Why Mothers Need To Be Married

I suppose this indicates that I’m an old poop, but when we got married, the idea of having kids before marriage was not even a consideration. Now it’s a social phenomenon, a deviation forced into the mainstream.

Society is swirling in the bowl, and all the lefties and libertines can think to do is to flush again. And again.

Why is it that bird-brained birds are intelligent enough to build nests before laying eggs, but so many human females don’t? Answer that question, and you’ll get a prize.

It’s instinctual behavior with birds. It’s learned behavior with humans.

(Of course, few people would expect women with children to remain with husbands who beat them, including me.)

True, but being a better judge of a potential husband’s character can decrease the chances of a woman experiencing this.

Angel, this kids-without-marriage garbage started to take hold in the late ’60s, thanks to the counter-culture lefties, flower-power hippies, free love liberals, etc.

Today those same lefties, cleaned up but unreformed, are running universities, ad agencies, Hollywood, and the New York Times.

I’ve heard the relative stats on divorce being higher in the South than in the Northeast. Does anyone have the stats on actual marriage between the two regions? Just curious, and I’d rather not assume things based on stereotypes.

I think people rationalize having sex outside marriage, and sex outside marriage is how you wind up with children born out of wedlock. They will bring up the success rates of contraceptives and trust their lives on a little sheet of rubber or some hormone manipulating pill or not even use anything ignoring the fact that they are playing Russian Roulette with their lives and the lives of their kids.

All of it is quite simply the depravity of rebelling against God.

If that statement makes you angry, good. There is hope for you.

lucy, I know there are stats out there.

In my case, I had just read about the Native American vs Immigrant demographics a few days in one of my print subscriptions — I believe it was in Forbes magazine.

The end result is that some of the major cities are shrinking in spite of the immigrant influx and others are maintaining or growing. But all of those “old” metros pale in growth compared to the “new” metros like Atlanta, Phoenix etc.

It’s not rocket science to make the linkage from those demographics to marriage stats. Plus, regardless of one’s beliefs, it takes two to tango. If one throws in the towel, what’s the other to do? They become a stat, in spite of their best intentions. So comparing divorce rates to those choosing to remain single is like apples to oranges.

Tyrian Purple that is right on the money. My ex-wife told me before we split that we should have a baby just to save the marriage. When she refused counseling from our pastor and all other efforts to save the marriage that was her only solution. Then she told me if we had a baby and then divorced, she would have used the child as a pawn against me. Well, at least she was honest. She had a feminist mindset. She wanted to blast patriarchy(in her words) and becuase of her bad relationship with her dad, she hated men as a whole. She had a child on her own several years later just to prove she could.

Redbeard/Trish (especially Redbeard),

Why are you assuming that I support children without marriage? I don’t. I’ve always thought it to be a bad idea. But, this idea that is the sole province of liberals is nonsense and you both know it.

I wish they put more thought and planning into what is best for offspring in general.

Absolutely. The problem is that so many people don’t think and don’t plan. I believe that most out of wedlock births are unplanned as opposed to some naive way that some women try to keep a particular man. Undisciplined people tend to be more succeptable to their basal instincts than disciplined people and the more our society becomes unstructured, the less discipline we see in that society.

I also believe that most out of wedlock pregnancies don’t involve the failure of properly used birth control. Most involve non-use or improper/inconsistant use. This goes back to discipline. Disciplined people are conscientious with regards to consistant and proper birth control use. Disciplined people abstain from sex altogether.

We are becoming a more undisciplined society because there is a strong move away from societal structure. Liberal ideology tends to be more geared toward people feeling comfortable doing anything they want to do as long as it doesn’t directly impose on or victimize others. The problem is that such behavior en masse does impact society.

Shade/T.T, spot on!

I’m going to tread on thin ice here, taking the considerable risk of being labeled a pig. Actually, my wife brought this up recently, and all I’m doing is agreeing with her.

Women, throughout history, have been the gatekeepers of propriety, the ones who said “NO!” to men in search of base gratification. And in most cases, mine most definitely, that control exercised by the woman was honored by the men in their lives.

Today there seems to be a shortage of that feminine gatekeeping. Call it a tangential result of women’s lib gone astray, or call it a response to the “if it feels good, do it” 1960s, but whatever the reason, women simply aren’t saying “NO!” loudly enough or often enough.

None of the preceding should be taken as granting a free pass to men. Men really ARE pigs, to quote Tim Allen. In fact, I’m admitting that men can be the most obtuse and primitive creatures on earth. We need the civilizing influence of good women to keep us straightened out.

I am forever grateful that my wife was, and is, precisely that sort of civilizing influence. I’m equally grateful that my mother was the same, that my aunts are the same, that my grandmothers were the same, etc.

