"It Takes a Family"

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Ever occur to you why adolescent delinquency has sky-rocketed since the 1950's in most Western countries?

Do you really believe such a complex question has so simple an answer as "not enough mothers stay home with their children"? And if so, on what basis do you make that claim?

 

[DrTeeth]

Ever occur to you why adolescent delinquency has sky-rocketed since the 1950's in most Western countries?

You have found a causal correlation between the two?

 

[melon]

Actually, I feel that in an economically perfect world, one of the parents should stay home with the kids. I think it is very beneficial to the kids' upbringing - it's a lot better than leaving them with day care. However, this is no perfect economically perfect world, and I'd sy that in most situations, both parents have to work just to stay alive.

It's complicated. On one hand, women shouldn't be compelled to stay at home by default. It should be their choice to stay home and raise children. On the other hand, adding all those women to the workforce had, essentially, given business an excuse to slice the average salary in half, since two adults were now working in a household. Thirty years later, it now takes two people to earn the standard of living that one person had in 1972, the height of labor's earning power. We've since reverted somewhere in between the earning power of 1929 to 1950. And massive personal debt makes up the difference.

Melon

 

[melon]

Ever occur to you why adolescent delinquency has sky-rocketed since the 1950's in most Western countries?

Skyrocketing media attention and skyrocketing law enforcement. In the 1950s, bullying was a "rite of passage," rather than what it really is: "assault and battery." Plus, we since decided that crowds of angry whites dragging blacks out of jail and hanging them to death was a crime, although there were several years where Congress refused to schedule a vote to make it a crime.

Our perception of the past is based on fluff Hollywood musicals and TV series like "Leave it to Beaver," which are all flat out romanticist.

Melon

 

[melon]

If Rick Santorum wants to return to a single-income society, he should push for the reinstatement of the Windfall Profits Tax, which assessed a 25%+ corporate tax on excessive profits and was created to encourage business to avoid the tax by raising wages and company reinvestment--and worked like a charm until it was repealed in 1986. After 1986, watch as salaries were slashed and companies now are so unstable that a stock market rumor can now send many of them into bankruptcy.

But no. It makes it all so convenient to blame everyone else but himself and his party for America's ills.

Melon

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Skyrocketing media attention and skyrocketing law enforcement. In the 1950s, bullying was a "rite of passage," rather than what it really is: "assault and battery."

Do you reject the idea that there has been an increase in violent behaviour, vandalism, and other forms of "anti-social behaviour" (to use one of the British government's current buzzwords) among young people in the last 50 years?

I do agree that to an extent the problem is exaggerated but I think there is enough evidence to suggest that it does at least exist, even if not to the extent that the media would have us believe.

 

[pax]

I love when Melon debunks bullshit CW.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

<idiot cap on> wtf does CW stand for? </remove idiot cap>

 

[pax]

conventional wisdom.

Hey, welcome back, by the way...where've you been?

 

[melon]

Do you reject the idea that there has been an increase in violent behaviour, vandalism, and other forms of "anti-social behaviour" (to use one of the British government's current buzzwords) among young people in the last 50 years?

I do agree that to an extent the problem is exaggerated but I think there is enough evidence to suggest that it does at least exist, even if not to the extent that the media would have us believe.

50 years ago, when we think about society, I wouldn't doubt that most people think of a 100% white society; and then when they think of the present, their view is multicultural. As such, the implication most always is that multiculturalism is the cause of crime.

The fact is that this is a fantasy. We've always had crime problems. Prior to 50 years ago, these were the days that mobs of white people lynched any black person that they wanted and there was no law enforcement and no media attention. In the 1920s and 1930s, we had plenty of gangsters--and they were all white. And rather than be hated as criminals, many of them developed a romanticist legend, forgetting that many of these people from Al Capone to John Dillinger and otherwise were robbers and murderers. And to get back on the topic, Al Capone started his life of crime while as a teenager by joining two gangs, then quit both to join a major gang in his late teens.

