Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Parenting Requires One at Home

Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2009 5:52:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
http://www.cbc.ca...

According to the Alberta Finance Minister, to 'properly' raise a child, there needs to be two parents, one that goes to work while the other stays at home. She cites her children as examples of 'proper parenting'. In order to properly raise your child, you must sacrifice some income.

Never mind the question of why the Finance Minister is commenting on such things at an economic forum, I believe this very, very faulty judgment on Iris Evans' part.

I frankly don't care what her children do. If she believes they are raising her grandchildren 'properly', that is fine. But I think it is very ignorant of her to say in a generalized speech that in order to raise any child 'properly', at least one parent must be at home. It is a very, very ignorant and almost elitist statement on her part. What does she know about raising every and all children? What does she know about every parent's situation?

Depending upon your views, you may think what Ms. Evans has said is right or wrong. Personally, I don't think it is either - I just think she is dumb enough not to realize that almost every situation is different, which calls for different ways to handle children. Some may stay at home, some may work and alternate who stays at home at which point in the day. Some may have no choice but to work, and can't really stay at home.

I don't know, nor do I care. They do what they want to do, and as long as they don't endanger the life or well-being of the child, they should be allowed to raise their kids as they see fit without any passing of judgment from me, and especially not any elected representative.

But what does everyone else believe on this subject? Is Evans right, or is she wrong?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2009 7:27:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Bias: I was raised by a single parent.

Bias mitigator: I don't much like that parent.

Far as I'm concerned having a parent around ALL the time to nag can't encourage the development of a healthy human being. A healthy dog, maybe.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 6:42:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I think we knew this for the past, what, how many years?

Money was actually spent on a study to confirm this. How wasteful are we?
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 6:44:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/20/2009 6:42:35 PM, mongoose wrote:
I think we knew this for the past, what, how many years?

Money was actually spent on a study to confirm this. How wasteful are we?

I think one of the main points here is that each situation is different. Maybe in an ideal world a child can have one parent at home while the other works, but that doesn't fit into reality 100% of the time. As well, to call it the "proper" way pays disrespect to those parents that go at it in a different way, or got at it alone.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 7:32:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I agree with Volkov.

Not to mention the fact as the cost of living increases, it is no longer feasible in most situations to have the luxury of one parent staying at home. If two working parents are needed to make ends meet (or maybe even enjoy a few of life's little extras), then would it be preferable for one parent to refrain from working even if it meant the children/family suffering financially? I think not. Therefore, the "proper" thing to do in that situation would be to have two working parents.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 7:33:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Additionally, having two working parents can be beneficial in a lot of ways. For instance, as a female I personally found it very empowering that my mother was one of the only moms I knew who had a "real job" working in NYC and whatnot. I feel as though she set an example of being a successful female professional as well as a good mom (which is no easy feat). It also encouraged me to pursue levels of higher intellect and secondary learning, instead of just assuming I'd be best suited to be a "stay-at-home mom" simply because I have two X chromosomes.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 8:04:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/20/2009 7:42:36 PM, s0m31john wrote:
It has to be one man and one woman too. Also the woman has to be the one to stay at home. It's the proper way.

Obviously.
President of DDO
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 6:53:52 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/20/2009 7:42:36 PM, s0m31john wrote:
It has to be one man and one woman too. Also the woman has to be the one to stay at home. It's the proper way.

Any other way would just be wrong. Ask Iris Evans.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 8:32:31 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Kids with a mother and a father in their lives generally do better in life than those raised by a single parent.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 8:37:25 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/21/2009 8:32:31 AM, mongoose wrote:
Kids with a mother and a father in their lives generally do better in life than those raised by a single parent.

Proof please.

Doesn't matter though. Each situation is different. Do you expect a child with two drug-addicted parents to be better raised that a child with only one parent who isn't addicted to anything?
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 4:34:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The study was cited in a book that I don't have with me.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 5:01:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/21/2009 4:34:07 PM, mongoose wrote:
The study was cited in a book that I don't have with me.