I really hope these comments are taken the right way. Being a man, I have no idea what I’m doing. LOL

Redbeard, I’m going to back you up on your last posting, because I think your wife is on to something.

Women should be saying no to men who want to have kids without a ring, especially if said men have children scattered amongst multiple women.

Women should be saying no to men who have neither the means nor the intent so support a family, particularly if said man is living in his mother’s basement and never has a job. Think about it: what’s his incentive to be a man? He’s getting laid as is!

Women should be saying no to men who think it’s okay to install them in their households and string them along while the man tries to “figure out” if he wants to marry or not. Why should he hurry? You’re right there acting as his wife, and if you live with him he doesn’t need to worry as much about you finding someone else, since you think this arrangement might lead to marriage.

So I don’t think you’re being piggish to point out that sometimes men need awomen-oriented incentives to do certain things. A coworker of mine went to an all-male college. I figured this out before he told me because he said they would go to their 8 a.m. classes without showering first

I think one consequence of casual sex becoming popular, or the norm, was that women who want to be chaste now have to contend with the opposite behavior as the norm.

The thing of it is, unmarried sex was not so unusual back in the day. It’s just that a particular standard (chastity) was promoted, one that ironically meant women had more power–as compared to the one now where a woman who gets pregnant can no longer be sure her boyfriend will marry her or look after their child because there’s no longer any pressure for him to–and all in the name of her “liberation.”

If women who want to be more discriminating find themselves competing with enough women who have no standards (given there’s no pressure to have them), human nature dictates that a good chunk of the men will go the path of least resistance.

Cheer up, Redbeard, you obviously know what you’re doing about one thing at least: you married a smart lady!

I have found that obstaining from sex until marriage is an unusual stance to take. I have been divorced for 8 years. After having several bad relationships that were based on sex I decided to do it God’s way and wait until I remarry. My girlfriend and I have been together nearly 2 years and we are going strong without sexual intimacy. I think when I propose (if she says yes) our physical relationship will be pleasing and blessed in God’s eyes.

I have found that I have to keep my commitment of no sex until marriage as a guarded secret. I have found that when I have mentioned that to other women in passing whether at church, work or other social settings, some of these ladies will try to test me out to see how serious I am.

It’s a shame that I have to change the subject or dance around the subject around other ladies but I want to continue to save myself for my future wife.

Now I have found that a lot of guys seem to respect my decision to do that. Even those men without a relationship with God. They wonder how I can make it but say they respect my decision. Men always put peer pressure on each other and so far no guys have tried to get me to break my commitment by introducing me to an “easy woman” or inviting me to a meat-market bar scene.

Unmarried sex has been going on all the time, nothings changed. I guess you all have forgotten the term “Shotgun marriage”. I bet some of the people posting here were present at their parents weddings as a one or two month old fetus.

Oh yeah…I do agree with the “men are pigs” bit…but in the past, it took other men to restrain them. It’s only after culture has established a woman’s _right_ to say no and backed that up with the power of law that men can be restrained by that decision. It’s hard to believe that women have pretty much thrown that right away, but they have. I think it affects young women most – those between 13 and 25 or so. Without religion, they have no societal support to help them maintain their self-worth.

T.T.

So, where does it say in the liberal handbook that illegitimacy is good? Hmmm…I’ll keep looking. As far as marriage being an outmoded social construct, I tend to agree with that unless there is an intent to procreate. If not, it’s really not necessary.

I don’t think men are pigs.

Andy,

Quayle got a razzing because picking on a well-off fictional character who chooses to raise a child alone was not brave at all. I would have had more respect for him if he had spoken at a black church or gathering regarding illegitimacy.

And, as far as I know, no one is stopping children from praying in school. You just can’t herd them into the auditorium and compel them to pray.

This is not open for discussion. – Admin

I would think the phrase “merely repeating what you’ve heard” implies that you think I’m not an informed person.

Thanks.

suek, wait a minute! I resemble that remark! Where’s a moderator to intervene when I’m being dis-affirmed?

Angel, it’s always easy to raze poor Dan Quayle, while avoiding the substantive points. Frankly I like baked po-tah-toe]

I should be so happy that you’re not defending the ridiculous assertion that the liberal handbook is NOT pro-illegitimacy.

I’m trying to recall the ‘black’ scene back in 1992. Hmmm, cable wasn’t quite primetime and of what was available, Married With Children… was extreme. What else?

