Author Topic: Vatican: Lord Sacks delivers lecture on the importance of the traditional family  (Read 8389 times)

Simple Abundant Living

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 579
    • Simple Abundant Living
I read this article this morning and thought I would share with the MMM crowd as it relates to financial independence and emotional fulfillment-two subjects we talk a lot about.

http://www.virtueonline.org/vatican-lord-sacks-delivers-resounding-lecture-support-traditional-family

"This is creating a divide within societies the like of which has not been seen since Disraeli spoke of "two nations" a century and a half ago. Those who are privileged to grow up in stable loving association with the two people who brought them into being will, on average, be healthier physically and emotionally. They will do better at school and at work. They will have more successful relationships, be happier and live longer.

And yes, there are many exceptions. But the injustice of it all cries out to heaven. It will go down in history as one of the tragic instances of what Friedrich Hayek called "the fatal conceit" that somehow we know better than the wisdom of the ages, and can defy the lessons of biology and history."


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Nicely written, poorly informed.  The research shows that "biology defying" gay and lesbian parents are every bit as good at the job as straight parents.

http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20090419195945/http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/Marriage%20of%20Same-Sex%20Couples%20Position%20Statement%20-%20October%202006%20%281%29.pdf

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus29.pdf


Several studies imply that there may actually be benefits:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/07/children-of-gay-parents-study-_n_5563547.html



I always figured 'the fatal conceit' was in presuming to be able to tell others how best to live their life without actually knowing their unique situation  . . . 

The Architect

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 120
Nicely written, poorly informed.  The research shows that "biology defying" gay and lesbian parents...

I'll admit to having skimmed the article, but a quick search turned up the term "homosexual" only once, and in reference to a person who died under mysterious circumstances. The author denounces the situation that led to the death in the same paragraph.

I interpreted the author's, and the OP's, intent to be primarily against single-parent households. Obviously the author is also a priest rabbi, and likely has an opinion on homosexual relations different from your own, but other than the simple biology of the thing he seems to have left that out of the article entirely.

Quote
The collapse of marriage has created a new form of poverty concentrated among single parent families, and of these, the main burden is born by women, who in 2011 headed 92 per cent of single parent households. In Britain todaymore than a million children will grow up with no contact whatsoever with their fathers.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2014, 09:24:29 AM by The Architect »

Beric01

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
  • Law-abiding cyclist
I interpreted the author's, and the OP's, intent to be primarily against single-parent households.
This was also my interpretation. And there's a lot of documentation on why single-parent households create social problems.

Simple Abundant Living

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 579
    • Simple Abundant Living
Nicely written, poorly informed.  The research shows that "biology defying" gay and lesbian parents...

I'll admit to having skimmed the article, but a quick search turned up the term "homosexual" only once, and in reference to a person who died under mysterious circumstances. The author denounces the situation that led to the death in the same paragraph.

I interpreted the author's, and the OP's, intent to be primarily against single-parent households. Obviously the author is also a priest, and likely has an opinion on homosexual relations different from your own, but other than the simple biology of the thing he seems to have left that out of the article entirely.

Quote
The collapse of marriage has created a new form of poverty concentrated among single parent families, and of these, the main burden is born by women, who in 2011 headed 92 per cent of single parent households. In Britain todaymore than a million children will grow up with no contact whatsoever with their fathers.

Lord Sacks, which I was not familiar with before reading his speech, is apparently a chief Rabbi of the UK. I am not Jewish, but I found much to agree with in this article. I did not read it as a bash on other lifestyles, but an argument why the collapse of the traditional family is causing a host of other emotional, financial, spiritual and physical problems in the world. This Vatican conference- bringing together many faith traditions- is an inspiring thing to me.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Don't get me wrong, I'm sympathetic to the general thesis of the article.  It makes sense that kids with two loving and caring parents will have a better childhood.  My issue with the article is that it doesn't really offer a solution for the myriad of reasons that families are broken up.  Is it better to have two parents who resent each other and stay together only for the kids?  Is it better to have an abusive husband beat on his wife regularly to keep a family together?  Is it better for one parent to cheat on the other repeatedly?  There are many valid reasons that families are broken apart.  It is not always in the best interests of the kids to be part of a traditional family.