Economic Facts and Fallacies? Or somewhere else?
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
patsox834
Posts: 406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 5:13:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/21/2009 8:32:31 AM, mongoose wrote:
Kids with a mother and a father in their lives generally do better in life than those raised by a single parent.

This is just completely inane, and massively idiotic.

So, my question for you is: have you been hit in the head with a blunt object recently? Or is such idiocy constant?
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 5:26:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/21/2009 5:01:43 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 6/21/2009 4:34:07 PM, mongoose wrote:
The study was cited in a book that I don't have with me.

Economic Facts and Fallacies? Or somewhere else?

I laughed. :D

Such a study would have to factor for SES and educational level of parent. Those of lower SES have a higher divorce rate to begin with - thus possibly inflating figures - making measurement yardsticks such as highschool graduation non-representative.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 5:29:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
That and the fact you will never have a randomised study - you can't randomly assign children to one/two parent families. :P
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 7:31:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Yo, Kim Jong Il? You wanna be able to say you the most science-friendly leader in the world? We got a study for YOU to do, and show those imperialists with their silly bourgeious ideas of "medical ethics."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2009 3:16:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/21/2009 8:32:31 AM, mongoose wrote:
Kids with a mother and a father in their lives generally do better in life than those raised by a single parent.

Um...unlike everyone else here and unlike on 100% of the BIG issues (!) I actually agree with mongoose on this one.

While it may sound dippy or hippy kids who feel loved by two parents are definitely likely to be more emotionally secure and therefore more likely to be successful than those who don't.

There is actually a fair bit of science to back this up, Rodgers and Pryor did an excellent paper on divorce and separation in 1998 and at a more easily digestible level there is an excellent paperback: "They F*** You Up" by British psychologist Oliver James.

I have never had any kind of relationship with my dad and while I wouldn't use this as an excuse for mine or my brothers' delinquency I am prepared to admit it may have played a part. This is one of the reasons why fatherhood is so important to me.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2009 8:53:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/21/2009 5:01:43 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 6/21/2009 4:34:07 PM, mongoose wrote:
The study was cited in a book that I don't have with me.

Economic Facts and Fallacies? Or somewhere else?

The Way Things Ought To Be
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2009 11:06:20 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/22/2009 8:53:26 PM, mongoose wrote:
The Way Things Ought To Be

But Will Never Be Because Our World Is F*cked.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2009 1:14:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Because we have liberals in charge.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2009 1:04:37 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/22/2009 3:16:56 PM, feverish wrote:

There is actually a fair bit of science to back this up, Rodgers and Pryor did an excellent paper on divorce and separation in 1998

Eh. A paper 11 years old is using at best around 15 year old data to support its claims.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2009 5:06:43 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/24/2009 1:04:37 AM, Puck wrote:
At 6/22/2009 3:16:56 PM, feverish wrote:

There is actually a fair bit of science to back this up, Rodgers and Pryor did an excellent paper on divorce and separation in 1998

Eh. A paper 11 years old is using at best around 15 year old data to support its claims.

Hi Puck, thanks for responding.

I'd be interested to know why you think the way children are affected by their upbringing would have changed drastically in the last fifteen years, is that what you are suggesting?
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2009 6:09:25 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/24/2009 5:06:43 AM, feverish wrote:
At 6/24/2009 1:04:37 AM, Puck wrote:
At 6/22/2009 3:16:56 PM, feverish wrote:

There is actually a fair bit of science to back this up, Rodgers and Pryor did an excellent paper on divorce and separation in 1998

Eh. A paper 11 years old is using at best around 15 year old data to support its claims.

Hi Puck, thanks for responding.

I'd be interested to know why you think the way children are affected by their upbringing would have changed drastically in the last fifteen years, is that what you are suggesting?