What do I know? I was thousands of miles from here and I don’t trust my memory, so let’s pull up an article from the archives and I’ll emphasize the pertinent & inject comments as appropriate:

TIME Magazine 01 Jun 1992
IF FOR NOTHING ELSE, DAN QUAYLE DESERVES POINTS for audacity.
[Time-out! Where have we heard that lately? Wasn't there some ado about the audacity of some Magic Negro?]
In modern America taking on a popular TV character, even a fictional one, is politically more precarious
You were saying ‘not brave’? Like I said, Monihan was a Dem & was pilloried in ‘65 for his report on black illegitimacy. Why would Qualye go where you suggest, when he was speaking to overall decline, both white & black? Anyhoo, Qualye must have touched a nerve and ever-astute Bubba would later have his Sistah Soljah moment]
than taking a clear stand on a substantive campaign issue.

And yet the Vice President dared to argue last week in a San Francisco speech that the Los Angeles riots were caused in part by a “poverty of values” that included the acceptance of unwed motherhood,
[Could that be translated as a liberal talking point: illegitimacy is good?]
as celebrated in popular culture by the CBS comedy series Murphy Brown. The title character, a divorced news anchorwoman, got pregnant and chose to have the baby, a boy, who was delivered on last Monday’s episode, watched by 38 million Americans.
[Isn't that more than all the network MSM ratings put together these days? Having 76 million eyeballs is very influential platform for evangelizing post-modern liberal values]

“It doesn’t help matters,” Quayle complained, when Brown, “a character who supposedly epitomizes today’s intelligent, highly paid professional woman” is portrayed as “mocking the importance of fathers, by bearing a child alone, and calling it just another ‘life-style choice.’ ”

Quayle, aides explained, meant to “stir a debate” over “family values” and Hollywood’s treatment of them. And so he did. A New York Daily News headline set the tone: QUAYLE TO MURPHY BROWN: YOU TRAMP! Switchboards at the White House and on TV and radio talk shows lit up with callers, pro and con. Carl Rowan, a liberal black columnist,
[Here's your speaking truth to "a black church or gathering regarding illegitimacy". Do you respect Quayle now?
sided with Quayle, while Hillary Clinton, wife of the Democratic presidential contender, panned him as typical of "an Administration out of touch with America" and its growing ranks of single mothers.
[Oh yeah! Ms It-Takes-A-Village (Big Gubmint)-To-Raise-A-Child dishes out words of morally bankrupt wisdom]

There’s more but you can Google the rest like you did Murphy Brown. Just curious, did you land at PBS’ Online (Vice President Dan Quayle criticizes fictional character Murphy Brown for bearing a child out of wedlock on the television show of the same name)?

As for prayer in school. My! Aren’t we so advanced from the good old days when the KJV was often the only textbook in schoolhouses across the land.

Just curious, when you pined on another thread for raising your child today like the good old days you were raised in, was corporal punishment & school Bible Clubs common? Or was everyone giddy with having just banned them and welcoming forced busing.

By that time, we’d already bailed to the sanctuary of private Christian school so we could continue to indulge in the things that unelected wise men said we ought not do.

Again, why do you play this “Angel is stupid” game? I’ve read both newspapers in my town every day since I was eight years old. I even remember that Post headline because a kid at my lunch table bought the Post.

And, actually, I’m raising my daughter quite well. I didn’t need to beat her to do it. Whatever works for you, fine. But, honestly, I would prefer not to discuss my child-rearing with you at this point.

No matter how hard she works at it, a single woman is at a huge disadvantage in raising a boy. When he reaches a certain age, he needs a strong male role model who is implicitly, if not explicitly, ready to whip his backside if he gets out of line. There are few women who can physically control a boy possessing greater muscle power.

A boy needs a father to show him the example of how to treat a wife with respect, how to be a productive citizen who channels his energies away from destructive behavior and toward positive activities. This study proves what we’ve known all along.

But a girl also needs a father, to show her the same things, to elevate her standards of how a prospective mate should behave. When instead she sees her mother settling for less desirable men, she thinks that’s all she deserves.

So she settles, and the next generation descends further….

Why? Tell you why? :0

From the top, @ 3 you inject a popular but unconsidered liberal talking point mantra about divorce rates, when the subject was why mothers need to be married.

Refutations follow

@ 16 you wonder why others assume you support children without marriage. Simple! Look at the bent of the majority spouting just what you repeated. Then you toss another stone about the sole province of liberals.

Along comes another and reveals the real province of liberals.

@ 32, predictably, you misconstrue the rebuttal and equate ‘good’ with ‘no consequence’ to create a gotcha.

Given an example that was a touchstone for all of the above, @ 36 you blow it off as inconsequential because it didn’t speak to the black church/gathering. Your less than half-truth kicker that as far as you know, no one is stopping voluntary prayer is laughable. Like we should just conveniently forget that ACLU had successfully driven the boy scouts and prayer clubs underground and is deadset on removing ‘under God’ from the pledge.