Then we get to the part I pointed out previously.  The article is implicitly homophobic throughout.  From the bit about defying biology (which ironically is exactly what traditional marriage is . . . defying biology.  From a reproductive perspective a man should have sex with as many women as possible, and abandon the woman he's with as soon as the one he's will stops producing children.  It even mentions that 75% of historical human societies were polygamous.  )  It goes out of it's way to argue that the loss of the 'traditional family' is the cause of a host of problems.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but few see two mums or two dads as a traditional family.  The US is currently so backwater that it's not even possible for gay people to legally marry in all states and he goes out of his way to explain how cohabiting isn't as good as being married.  Unlike the assertions of the article, people aren't gay as a lifestyle choice . . . they're living their life the only way they can because of how God made them.  Claiming that a man a woman and a child is the best way to have a family is both a slap in the face to all of these gay couples, but also demonstrably wrong.

So to summarize . . . it appears to be a speech stating the obvious about children from loving straight families, denouncing all other forms of raising a child but not offering a solution . . . and is implicitly homophobic.  I can see the article appealing to people of a particular religious bent, but it's certainly not something that would bring many together or something that shows a path to emotional fulfillment.

LibrarIan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 537
I agree that the collapse of the traditional family is having serious consequences. If only we were still tribal groups made up of an inbreeding group of nomadic hunter-gatherers, things would be so much better. Bring back traditional family values!

SisterX

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3035
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Love how the entire article uses correlation and calls it causation (the family is falling apart and more kids are using drugs!) and does it all without any hard data to back it up.  The definition of what is a drug has changed quite a lot over the last century, so can you be certain that drug use is indeed up?  Or is it just that the use of things we now consider drugs is up while, say the housewife hopped up on addictive medication in the 50s is ignored because that wasn't considered drug addiction at the time?
I really hate it when people romanticize the past, and that's all that this article does.  "Things were so much better back when people actually had family values!"  When was that, precisely?  Was it when men were allowed to beat their wives with sticks?  When a woman could be stoned to death for getting pregnant out of wedlock, even if she was raped?  When children were meant to be seen and not heard?  When women were beaten to try to cause miscarriages, on a fairly regular basis?  When the only way out of a marriage was death, so people would sometimes murder their spouse to get away?  What time period am I supposed to be romanticizing in all of that?

Don't get me wrong, I'm sympathetic to the general thesis of the article.  It makes sense that kids with two loving and caring parents will have a better childhood.  My issue with the article is that it doesn't really offer a solution for the myriad of reasons that families are broken up.  Is it better to have two parents who resent each other and stay together only for the kids?  Is it better to have an abusive husband beat on his wife regularly to keep a family together?  Is it better for one parent to cheat on the other repeatedly?  There are many valid reasons that families are broken apart.  It is not always in the best interests of the kids to be part of a traditional family.

Not to mention the "love brings new life into the world" comment.  Demonstrably, babies do not always come from love.  I don't just mean rape, I also mean manipulative behavior, which is quite common.  Poking holes in condoms or "forgetting" birth control pills.  Men and women are equally to blame on that front, so it's not that women alone are desperate for love and/or marriage. 
Manipulating someone into staying with you is the antithesis of love.  Is a manipulative environment really so great for kids?  I'm going to go ahead and say no, without feeling the need to find any corroborating evidence, because I have common sense.

Simple Abundant Living

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 579
    • Simple Abundant Living
Don't get me wrong, I'm sympathetic to the general thesis of the article.  It makes sense that kids with two loving and caring parents will have a better childhood.  My issue with the article is that it doesn't really offer a solution for the myriad of reasons that families are broken up.  Is it better to have two parents who resent each other and stay together only for the kids?  Is it better to have an abusive husband beat on his wife regularly to keep a family together?  Is it better for one parent to cheat on the other repeatedly?  There are many valid reasons that families are broken apart.  It is not always in the best interests of the kids to be part of a traditional family.


I agree that the speech didn't say "how" we keep families together. I also agree with you that there are situations where divorce is the lesser of two evils. I didn't read it as homophobic as you. In fact, I didn't read it with a gay "lens" at all. As far as I can tell people who identify as gay are about 5% of the population. I think that people of faith would do better to stop running around saying "Gays are destroying marriage!". Look at the statistics. Heterosexuals are destroying marriage! But lets be real about the fallout. Overwhelmingly it causes poverty- both physical and emotional. No one I know would argue that someone should stay married to an abuser. But most marriages I know of don't break up over such serious matters. People "grow apart" and "fall out of love". I do think it's a tragedy and is avoidable in most situations.