The funny thing about today's society is that teenage crime had actually declined dramatically up to the late 1990s, while media coverage had shot up exponentially. That is, the fewer crimes committed were now getting full media attention, leading people to get the impression that teenage crime had increased exponentially. It was during this time that the push for trying minors as adults and executing them happened.

Today, we've heard it so many times over the years now that we merely believe it without proof. It's assumed to be true. But, in fact, it is mostly a construction by the increasing number of 24 hour cable news networks that are looking for salacious filler to scare people into watching them.

Melon

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

conventional wisdom.

Hey, welcome back, by the way...where've you been?

Ah-ha, I should've guessed that, lol.

Thanks. I've just been busy, I guess. Studying, working, volunteering and spending time with a special person. But now I have some more free time I thought I'd check in on old Interland again.

 

[VertigoGal]

What an idiot. Blame women for everything. Sometimes women need to work to support their families. Or, God forbid, maybe they just want to have a career. Who does he think he is, telling people how to run their families, telling women with jobs that they're ruining society? The thought of this man becoming our president is frightening.

My parents both work, I'm not a delinquent...most of the other kids in my area have mothers who can stay home, and they're still into drugs and sex.

And the comment about schools...ridiculous. That's the kind of shit you'd expect in a third-world theocracy. It figures he wouldn't want people to be educated, they might not vote for him then!

Families are overrated, anyway.

 

[u2bonogirl]

I dont disagree that women are better mothers in general. Theres a reason you call women mothers and men fathers.
Theres basic emotional and biological things that make men and women different from one another and I believe that those things are in part what makes a woman better at "mothering" children.

I would never want to be a single mother, and I feel for anybody that has to do it out of necessity and not will.

We cant frown upon women who are happier working, or have no choice, but even just in thought, isnt it a better idea to have somebody at home nurturing the children, teaching them morals, right from wrong.
What my ideal would be is to go to college, learn a skill, have my career until i want to have children and then hopefully be able to stay at home with them as much as I can.

 

[pax]

I dont disagree that women are better mothers in general. Theres a reason you call women mothers and men fathers.
Theres basic emotional and biological things that make men and women different from one another and I believe that those things are in part what makes a woman better at "mothering" children.

Ah, but you're being an essentialist where gender is involved, a view that's being discredited by science and psychology more and more every day. I think we need to stop talking about "mothering" and "fathering" in terms of having children, and start talking more about "parenting"--involving both parents in all phases of raising children.

I feel very strongly that there's absolutely no reason a compassionate, loving man couldn't be a full-time parent (and a very effective one at that). As a society, we've got to get past gender labels and empower individual couples and families to decide what works best for them.

 

[u2bonogirl]

Im not labeling, Im stating that women tend to be better mothers, men better providers, disciplinarians.
Fathers SHOULD be involved in every phase, I agree.
Something that will greatly affect a child is seeing their parents loving one another.
I cant emphasize that enough. Just having parents that do their thing separately and try to do a good job wont impact their child as much as parents that do their best, admit their flaws and love one another with tenderness and passion.
Without impacting your children you cant protect them. And you cant just shelter the kid.
So keeping them at home all the time wont do any good.
I just dont agree with the statement that theres no real difference between men and women. Its absurd to me because of the overwhelming evidence Ive seen around me.

A loving father is a wonderful thing! Its a natural thing. But a woman can nurture a child in different ways beyond the obvious physical realm.
I really wish that my dad hadnt had to be my mother. I really do

 

[pax]

Im not labeling, Im stating that women tend to be better mothers, men better providers, disciplinarians.

Okay, so how is that not labeling?

Fathers SHOULD be involved in every phase, I agree.

You're contradicting yourself here...first you're saying that women are better "mothers" (and what, exactly, does that mean, anyway?), and in the next breath you say that father should be involved in every "phase" of parenting. Maybe this is because women and men are, in fact, not biologically incapable of excelling at both "mothering" and "fathering" just because they have different reproductive organs?