You follow with a series of dead end tangents and projections.

Presented with a portion of an article, from no less the paragon of MSM liberalism, that touches on every SINGLE canard you raised, you pitch another series of oh, oobee doos.

To constantly flail at the truth has nothing to do with IQ and everything to do with denying the Creator who created us in His image.

If I believed that King Louie was kinfolk, I too would be singing:

Now I’m the king of the swingers
Oh, the jungle VIP
I’ve reached the top and had to stop
And that’s what botherin’ me
I wanna be a man, mancub
And stroll right into town
And be just like the other men
I’m tired of monkeyin’ around!

I’m so adding this to my do-over of blogs4God.com.

I used to teach just about the same to my 11th grade class “the order of things are get married, _then_ have babies …”

Some listened, some missed out on college, careers and even happy home lives by thinking they knew it all.

No…All I’m saying is I didn’t have to Google the Dan Quayle vs. Murphy Brown story. Have whatever opinion you want. Just don’t assume that I don’t know what happened when discussing a particular event. Which still doesn’t prove an unwed mother liberal agenda. All it proves is Dan Quayle attacked a fictional character who had no bearing on a reality that already existed.

And, I don’t need to be lead through anyone’s process of discovery. You have an opinion. I have a different one. I still don’t see how that leads to insulting my intelligence unless you believe that people who disagree with you are, in fact, stupid. In all my posts here, I have thrown my opinion out there. It doesn’t really matter to me if you agree or not. Several times, I have had to say outright that we must agree to disagree. That is civility as is practiced in most quarters. I’m not trying to convert or convince anyone here of anything. Just commenting on topics as they come up. Nothing more, nothing less. But some, see it as red meat for their notions of “educating” me. All I want to do is comment like everyone else and be treated with a modicum of respect.

“it was a patriarchal society, and women were bound by marriages arranged by their fathers – mothers and daughters had no say.”

Suek, what the heck are you talking about?? Where on earth do you get these completely false notions about Judaism? I would really like to know, if you would like to share. Never in Jewish law has a daughter ever been required to marry a man not of her own choosing. In fact, it is explicitly AGAINST Jewish law to force a child to marry someone they don’t wish to marry. An arranged marriage is one in which the parents “pre approve” a partner and they may try to sell that partner to their child, but if the child is not interested, that’s as far as it goes.

Sheesh.

Suek,

“2)So why do you respond?”

You know, that’s a good point. That takes care of that.

Suek,

You are actually confused as to what my argument with Andy was about. He accused me of Goggling the Dan Quayle vs. Murphy Brown as if to say I didn’t recall it from memory. A minor point, but that is what I was upset about. That he doesn’t agree with the more substantive point(s) – liberals supporting or not supporting unwed motherhood – was of no consequence in my feeling insulted by him.

Angel, there are a number of ways to handle the problem of trying to find a balance between not harming the innocent child vs. maintaining some degree of stigma as a preventative measure. For one thing, the mother can be strongly encouraged to place the child for adoption or to marry the father. When a stigma existed, far fewer women slept around carelessly. For another thing, families and friends can refrain from “celebrating” unwed pregnancies, yet still offer emotional support to the mother. This could take the form of not throwing baby showers or other parties, and encouraging the mother to lead a discreet and private life during her pregnancy. This is all in reference to “accidental pregnancies,” but in reality, most of the unwed mothers we see today wanted to get pregnant or at least didn’t try very hard to avoid it. It has become completely socially acceptable to have a baby without the benefit of marriage, and it bothers me that there is NO shame attached to it at all. What is this teaching our teenage daughters? We have truly degenerated as a society, in so many ways, and this is only one (and not the worst one on the face of it, but as LaShawn points out, anything that strikes at the foundation of the family is going to have grave repurcussions.)

I remember a few years ago noticing that a coworker in another department was pregnant. I hastily congratulated her and said, in a whisper because I was embarrassed about my own ignorance on the subject of her marital status, “I didn’t even know you were married!” She gave a mocking whispered response, “I’m not!” and then everyone laughed because it was SO funny, you see. I really didn’t think it was funny at all, but rather disgusting.

You mentioned “different types of families.” This definitely gets to be a slippery slope. On a fertility board that I used to frequent, there were numerous lesbian couples, unmarried couples, and single women. I took it in stride, after all, “there are different types of families.” But then one of the posters revealed that she was in an “open marriage” and that 8 adults lived in the house, all sleeping with each other at various intervals. She was trying to get pregnant. Several of us voiced complaints and the moderator of the board came out fiercely in her defense, essentially telling the rest of us that we had no right to judge other people’s idea of family. We all left the board that day and I, for one, have not returned.

Where do we draw the line?