Simple Abundant Living

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 579
    • Simple Abundant Living
I agree that the collapse of the traditional family is having serious consequences. If only we were still tribal groups made up of an inbreeding group of nomadic hunter-gatherers, things would be so much better. Bring back traditional family values!

I would love it if you actually read the article instead of responding with pure snark.

LibrarIan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 537
I agree that the collapse of the traditional family is having serious consequences. If only we were still tribal groups made up of an inbreeding group of nomadic hunter-gatherers, things would be so much better. Bring back traditional family values!

I would love it if you actually read the article instead of responding with pure snark.

I did read the article. I can't pass up an opportunity for snark though.

MoneyCat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: New Jersey
There is a ton of research that shows that kids from single-parent households have many more problems generally than kids from two parent households.  That can't really be disputed.  I don't think we're ever going to go back to "traditional" two parent households, though, because our society no longer stigmatizes extra-marital sex.  Why buy the cow when the sex is free?

pzxc

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 196
Awwwww, poor guy

What Would Pope Francis Do?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
There is a ton of research that shows that kids from single-parent households have many more problems generally than kids from two parent households.  That can't really be disputed.  I don't think we're ever going to go back to "traditional" two parent households, though, because our society no longer stigmatizes extra-marital sex.  Why buy the cow when the sex is free?

It's important not to confuse correlation with causation.  For example, poor people are much more likely to be raising a child in a one parent household.  To my knowledge there's no study that tests the differences between raising a child in a one parent household vs. a traditional two parent household where the family is kept together only by fear of social stigmatization . . . which was a common occurrence in the past.

In my opinion, our society stigmatizes extramarital sex about as much as it ever did.  It's just that technology has made it much easier to discover people who are having affairs, so we're finding out for the first time how pervasive the practice actually is.

Also, you should stay away from those cows.  Most places have laws against that.

AllChoptUp

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 180
Kids are a ton of work. Two full-time caring parents are going to have the benefit of splitting the workload & stress, creating conditions more likely to produce happy, successful kids (and parents). No guarantees, just an easier path.

I'm a veteran of the fertility wars and feel that it might be better if it were a bit harder for women to get pregnant...fewer unwanted pregnancies, slightly older parents (on average) and perhaps a greater appreciation for children. Current forms of birth control just aren't cutting it.

Lyssa

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 483
  • Location: Germany
Without having read the rabbi's text I'd like to add two things:

The sentimentalization of 'traditional family values' is rather ridiculous. Until very recently in human history people married because they were told to, because the woman was pregnant or because it made economic sense. A lot of those marridges were rather terrible and not only a few ones violent. Also, 'till death do us part' used to be much shorter than today. Men died in terrible work accidents, women during birth and both from infections easiely curable today. I would not wish for 'the good old days' to come back for as much as a second.

Where I think modern societies have experienced the pendelum to swing too far in the other directions is the idealization of romantic love above almost anything else. While it is bad id a relationship is only about obligations and material reasons it is almost as bad to base life decisions on butterflies in somebody's stomach. This has led to adilts and parents behaving like children and to feel justified doing so. Long term relationships, married or not, are - among other things - hard work. Not to put in such work after having children is pretty irresponsible.

jka468

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 151
I read this article this morning and thought I would share with the MMM crowd as it relates to financial independence and emotional fulfillment-two subjects we talk a lot about.

http://www.virtueonline.org/vatican-lord-sacks-delivers-resounding-lecture-support-traditional-family

"This is creating a divide within societies the like of which has not been seen since Disraeli spoke of "two nations" a century and a half ago. Those who are privileged to grow up in stable loving association with the two people who brought them into being will, on average, be healthier physically and emotionally. They will do better at school and at work. They will have more successful relationships, be happier and live longer.

And yes, there are many exceptions. But the injustice of it all cries out to heaven. It will go down in history as one of the tragic instances of what Friedrich Hayek called "the fatal conceit" that somehow we know better than the wisdom of the ages, and can defy the lessons of biology and history."