Something that will greatly affect a child is seeing their parents loving one another.
I cant emphasize that enough. Just having parents that do their thing separately and try to do a good job wont impact their child as much as parents that do their best, admit their flaws and love one another with tenderness and passion.

Well, that I think we can all agree on.

I just dont agree with the statement that theres no real difference between men and women. Its absurd to me because of the overwhelming evidence Ive seen around me.

I don't think I, or anyone else, would argue that there is no difference. There are obvious biological differences as well as differences in how biological men and biological women are socialized as outwardly constructed men and women. But what I take issue with is the idea that men are incapable of "mothering" and women are incapable of "fathering," and that a man cannot be as good of a full-time parent as a woman can...or that a woman cannot be as good of a breadwinner, so to speak.

Again, individual families know what works best.

 

[Golightly Grrl]

Having a mom at home when I was little was fine, but my mom has never worked a day in her life to support herself. She just doesn't get how the workplace works or how difficult it is to make ends meet. When I had problem with my job, my mom would blame me first instead of understanding the politics that pollute the work place. When I was having difficulty paying some of my bills, my mom said haughtily, "I never have difficulty paying my bills!" Well, duh, she's married to a very wealthy man! Maybe if she had spend sometime working to support herself and a family she might have some understanding of how difficult in can be for some of us. If she didn't have access to my dad's money, she can say goodbye to the McMansion, country club membership, and fancy vacations abroad and say hello to a small, roach infested studio apartment, public transportation, and trips to Aldi's.

Plus, I'm so sick of this nostalgia for the 1950s and how it was supposed to be a better time for America. Sure, if you were a middle-class, WASPy, suburbanite, it could be wonderful. But if you were black or gay, forget it.

A really great book to read is "The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap" by Stephanie Coontz. It's very insightful and interesting.

 

[u2bonogirl]

A father can be involved in every phase by coming home and asking the children questions, reading to them at night, taking them out on weekends and doing things with them, helping them with homework, being in charge of higher discipline....etc
If the woman in a relationship is better at being the provider and the man better at nurturing then by all means, work with that. Or the same goes with finances. my sister is better at doing bills than her husband so she does them even though that seems like the "guy" thing to do.

When I say mothering I mean nurturing. To me theres a difference between mothering and fathering because the mother is the nurturer. She brought this life into the world and feels a special protectiveness for it. The father seems to love in a different but just as powerful way.
And the father seems to be more of a shepherd, leading the family, overseeing it on a different level.
So like I said if the man is better at doing this than the woman then run with it, have him mother the child.

 

[pax]

When I say mothering I mean nurturing. To me theres a difference between mothering and fathering because the mother is the nurturer. She brought this life into the world and feels a special protectiveness for it. The father seems to love in a different but just as powerful way.
And the father seems to be more of a shepherd, leading the family, overseeing it on a different level.
So like I said if the man is better at doing this than the woman then run with it, have him mother the child.

Darlin', I pick on you because we're friends, I think, and I can say this stuff to you and have you not take it personally...

But I can't emphasize enough that it's outmoded (if it ever was "moded") to suggest that women are somehow naturally and inherently gifted as "nurturers." Even women who are good at it are probably that way because they were socialized as such, and/or because they made a conscious and consistent choice to cultivate that behavior in themselves. I know plenty of women who can't even handle a couple of goldfish, let alone a baby. And there's nothing wrong or unnatural about that. And if you suggest that the mere presence of a uterus and ovaries means that women are SUPPOSED to be "mothers", well, we don't expect a man to father dozens of children into his 70s or 80s simply because he's biologically capable of doing so. Why then place a demand to be "nurturing" on women?

The family ideal you speak of is just that--an ideal. If that's how you see yourself, your partner, and your future family, I have no personal beef with that. But there are many, many other ways to structure a loving and successful family. Don't lose sight of that. Many women aren't interested in being "shepherded"; many men aren't interested in being "shepherds."