>>Never in Jewish law has a daughter ever been required to marry a man not of her own choosing. In fact, it is explicitly AGAINST Jewish law to force a child to marry someone they don’t wish to marry.>>

If you say so, I believe you. Was this true in the time before Jesus Christ? The point to be made was about the power of a woman in a particular society. It’s very to me that considering that arabs and Jews came out of the same general background, there’s such a huge difference in how they treat their women. In fact, I wonder if it isn’t the key to the huge differences between the western culture and the muslim culture.

>>An arranged marriage is one in which the parents “pre approve” a partner and they may try to sell that partner to their child, but if the child is not interested, that’s as far as it goes.>>

Is this still practiced in Israel? In the US?

>>He accused me of Goggling the Dan Quayle vs. Murphy Brown >>

So what? you might have, you might not have.

>>as if to say I didn’t recall it from memory.>>

Again, so what. It _was_ from 1992 – nearly 15 years ago. Murphy Brown wasn’t exactly “unforgettable”, and neither was Dan Quayle.

>> A minor point, but that is what I was upset about.>>

A minor point indeed. But instead of just saying “oh yeah – I remember”…you accuse him of calling you stupid. It seems to be a constant theme with you – if anyone calls you on something factual, you accuse them of calling you stupid. (”I would think the phrase “merely repeating what you’ve heard” implies that you think I’m not an informed person.”)

Batyah just called me “stupid”…well, actually, ignorant(and she didn’t use those words). But she then provided me with information to correct me. I’m not Jewish. I have a lot to learn, and I appreciate her willingness to enlighten me.

Do you sincerely believe that liberals don’t want to destroy the traditional (meaning one(male) man, one(female)wife and such children as they may have? And just for the heck of it, I disagree that “there are all types of families out there”. Sometimes people have to make do with what they have. That doesn’t mean that “making do” is what people should strive for.

When someone brings up a topic for discussion, there are various opinions to bring to the table. Some I may not agree with, but I don’t then say, “You’re only saying that because so and so says that”. That’s not an appropriate way to have a discussion. Either I agree or I don’t. Nobody wins, nobody loses. It’s not the end of the world. But, when you insinuate that someone lacks the capacity to form an opinion and is merely parroting the views of others, it’s insulting. I’m pretty much done with this topic. I don’t want to hijack the thread.

“And just for the heck of it, I disagree that “there are all types of families out there”. Sometimes people have to make do with what they have. That doesn’t mean that “making do” is what people should strive for.”

But, these families do exist. What do you propose we do as a society?

>>Either I agree or I don’t.>>

Understood. But generally you have a reason or basis for that agreement/disagreement, don’t you? You have seen something or heard something that you believe to be factual, and build an opinion based on that? Is your opinion unchangeable? If someone presents a contrary fact – or what they believe to be a fact – do you assume they are wrong? are you willing to go a step further and evaluate the sources of each – yours and theirs?

In any discussion, it seems to me that disagreement is based on one of two things: disagreement on the facts presented, or starting from different assumption points. If you don’t believe in God and I do, then we are automatically starting from different assumptions. Maybe we can find a common starting point, and maybe we can’t. If not, then even if the facts presented are in complete agreement, we’re not likely to come to the same conclusion.

>>I don’t want to hijack the thread.>>

Too late!

But it’s a thread a couple of days old – I don’t feel guilty…not likely many are following on at the point!

“If the Angel was ever pounced upon by the DarkStar, then that was some celestial light show I missed.

Comment by Andy — 05.07.07 @ 12:48 pm”

“Jan, my dear old departed Aunt Bessie used to have this bug-eyed chihuahua that yapped, and would crawl under the sofa to bite my ankle whenever we came to visit.

I hated Bay-bay then. Now, every time I think of that little ankle-biter, I can’t help but grin.

Comment by Andy — 05.07.07 @ 1:40 pm

Andy;

I suppose even ankle-biters have their role in life, and if they make one smile, who should complain…

Comment by jan — 05.07.07 @ 1:44 pm”

Suek,

I guess this was directed at no one in particular.

Angel,

The way you carry on brings me to mind a comment someone made the other week about Rosie. “She needs 100% affirmation. If she doesn’t get it, you are her enemy.”

Come to think of it… Could it be..? Na-a-a-h. Nevermind.

Bottomline, if some one says they haven’t seen it, it plain & simple means they haven’t seen it.

Here’s a View

Rosie, “I went and saw Spiderman 3 last night. Sandman was awesome.”

Barb, “I haven’t seen it, but I heard Sandman was a villain.