You're barking up the wrong tree with this one on the MMM boards. I, for one, absolutely agree with the premise, denouncing the rise of single-parent households, but this will get many people up in arms. There is so much research out there correlating single parents and negative consequences for children, but talking about it these days is no futile. Plus, real solutions to this problem, which could actually be achieved, will never happen in this day and age.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sympathetic to the general thesis of the article.  It makes sense that kids with two loving and caring parents will have a better childhood.  My issue with the article is that it doesn't really offer a solution for the myriad of reasons that families are broken up.  Is it better to have two parents who resent each other and stay together only for the kids?

To answer your question, on an individual basis, it depends, it may or may not be better. On a society wide basis, absolutely, it is much much much better for general society and community for parents to stay together for kids.

There is a ton of research that shows that kids from single-parent households have many more problems generally than kids from two parent households.  That can't really be disputed.  I don't think we're ever going to go back to "traditional" two parent households, though, because our society no longer stigmatizes extra-marital sex.  Why buy the cow when the sex is free?

Are you a man or woman?

There is a ton of research that shows that kids from single-parent households have many more problems generally than kids from two parent households.  That can't really be disputed.  I don't think we're ever going to go back to "traditional" two parent households, though, because our society no longer stigmatizes extra-marital sex.  Why buy the cow when the sex is free?

In my opinion, our society stigmatizes extramarital sex about as much as it ever did.  It's just that technology has made it much easier to discover people who are having affairs, so we're finding out for the first time how pervasive the practice actually is.

I don't think MoneyCat meant extramarital. I think he/she meant premarital sex, imo, which is not stigmatized anymore at all. I also think this is the crux of breakdown, cuz the world revolves around sex in one way or another.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2014, 08:46:58 AM by jka468 »

Lyssa

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 483
  • Location: Germany
Having read it now...

Imho he manages to combine the two mistakes... Two mating fish are the first occurence of love, really? And than the religous right always accuses liberals of placing to much importance on sex. The complete disregard of the fact that until recently love was regarded as neither sufficient grounds for marriage nor a necessary prerequisite is astonishing. The last few paragraphes must be hard to read for any infertile couple... I've heard before that listening to rabbis is often difficult for jewish couples having such problems, now I understand why.

jka468

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 151
Kids are a ton of work. Two full-time caring parents are going to have the benefit of splitting the workload & stress, creating conditions more likely to produce happy, successful kids (and parents). No guarantees, just an easier path.

I'm a veteran of the fertility wars and feel that it might be better if it were a bit harder for women to get pregnant...fewer unwanted pregnancies, slightly older parents (on average) and perhaps a greater appreciation for children. Current forms of birth control just aren't cutting it.

A male birth control pill has been in the works for a while now. It's had a really hard time getting funding, has been well lobbied against and certain feminists and women's organizations have spoken out against this possibility. I wonder why?
« Last Edit: December 05, 2014, 09:01:11 AM by jka468 »

Lyssa

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 483
  • Location: Germany
Kids are a ton of work. Two full-time caring parents are going to have the benefit of splitting the workload & stress, creating conditions more likely to produce happy, successful kids (and parents). No guarantees, just an easier path.

I'm a veteran of the fertility wars and feel that it might be better if it were a bit harder for women to get pregnant...fewer unwanted pregnancies, slightly older parents (on average) and perhaps a greater appreciation for children. Current forms of birth control just aren't cutting it.

A male birth control pill has been in the works for a while now. It's had a really hard time getting funding, has been well lobbied against and many women's organizations have spoken out against this possibility. I wonder why?

Pretty sure no member of bigpharma would pass an opportunity for profit because womens organizations don't like it. At least one company opted out because tral subjects showed to many nocebo effect, i.e. Side effects not caused by the medication but the belief to take said medication. Women probably would never have went through the trial phase as well without the cards being so stacked against them in the fifties.

Personally I'd like to see a male birth control pill entering the market.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
You're barking up the wrong tree with this one on the MMM boards. I, for one, absolutely agree with the premise, denouncing the rise of single-parent households, but this will get many people up in arms. There is so much research out there correlating single parents and negative consequences for children, but talking about it these days is no futile. Plus, real solutions to this problem, which could actually be achieved, will never happen in this day and age.

What 'real solutions' do you propose?