 

[u2bonogirl]

I agree that its an ideal. Im just telling you what I believe to be an effective way to raise normal kids just kidding. Theres no such thing as a normal kid

Im not particularly nurturing at the stage of my life. If I had a baby right now I would be resentful, and i dont think I would be a good mother.
youre right, just because I have a uterus doesnt make me a good mother, but I think something would change within me once I gave birth that would help me care for the child better than I would if somebody just threw a baby at me on the street and said here you take it, I cant do it anymore!!

There are so many obstacles in the way of families being well structures. I see that.

I do know that I would have been better off as a child if I had a mother and a father and my dad didnt have to play both roles.
I wanted a mother so badly and I ended up having to nurture myself.

 

[VertigoGal]

I just don't see why one parent should stay home (and in most cases, obviously, people can't afford that). Once you're in school, you're not home all day anyway. I mean, I just stayed at their after-school prime-time type program til I was 11 or so, old enough to be home alone for a few hours.

As far as putting younger kids in daycare, again it's the most practical solution for most families, and if you scope it out and make sure the place is alright, it's not the end of the world. There's plenty of time at nights and stuff and on weekends to nurture your kids. I mean, I went to daycare during the week but my parents were really good about reading with me every night, and I could read chapter books by the time I was 4 or 5. Not to mention being much more well-adjusted going into school.

I just think the whole thing is exaggerated. Good parents who have to work during the day but make time for their kids at night are all you really need anyway.

As far as the women being nurturers, men being providers, I don't know. I've lived only with my dad a few times, for about 6 months each, and he did as well as anyone else at being loving.

Generally, I just think the whole thing is exaggerated and I agree with Golightly Grrl about this nostalgia trip some people seem to be on.

 

[u2bonogirl]

I got dumped off at my grandparents, or babysitters all the time and it really didnt bother me much. My home was so stressful that I hated being there so anything that got me out of the house was a blessing.
Thankfully the places where I essentially grew up were good places and I was educated well in me young years.
When I was old enough my dad would keep me with him when I wasnt in school. He owned a gas station and his employees helped raise me as well. It was an odd setup but it seemed to work, I mean Im more inclined to be accepting of different people because I was loved by so many different types as a child
But I still would have rather had a real mom than some grease monkeys and a stressed out dad

 

[the soul waits]

Im not labeling, Im stating that women tend to be better mothers, men better providers, disciplinarians.

Ok, how exactly are men better providers and disciplinarians?

Women have proved themselves (with much effort going against prejudices that are still prevalent in the higher scales of business positions) to be pretty succesfull at being providers. Hell, I have to, I'm single, so no man around to provide for me, even if I wanted him to.

Better disciplinarians? I don't see how, really. I've often heard men complain that their stay-at-home-spouse (NOT intending any degrading connotation whatsoever here, let that be clear) would say ''wait untill dad gets home" when their kids get a bit out of control and that they feel bad being put in the position of being the "bad guy" with little quality time available to spend with the children after work and then being put into the role of disciplinarian.

On the other hand, I've also heard mothers complain that they get to do the "raising" while the father's off playing with the kids rather than parenting because "he's got so little time with them as it is"

Two sides to every story.

I believe that in today's society, children are being shipped from daycare to aunt to grandparents, back to the parents far too much and that there lies the problem mostly. Small children have little sense of right/wrong and being exposed to a different set of right/wrong whenever they're shipped to the sitter of duty, they get confused.
Problem lies with a lack of routine (which a child needs to feel safe) and a lack of consistency (which, again, is needed for a child to feel safe).

In today's society, it's very hard to raise children well, I believe, because there's an economical need to have 2 incomes (at least in Europe there is, I'm guessing the US is no different) and on the other hand, the need to raise the kids as well as possible in those circumstances. Ideally, one of the parents would be home when the kids come home from school, imo.

I think the only way to come even close to that, is indeed to approach this as a parenting fact, rather than a mother/father-fact.
More and more couples have 1 fulltime and 1 parttime occupation, being filled by either the man or the woman, depending of which one has the most desire and ambition and has the highest pay-check.
I see here, in couples around me, equally as much SAH-dads as SAH-moms (parttime, that is).