Rosie, “What! Are you calling me a liar? Yes, you’re calling me a liar. I’ve never been so insulted. I said he was awesome! Now I gotta go hang upside down for a while and suck my thumb. I can’t believe you call me a liar. Wait a minute, I got a picture here, see that giant? That’s the Sandman! Now tell me that ain’t so awesome! That is awesome. Do ya see? I said! Do you SEE”

Barb, “Sigh. I won’t know till I see for myself tomorrow.”

Rosie, “Wa-a-a-ah!!! This is so insulting & unfair. I was only stating my opinon, but I’m not the only one with it. The least you could do is be friendly & accept my opinion!”

Jan, I can’t resist illustrating another dog tail. We all know it’s true that if you throw a stone into a pack of dogs, the one who howls is the one you hit.

I’m just flabbergasted as to what that dog got hit with in “Jan, my dear old departed Aunt Bessie used to have this bug-eyed chihuahua that yapped, and would crawl under the sofa to bite my ankle whenever we came to visit.

I hated Bay-bay then. Now, every time I think of that little ankle-biter, I can’t help but grin.”

Bug-eyed?

Jan, well the bill author wasn’t far off if he were referring to hot-air pollution and Bozo stepped right into it. I trust he was wearing tall boots.

Batyah;

I have a very close friend from India who was in an arranged marriage. She is very beautiful, smart, and funny and he is somewhat stodgy though very loving and smart and I was long curious.

She told me that she and he were very beloved by their parents when growing up when their parents chose a spouse, they knew that the choice had been done with love.

She said that she had the right of refusal.

When they married, she did not love him (they did not know one another much at all) but she went into the marriage firmly determined to be the best wife pssible and to learn to love this man.

She said that within a year, she was head over heels in love with him and her love has grown every year of their marriage.

Clarification: when I use the term “Jews,” I am referring to religious Jews who represent our tradition, and not Jews in general in the modern world. We know that many secular/liberal Jews are at the forefront of all this “progressive” crap and perverted/distorted morality, so it would be ludicrous to hold them up as any kind of example of anything moral and good.

Hillary, Queen of the Liberals, wants to dilute parental responsibility and substitute her utopian “village” bureaucrats in the rearing of children. If that isn’t a clear example of the liberal anti-family agenda, I’ll eat my hat. Not just the clean one; I’ll even eat the greasy John Deere hat.

Batyah;

You nailed the basis of a good marriage as one with a “firm foundation versus the flimsy sand of emotions and feelings.”

As far as the scenario with your eight year old…Isn’t it amazing how those with a liberal agenda feel so free to “ram” their views down the throats of young children? They give themselves a pass by claiming that their views are not religious, though I think that there is such a thing as a “secular belief/religious system.

They tenderly regard the belief systems of “children with minority views” while running roughshod over children with majority views. It’s really quite amazing as if the feelings of one child are any more important than the feelings of another, almost as if “majority children don’t bleed.”

Then, those same folks bring politics into the pulpit because they believe that their tax and spend views are actually “what Jesus/God would do.”

In other words, they embrace religion when it furthers their politics and they deny religion when it furthers their politics.

Aaarrgghh!

Suek;

You are most welcome! Been there and done that….

batyah,

You’ve always been an illustration in how to conduct civil discourse. Unlike some.

>> You’ve always been an illustration in how to conduct civil discourse. Unlike some.>>

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Angel, in #102 you seem to be having two entirely separate discussions within the space of 3 sentences. I won’t touch the latter, because I realize that it’s another topic for a later date.

But as for the first part of #102, are you seriously suggesting that knuckleheaded government bureaucrats and devious politicians cannot, or never do, adversely affect family solidarity? If that’s your position, you really need to review the disastrous results of government social policy from at least the so-called Great Society on forward.

Jamila;

The worst part about it is that many of these feminists are living a “great” life while promoting a lifestyle that breeds poverty.

It’s akin to folks demanding that others “do without” to combat global warming while they continue their lavish lifestyle.

Do you really believe politicians control how people conduct themselves in their personal lives?

I don’t. Maxine Waters excused the L.A. rioters. No matter how mad I may get, I wouldn’t riot over a trial verdict.

But as for the first part of #102, are you seriously suggesting that knuckleheaded government bureaucrats and devious politicians cannot, or never do, adversely affect family solidarity?

Politicians are not making people divorce. Politicians are not making people have sex outside of marriage. Politicians are not making people create babies and not get married. Politicians are not making people shoot heroin, even if they have made needle exchange programs available.

Free will. Right?