To answer your question, on an individual basis, it depends, it may or may not be better. On a society wide basis, absolutely, it is much much much better for general society and community for parents to stay together for kids.

What do you base this theory on?

I don't think MoneyCat meant extramarital. I think he/she meant premarital sex, imo, which is not stigmatized anymore at all. I also think this is the crux of breakdown, cuz the world revolves around sex in one way or another.

How does premarital sex with proper use of birth control lead to single parents?

Simple Abundant Living

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 579
    • Simple Abundant Living
I read this article this morning and thought I would share with the MMM crowd as it relates to financial independence and emotional fulfillment-two subjects we talk a lot about.

http://www.virtueonline.org/vatican-lord-sacks-delivers-resounding-lecture-support-traditional-family

"This is creating a divide within societies the like of which has not been seen since Disraeli spoke of "two nations" a century and a half ago. Those who are privileged to grow up in stable loving association with the two people who brought them into being will, on average, be healthier physically and emotionally. They will do better at school and at work. They will have more successful relationships, be happier and live longer.

And yes, there are many exceptions. But the injustice of it all cries out to heaven. It will go down in history as one of the tragic instances of what Friedrich Hayek called "the fatal conceit" that somehow we know better than the wisdom of the ages, and can defy the lessons of biology and history."

You're barking up the wrong tree with this one on the MMM boards. I, for one, absolutely agree with the premise, denouncing the rise of single-parent households, but this will get many people up in arms. There is so much research out there correlating single parents and negative consequences for children, but talking about it these days is no futile. Plus, real solutions to this problem, which could actually be achieved, will never happen in this day and age.


I quite agree that this subject is a flop on the MMM boards. Which in itself, is interesting to me. If there is so much research on the financial, emotional, physical, etc. advantages to a two parent household; why would MMMers be opposed to saying so. It's because it is considered politically incorrect. And at MMM forums, we worry about what the world thinks, not what is true! <---- (snark) Do whatever you want with whoever you want, make children (or not) with those people, stay together or not, it's all good! Just make sure your saving rate is at least 75%! Then there are threads on marriages in trouble, problems with kids, the cost of divorce,... But no one will say that the Emperor is naked.

My own opinion is that this Rabbi is (mostly) right. Children raised by the parents who made them on average do a lot better. This is not always possible or preferable. My mother was raised by a single mother and it was a far better situation than to be with their philandering, alcoholic, abusive father. They really weren't "good old days", but most marriages in my grandparents day were stable and relatively happy. Interestingly, my grandparent's generation didn't pursue "happiness" like we do today. They didn't worry if they felt fulfilled. If they could put bread and milk on the table and had a roof over their heads, they felt content. My generation runs around looking for happiness and fulfillment and is never content. In the wake of Thanksgiving, I would share the quote, "It's not happy people who are thankful, it's thankful people who are happy." Maybe if we looked more at our blessings and things to be grateful for, more families would stay intact.

jka468

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 151
You're barking up the wrong tree with this one on the MMM boards. I, for one, absolutely agree with the premise, denouncing the rise of single-parent households, but this will get many people up in arms. There is so much research out there correlating single parents and negative consequences for children, but talking about it these days is no futile. Plus, real solutions to this problem, which could actually be achieved, will never happen in this day and age.

What 'real solutions' do you propose?

To answer your question, on an individual basis, it depends, it may or may not be better. On a society wide basis, absolutely, it is much much much better for general society and community for parents to stay together for kids.

What do you base this theory on?

I don't think MoneyCat meant extramarital. I think he/she meant premarital sex, imo, which is not stigmatized anymore at all. I also think this is the crux of breakdown, cuz the world revolves around sex in one way or another.

How does premarital sex with proper use of birth control lead to single parents?

What's the point?

If you've never done an ounce of your own investigation in regards to these questions then your mind is already made up and I'll just be blowing smoke as far as you are concerned. I'd rather not waste my time, as I'm pretty sure we know where each other stands in regards to various issues.

Lyssa

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 483
  • Location: Germany
  Why buy the cow when the sex is free?

Why stay together with a sick or old cow? Pretty nice picture of traditional family values that you are painting here...

Imho one of the best things that ever happened to children is that now - at least in some parts of the world - they are no longer an often unwelcome byproduct of sex. Dito for marriage.