Not the sole premise available. Research methods change - the data is additionally out of date. There's a good reason why in psyhology research the general rule is 5 years. And yes parenting styles change. As do the multitude of confounds possible.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2009 8:34:44 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/24/2009 6:09:25 AM, Puck wrote:
At 6/24/2009 5:06:43 AM, feverish wrote:
At 6/24/2009 1:04:37 AM, Puck wrote:
At 6/22/2009 3:16:56 PM, feverish wrote:

There is actually a fair bit of science to back this up, Rodgers and Pryor did an excellent paper on divorce and separation in 1998

Eh. A paper 11 years old is using at best around 15 year old data to support its claims.

Hi Puck, thanks for responding.

I'd be interested to know why you think the way children are affected by their upbringing would have changed drastically in the last fifteen years, is that what you are suggesting?

Not the sole premise available.

What alternative premises are available?

Research methods change - the data is additionally out of date. There's a good reason why in psyhology research the general rule is 5 years. And yes parenting styles change. As do the multitude of confounds possible.

That's very interesting. It puzzles me how a science (I assume you mean psychology) can dismiss all research that is more than five years old. I had no idea this was the case, are you quite sure?

I understand that better research can make old research redundant but fail to see how a scientific discipline that had to dismiss all conclusions from 5 years ago and start again from a zero knowledge base could possibly function.

Parenting styles changing is quite separate to the way they effect children changing.

I'm sorry but I don't really understand what you mean about a multitude of confounds. Please forgive my ignorance.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 12:49:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
It would be a mistake to ignore the effect each familial labor arrangement has on the greater labor situation. In American history, at least, the advent of double-income households has served to decrease wages, for the obvious reason of the enlarged labor pool. Such decreases impel other families to go double-income, and so on, until it becomes customary. The double-income household may be one of the classic situations--such as everyone standing up in a stadium to get a better view--in which what is individually rational is collectively oppressive.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 1:18:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/29/2009 12:49:19 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
It would be a mistake to ignore the effect each familial labor arrangement has on the greater labor situation. In American history, at least, the advent of double-income households has served to decrease wages, for the obvious reason of the enlarged labor pool. Such decreases impel other families to go double-income, and so on, until it becomes customary. The double-income household may be one of the classic situations--such as everyone standing up in a stadium to get a better view--in which what is individually rational is collectively oppressive.

It would then become an argument of what matters more - the individual's right to seek a job, despite its negative affects on the labour pool and collective society; or the collective's assertion not to have wages decreased due to an enlarged labour pool, despite its negative affects on individual rights.

Which path would you choose?
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 1:37:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/29/2009 1:18:06 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/29/2009 12:49:19 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
It would be a mistake to ignore the effect each familial labor arrangement has on the greater labor situation. In American history, at least, the advent of double-income households has served to decrease wages, for the obvious reason of the enlarged labor pool. Such decreases impel other families to go double-income, and so on, until it becomes customary. The double-income household may be one of the classic situations--such as everyone standing up in a stadium to get a better view--in which what is individually rational is collectively oppressive.

It would then become an argument of what matters more - the individual's right to seek a job, despite its negative affects on the labour pool and collective society; or the collective's assertion not to have wages decreased due to an enlarged labour pool, despite its negative affects on individual rights.

Which path would you choose?

I would choose a more efficient form of intervention, universal social security or even a livable wage. Who am I kidding, I would choose outright socialism. But here we're not talking about policy, we're evaluating actions. I can say it's bad to go against a one-income custom without violating individual rights, right?
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 2:02:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/29/2009 1:37:32 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
I would choose a more efficient form of intervention, universal social security or even a livable wage. Who am I kidding, I would choose outright socialism. But here we're not talking about policy, we're evaluating actions. I can say it's bad to go against a one-income custom without violating individual rights, right?

You could, but it would be arguing from a traditionalist stance, or one that involves parenting reasons, which as I've said in earlier posts in this thread, all households have different situations, so it is really hard to argue from that stand point.

But, if you could argue one-income customs without using traditionalist or parental arguments, I'd be more than glad to hear it.