Jan, I can only say that while I was telling my daughter that sex outside of marriage was wrong, everything she heard outside of home was that it wasn’t, and that parents and religion didn’t have the right to tell her otherwise. Since the sex drive is one of the strongest ones we have, guess which voice she “wanted” to hear? In earlier times, there was the threat of pregnancy – now sex is theoretically without penalty, so why not? At the same earlier times, divorce was very difficult. People didn’t divorce easily – the legal cost was as great as the social cost.
Now divorce is easy, birth control is practically over the counter, and abortions are legal. People marry at the drop of a hat, because “oh well, if it doesn’t work, I’ll get a divorce”. Or they don’t marry – because what’s the point – over half of marriages end in divorce anyway. Young people have sex any time, STD are up and imo, young women lose their self-respect before they even have a chance to really develop it. Why should a young couple marry when they can play house, not worry about children, and not have to consider divorce – they can just walk away from each other.
So I disagree that politicians don’t affect morality. No, I’ll say that politicians _don’t_ affect _morality_, but their decisions definitely affect social stability and the environment that promotes morality.

>>we cannot divorce circumstances from behavioral outputs when it suits us, while attributing societal forces to behavioral outputs when it suits us also.>>

I agree with you – but this is part of the class warfare inspired by communism/socialism. Rich people are bad (the oppressors), poor people are good (the oppressed). When I was young, there was something of the same view, but different…then it was “she was poor and ignorant and didn’t know better. They had every opportunity, and should have known better.” In other words, “From those to whom much is given, much is expected.”

You’re right though – this was an inconsistent view – either both are the victims of their background and we can’t hold either accountable, or both are capable of making their own decisions and should be accountable. Good point.

People marry at the drop of a hat, because “oh well, if it doesn’t work, I’ll get a divorce”.

If you have noticed, less people are marrying or taking longer to marry. People divorced, many times, because they had the option that wasn’t available before. I know in some particular circumstances, it was a good thing the option was there.

Liberals do not advocate what?

Obama feels that school boards need to allow access to sexually explicit material on school computers.

Suek,

Thank. you. Classy. In. Less. Than. Three. Words.

I’d like to apologize for the way I’ve reacted to some of the posters. There’s probably a better way to handle myself. Probably the best route is to not let someone else define my behavior. So, I’m not letting myself get distracted from thread topics anymore.

And, I will never speak of this again.

Jan, excellent point! So many people were defending the rapists/murderers/thugs that emerged during the Katrina catastrophe, and were making excuses for them based on their background. I’m thinking, okay then, let’s excuse the KKK and the Skinheads and the Neo Nazis because I’m sure if we look into their backgrounds, it ain’t pretty either! Such nonsense. Personal responsibility is for everyone.

Suek, thanks for the encouragement. My husband always reminds me that he made his father’s life a living hell for many years: marrying “out,” rejecting the faith, wearing long Tiny Tim style hair, draft dodging, “protesting,” getting arrested, smoking dope, gallavanting all over the danger spots of the world. Even my father in law said it was so stressful, he’s not sure he’d have kids again if given the choice! But now my husband is as straight-laced as they come, prays three times a day and studies Talmud every day, and does what he can to serve the community whenever he is needed, and makes a good living. I guess it is largely part of growing up, but the important piece is that values were taught during the formative years. By comparison, my son is an angel, (something hubby reminds me over and over again) so I just need to get a grip and trust that he will have the strength to “absorb” the life traumas that might come his way due to bad choices. I had to laugh at your daughter’s comment about the priest; odds are she’ll be singing your song the minute she has her OWN daughter.

Angel, were you misbehaving? If so, I guess I missed it. I was really touched by the story about your parents — I think that old fashioned liberalism was something different from what it is today. Definitely had more merits then.

This is off topic, but related to the subject of bad judgment on the part of educators:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271935,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271972,00.html

Redbeard,

My parents weren’t just liberals. They were downright hippies in New York City in the mid-1960s. But, they still managed to raise us to be responsible, law-abiding citizens. We weren’t church-goers either. Not that I begrudge anybody who is, but it’s not essential to becoming a decent person.

I contend the whole “it takes a village” philosophy is correct to a degree. For example, when I was a kid if I misbehaved, Mrs. Gillis told my mother. If I was too loud on the subway with my friends, an adult would lean in and ask us to lower our voices. I think this is what most people understand. But, as presented by Hillary it sounds like socialism or at the very least social engineering.

We’ve become afraid of our children, especially in the urban areas. I’ve jokingly suggested to friends that once a month adults should be able to grab a random kid and beat the heck out of him “just because”. All kidding aside, the major problem with these kids isn’t necessarily their lack of parents (not discounting it as a factor), but their absorption of a subculture that is made from whole cloth. For example, Boston is not LA. We don’t have the seamy gang culture that has existed there for 40+ years. But, the kids take up the mantle. It’s like they exist in a parallel universe where all behavior is permitted. The funniest/saddest part is on the rare occasion they are called on it, the response is something along the lines of “Who are you to judge me? Only God can judge me?”