Cookie78

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1888
  • Location: Canada
Kids are a ton of work. Two full-time caring parents are going to have the benefit of splitting the workload & stress, creating conditions more likely to produce happy, successful kids (and parents). No guarantees, just an easier path.

I'm a veteran of the fertility wars and feel that it might be better if it were a bit harder for women to get pregnant...fewer unwanted pregnancies, slightly older parents (on average) and perhaps a greater appreciation for children. Current forms of birth control just aren't cutting it.

A male birth control pill has been in the works for a while now. It's had a really hard time getting funding, has been well lobbied against and certain feminists and women's organizations have spoken out against this possibility. I wonder why?

Wait, what?! I've heard about the male birth control pill, but who is lobbying against it and why?? I haven't seen anyone speaking out against it.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Quote
What's the point?

If you've never done an ounce of your own investigation in regards to these questions then your mind is already made up and I'll just be blowing smoke as far as you are concerned. I'd rather not waste my time, as I'm pretty sure we know where each other stands in regards to various issues.


I've never claimed to have a solution for family discord, haven't been able to find any evidence supporting the theory that it's better for the children if parents who hate each other are forced to stay together, and don't really understand how premarital sex with birth control leads to single parents.  These are all claims that you just made.

What's the point of making these claims if you're unable to defend them?

Quote
This is not always possible or preferable. My mother was raised by a single mother and it was a far better situation than to be with their philandering, alcoholic, abusive father. They really weren't "good old days", but most marriages in my grandparents day were stable and relatively happy.

This illustrates exactly my point.  Divorce or breaking up of a family tends to happen for a reason.  Under ideal circumstances keeping a family together has obvious benefits.  Families tend to break up because there are non-ideal circumstances going on though.  There's nothing in this thread or in the article that proposes a realistic way to keep families happily together.

Nobody here is arguing that single parent families are the best possible situation for kids.  Some, like your grandmother, just see it as being a 'least worst' situation.

In your grandparents time marriages were certainly stable.  Interracial marriages were illegal across much of the US, beating your wife was pretty common, and abuse was tolerated.  'Relatively happy' is tough to prove.

Cookie78

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1888
  • Location: Canada
I'm reading a fascinating book right now called 'Sex at Dawn' that talks about things related to 'traditional' families. The book is more about traditional sexuality, but family and community play a huge role. Our version of 'traditional' family has not been around for very long historically speaking.


Lyssa

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 483
  • Location: Germany
I read this article this morning and thought I would share with the MMM crowd as it relates to financial independence and emotional fulfillment-two subjects we talk a lot about.

http://www.virtueonline.org/vatican-lord-sacks-delivers-resounding-lecture-support-traditional-family

"This is creating a divide within societies the like of which has not been seen since Disraeli spoke of "two nations" a century and a half ago. Those who are privileged to grow up in stable loving association with the two people who brought them into being will, on average, be healthier physically and emotionally. They will do better at school and at work. They will have more successful relationships, be happier and live longer.

And yes, there are many exceptions. But the injustice of it all cries out to heaven. It will go down in history as one of the tragic instances of what Friedrich Hayek called "the fatal conceit" that somehow we know better than the wisdom of the ages, and can defy the lessons of biology and history."

You're barking up the wrong tree with this one on the MMM boards. I, for one, absolutely agree with the premise, denouncing the rise of single-parent households, but this will get many people up in arms. There is so much research out there correlating single parents and negative consequences for children, but talking about it these days is no futile. Plus, real solutions to this problem, which could actually be achieved, will never happen in this day and age.


I quite agree that this subject is a flop on the MMM boards. Which in itself, is interesting to me. If there is so much research on the financial, emotional, physical, etc. advantages to a two parent household; why would MMMers be opposed to saying so. It's because it is considered politically incorrect. And at MMM forums, we worry about what the world thinks, not what is true! <---- (snark) Do whatever you want with whoever you want, make children (or not) with those people, stay together or not, it's all good! Just make sure your saving rate is at least 75%! Then there are threads on marriages in trouble, problems with kids, the cost of divorce,... But no one will say that the Emperor is naked.

My own opinion is that this Rabbi is (mostly) right. Children raised by the parents who made them on average do a lot better.