 

[Irvine511]

to add a male perspective ... i think both pax and u2bonogirl are both right. i think "nurturing" comes more easily to women, but because they've been socialized to be as such. i spent a year working in a preschool, and it amazed me how difficult it was to be nurturing, and this is coming from an exceptionally emotionally aware and paternal male. being sensitive to feelings, creating a sense of warmth and stability, all these things are not taught to men, or at least they were skills that i had to learn in order to be effective in the classroom. however, i would argue that these are skills, and as such can be learned, and like all skills, they come more naturally to some people than they do for others. with a year of 3 year olds under my belt, as well as years of swimming lessons, coaching, and some teaching, i would gladly put my parenting skills *and* more feminine nurturing skills up against any of my female counterparts. however, i don't know that the same can be said for most males, because most males have had the opportunity to develop the skills that i have, whereas many women -- who have been, say, babysitting since they were 14 -- probably have.

as for myself, i would absolutely feel comfortable being the primary caregiver if the situation called for it, and i also think that, very early on, it is ideal to have at least one parent -- or grandparent, or aunt, or gay uncle -- to be able to be with the child. i think to assume that men are biologically incapable of the nurturing role that u2bonogirl mapped out is incorrect, and i also think there are a variety of parenting "styles" that can be successful.

what children need most, however, is stability. i can't stress that enough. they need to know what's going to happen, when it's going to happen, how it's going to happen, and what's going to happen after it has happened. to me, this is the most important thing a parent can do, and it's not a gender specific activity.

 

[u2bonogirl]

Just to clarify, I didnt mean that men are biologically incapable of nurturing.
I was just saying that the way womens brains are wired make them more likely to ease into the nurturing role
I could go into detail but I dont think anybody really wants to hear it and ive got wedding stuff to deal with right now

 

[u2bonogirl]

And I liked your post Irvine
From what ive seen on here and the way you react and interact I could see you as being a wonderful nurturer

 

[Irvine511]

Just to clarify, I didnt mean that men are biologically incapable of nurturing.
I was just saying that the way womens brains are wired make them more likely to ease into the nurturing role
I could go into detail but I dont think anybody really wants to hear it and ive got wedding stuff to deal with right now

okay, i generally agree with that.

though wiring vs. socializing ... tough call.

but in the end, it's incumbant upon men to be the best parents they can be, and the same for women.

 

[u2bonogirl]

okay, i generally agree with that.

though wiring vs. socializing ... tough call.

but in the end, it's incumbant upon men to be the best parents they can be, and the same for women.

Agreed. We're not all the same, and we dont all have the same gifts.
But we can work with what we have

 

[VertigoGal]

I got dumped off at my grandparents, or babysitters all the time and it really didnt bother me much. My home was so stressful that I hated being there so anything that got me out of the house was a blessing.
Thankfully the places where I essentially grew up were good places and I was educated well in me young years.

that sounds a lot like me...maybe not the most ideal situation, but it teaches kids to adjust and I still had/have a lot of good role models even if I didn't have dad-with-the-steady-job and mom-baking-cookies.

Irvine is probably right that some men are less capable of being nurturing due to the way they were raised. my dad grew up taking care of his 4 younger half-sisters, so

 

[Irvine511]

And I liked your post Irvine
From what ive seen on here and the way you react and interact I could see you as being a wonderful nurturer

aw, thanks.

but if you believe Texas Republicans, i'm unfit to be around children.

in any event, the experience in preschool taught me that parenting is tremendously difficult, and that, yes, it indeed *does* take a village.

parenting is also done by teachers, coaches, relatives, other people's parents, crossing guards, bus drivers ... we all have a vested interest in the rearing of children, and it is incumbant upon all of us to help children wherever and whenever we can. instead of blaming certain cultural shifts and changing mores, like Sen. Santorum, we should focus our energies on helping parents do the best job they know how.