong reasons etc. If we are talking about teen moms then again it is not the single parent factor as much as it is the teen pregnancy factor and the economic factors that follow. Address the real issues instead of saying a single educated adult shouldn't have a kid on their own. You said in another place that people get married to have kids or least with that assumption. I say people get married because they are in love and want to spend the rest of their life together and want make to a commitment establishing and confirming that. Getting married for kids or because of kids is the exact type of thing that lends itself to divorce.
.Again, see the definition above. It would be great to have two strong parents for every household, but that is not going to happen and that is not enforceable. You want a education on marriage for teens? How about education on parenting? I don't think most right wing people would find that appealing but that would be more effective than just the importance of marriage. Again, two parents does not ensure a healthy household or proper parenting.
These are broad strokes you are making. We don't necessarily have a doubly strong household with the modern woman. We have all new problems, of which I listed some earlier. As a stay at home parent I have seen that first hand among other SAHMs and SAHDs. For example, with as many play groups and classes and this, that, and the other that SAHPs sometimes do, they might as well be in daycare. I've been in Barnes and Noble plenty of times when SAHPs come in and leave their kids for hours in the kids section while they go and have their mommy social gathering at the cafe. Meanwhile, their kids are running amuck and and acting up, leaving me there to discipline their kids. Quite possibly discipline like they've never had it. I'm not saying that is the norm, but this happens with quite a few parents in numerous parts of the country that I have lived and visited. Just one small example.
Again, are they going to talk about parenting if they are talking about marriage in light of kids? Relationship skills would be good. Situational coping skills would be better. Critical thinking skills would be great (something that was more left to college when I was in school). From your same source it says that sex before the age of 20 is a global norm. It also says that the hight of teen pregnancy rates was in the 1950s. It also says that while most kids have sex before 20 many girls feel pressured before they were ready. It also said that the globally, effective sex education has been the key to reducing teen pregnancy.
Edited by lindyhopperLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Excellent points, LH.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.