The other problem is their emulation of their sports/entertainment heroes has gone beyond wearing a jersey/provocative dress. These kids really think they can cop a Paris Hilton attitude toward the world and mock everything and everybody that’s not “hot” and it will be okay.

Suek,

I was 14 in 1981 and Boston had all the trappings of a “big city” (skyscrapers, subways, etc), but it’s surrounded by a ring of neighborhoods like Dorchester, South Boston, Roxbury and Jamaica Plain. These neighborhoods are more like towns.

Anyway, two developments in the culture conspired to take away control of our children. Crack and the “gangsta” rap phenomenon. Crack was a quick and easy way to make money. Of course, the response of Boston’s mayor at the time, Ray Flynn, was to deny that gangs were forming on the streets. They were and, unlike other urban centers where gangs were already firmly entrenched, these new gangs were created solely to protect drug turf.

Rap was great at the beginning. There are still great and positive performers. But, “gangsta” rap spread from LA which had a firmly entrenched gang culture. Boston didn’t. Now, we do.

Bill Cosby…one of the good guys – absolutely!

Suek,

I agree with you there. If there is going to be assistance, it should never be predicated on the absence of a resposible male in the household. I think where people have disagreements with the existence of such aid in the first place. I don’t. But, you’re right in that there should be incentives for positive behavior. And, as far as food stamps or EBT or whatever it’s called this week, there should be nutritional restrictions. It should be impossible for a person on food assistance to buy 6 boxes of Ding-Dongs for their children. Apples, yes. No soda. Water and fruit juices. No candy. Trail mixes or other natural snacks. But, that’s what I would do. I know it will never happen in this lifetime.

Another thing that would be great, public libraries should give their excess books away to poor children. Volunteers could load up trucks and deliver them to the poorer areas. One of the most striking things about these households is the lack of books. I grew up in the projects after we moved to Boston and we had books all over the place. We read constantly. These kids are missing out on a major part of our culture by not reading.

Suek,

I don’t get that response at all. This is not a new phenomenon. We’re not talking about middle-class kids who choose not to read in favor of vegging out in front of the TV. We’re talking about poor kids whose parents either don’t know or are willfully ignorant about the value of books in the upbringing of their children.

I just want to be clear on what you’re saying when you say “what goes around comes around”. Are you saying you’re OK with this? I’m not saying it’s your responsibility to fix it. But, do you think it’s ok?

Books were some of my best friends when I was a kid. The fact that my parents had large numbers of books in the house, combined with my school (pre outcome-based education) promoting voracious reading habits, really helped me learn, enjoy, and appreciate the literary world.

My new grandson is a month old, and already has a couple of dozen books in his room.

re: 133 and 134.

What goes around etc. Things come full circle. Parents who don’t care enough about their children reading aren’t going to care about other children reading.
No, I’m not “ok” with it – I see it as a terrible loss to our culture and the education of our children.
Now don’t get hysterical on us! I sense a real wind up in your emotion level here…! On the other hand…go ahead and get hysterical…and pass it on! It’s a good thing – we should _all_ care about kids reading!

Several years ago, I was down at the local elementary school as they were doing a cleaning-out during the summer. There were old textbooks, and library books. They were out first for anyone in the district who wanted them, and then would be offered to any group that would put them to use. I shook my head at the textbooks – how “out of date” can English, math and reading books be? But what _killed_ me was the library books…I asked why these had been chosen – why were they “obsolete”…the answer??? They don’t have enough pictures – the children don’t read them.
It’s reasonable, I guess, if space is limited, to retain the books that “move” and get rid of the ones that don’t, but it says something about the reading ability? comprehension? attention span? _Something_. I’m just not exactly sure what it is.

Suek,

I am passionate about the written word. I am especially concerned about the lack of books in poor black households. Books present knowledge and ideas. Books show heroes making sacrifices. Books are jumping off points for writers like myself. Without books, I would not be where I am today. Older books are especially cherished by me. I took Latin for six years. Every chance I get to pick up an old Latin book, it’s great.

This has been such a long-standing problem in these households. The quest for relevance has done more damage it seems as the books I do see black kids and some adults reading glorify thug life and are little better than pornography.

My favorites: Wuthering Heights. What else can you say? The most haunting romantic book ever.

The Night Manager by John LeCarre. A former British army brat doing penance as night manager for a luxury hotel is recruited to face down as he calls him, “the worst man in the world”.

Brazil by John Irving. Irving took the concept of magical realism and ramped it up in this contemporary reworking of Tristan and Isolde.

The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot. A new take on the underpinnings of the universe and the inner workings of the human mind. Very trippy!

I feel like I’ve hijacked this thread. Sorry.