Have you ever wondered how those numbers of researchers would have looked like 1850 or 1900? Back when couples stayed together at almost any cost? Was there less violence, less addiction and fewer people in prison? Or is it just that what would have been a troubled kid from a troubled couple today most likely is the troubled kid of a single mother? Yes, there is a number of divorces resulting from childish and immature behaviour of the adults and yes, this is hurting the kids involved. But if you focus on the really bad cases (kids ending up in jail, on the street, addicted, you name it), most often those kids would not have been better of had their parents stayed together.

Those single parent kids who turned out mostly fine but who continue to hurt when they need to navigate the waters between their divorced parents, those are the ones who could have been helped by their parents working through their problems and staying together. And you know who are best prepared to exercise such mature judgement? According to the available data those who marry late and cohabitate befor making the final decision with whom to spend the rest of their lives.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2014, 01:56:46 PM by Lyssa »

SisterX

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3035
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
I quite agree that this subject is a flop on the MMM boards. Which in itself, is interesting to me. If there is so much research on the financial, emotional, physical, etc. advantages to a two parent household; why would MMMers be opposed to saying so. It's because it is considered politically incorrect. And at MMM forums, we worry about what the world thinks, not what is true! <---- (snark) Do whatever you want with whoever you want, make children (or not) with those people, stay together or not, it's all good! Just make sure your saving rate is at least 75%! Then there are threads on marriages in trouble, problems with kids, the cost of divorce,... But no one will say that the Emperor is naked.

My own opinion is that this Rabbi is (mostly) right. Children raised by the parents who made them on average do a lot better. This is not always possible or preferable. My mother was raised by a single mother and it was a far better situation than to be with their philandering, alcoholic, abusive father. They really weren't "good old days", but most marriages in my grandparents day were stable and relatively happy. Interestingly, my grandparent's generation didn't pursue "happiness" like we do today. They didn't worry if they felt fulfilled. If they could put bread and milk on the table and had a roof over their heads, they felt content. My generation runs around looking for happiness and fulfillment and is never content. In the wake of Thanksgiving, I would share the quote, "It's not happy people who are thankful, it's thankful people who are happy." Maybe if we looked more at our blessings and things to be grateful for, more families would stay intact.

It is absolutely not about being politically correct.  Since when has it ever been politically correct to say that some marriages are better off not happening, or ending?  How many politicians do you hear bragging about the divorce rate in their state or district?
No, this is about finding the facts and research, and not being blinded by what others have said.  I'm not religious because I don't like having other people tell me what I should do or believe.  I'm not a huge spender because I've never felt the pull of spending like someone else does, just to keep up.  And, I prefer to have facts, not a rosy and romantic picture of what life "should" be like.
As others have pointed out, marrying later in life, having kids just a bit later, and pursuing higher education are all "liberal" and "non-religious" things which help people to divorce less.  (https://contemporaryfamilies.org/impact-of-conservative-protestantism-on-regional-divorce-rates/)  Religious people tend to stick to what you call a "traditional family model" (which, again as someone else pointed out, has not actually been around for all that long, historically speaking) and thus tend to divorce a lot more, because of the pressures not to live together before marrying, to have kids young, to marry young, and to not get further education.  (This, clearly, is not intended to say that all religious people do this, but that there is a lot of pressure so many religious people do follow that model.)
Interestingly, religious marriages and families tend to also be far more abusive, so the idea that the "traditional" and religious model of family makes people more thankful and happier also doesn't hold water.
I'm not necessarily trying to knock the family model you're putting forward.  It's worked for my parents and for one set of grandparents.  It's even working out for me.  But to put it on a pedestal and claim that it's "the best" is just all kinds of silly.  To attribute all of the problems of the world today (or most, or even a lot of them) to breakdowns in the family model is even sillier.  There have been so many changes in the world even just since my own childhood (and I'm not that old) that trying to tie them all to family or lack of it is absurd and baseless.  That is what I have a problem with, not the idea that loving parents and families are a good thing, religious or not.

viper155

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 255
The collapse of the traditional family in the black community is of indescribable negative consequences. Thanks to feel good politics.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
The collapse of the traditional family in the black community is of indescribable negative consequences. Thanks to feel good politics.

Which 'feel good politics' have caused the collapse of black families?

I suspect that average unemployment rates, average literacy and education rates, average rate of incarceration, and social stigmas a rather large part in the 'indescribable negative consequences' you're referring to.