• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why does Society Hate Families? Part II

What is the reason that we see less and less Traditional Family Structure?

  • Affirmative Action Opened All the Right Doors...

    Votes: 2 5.7%
  • Girls Just Wanna Have Fun!

    Votes: 3 8.6%
  • It is extremely complex issue...

    Votes: 30 85.7%

  • Total voters
    35
Status
Not open for further replies.

BodiSatva

The Bodhisattva
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
2,081
Reaction score
49
Location
Bodega Bay, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The New York Times, which based its report on an analysis of census results, said 51 percent of women in 2005 reported living without a spouse, up from 35 percent in 1950 and 49 percent in 2000.

"Coupled with the fact that in 2005 married couples became a minority of all American households for the first time, the trend could ultimately shape social and workplace policies, including the ways government and employers distribute benefits," the newspaper said.

It said that several factors are behind the shift including women marrying at a later age and living with partners for more often and for longer periods. Women are also living longer as widows and once divorced, often opt to stay single, the report said.


Majority of US women living without spouse - Yahoo! News

What is this invisible factor that is leading us down a path of single people, single mothers (voluntary ones at least), dead-beat fathers, etc.? What is it? Why are we seeing less married people and broken or disjointed families more and more?

Yes, this is an extension of the last thread, so for all of you that can't fathom reality to save your life, this should be fun.
 
I think that the traditional values of the woman being the housewife and the man being the money maker are breaking down. In my opinion this is mainly due to more women having jobs and waiting to marry. Now that they are almost expected to go out and get jobs they can support themselves and therefore don't have to marry.
 
This may be an extremely preemptive strike, but remembering what happened to the last thread around this topic, let's all be civil. :2wave:
 
CaptainCourtesy
This may be an extremely preemptive strike, but remembering what happened to the last thread around this topic, let's all be civil

I hear you. We should all be civil and do nothing that might cause tempers to flare...

I am not even sure if any of those Anti-Family Anti-Man Women will show up to spout their Hateful Propoganda! :lol:

Oooops... :fueltofir

So what, if any, is the solution? Does there need to be one? Western Society will be bred out, just look at the population trends around the world...
 
I know. IT is interesting to see the trends. Europe will become a suburb of the ME soon.

I am all for Progressive Ideas, my wife started her own business before we met and we run that now...among other things, but once we started having kids, that was her focus. Being a mom. The business slowed down and she stays at home by her own choice, and I think that is best for the family and the kids.

Many of her friends hire nannies or use day care and they are always out and about having coffee with friends or at yoga while we are always with our kids. Though they are with a husband or partner, they are on-call moms at best. It sucks.

Anyway, this thread will die, just because people hate family structure. This proves my point...a few thoughtful responses, but mostly negative and selfish ones from last time...people just don't care about anything other than themselves in Western Society...mainly America.

America is dying, and it makes me sad. Seriously.
 
Several factors are at work in this situation. The first is just the general lifespan of Americans. The average life expectancy has skyrocketed recently. Social security was not an issue because not that many people lived passed 65 back in the day. Most people never reached 50 year anniversaries. "Till death do you part" was a lot shorter than it is today. Marriages lasting a lifetime are much harder when that lifetime is so much longer. The next issue was women gaining rights and employment opportunities. 60% of people in college today are women. Yet women are often forced to either choose between having kids or a career. Therefore many women don't end up married to keep their careers. Finally, social attitudes towards marriage have changed. Divorce no longer carries the huge stigma it used to. People tend to date for longer periods of time and "test the waters" before getting married. Some people don't even consider the legal hoops of jumping through marriage to be worth it. Many people have long term relationships that are never legally considered marriages.

Frankly, I'm not terribly worried about less people getting married. Marriage is a legal and social construct that has no inherent goodness and if society decides to discard it, so be it. I think that changing the focus of a domestic partnership to raising kids rather than some lifetime commitment that won't last a lifetime would prove more beneficial.

However, I am worried about family dynamics. Ensuring that kids are raised in homes with supportive parents and financial security is important to society as a whole. I'd suggest the we move towards a lot more part time jobs. This would allow both parents to work and raise kids. Kids would get attention from both parents and financial issues would be more stable because of 2 sources of income.
 
Rathi, you have essentially hit the nail right on the head, an excellent post.
 
There are a lot of problems with your post, but I’m going to ignore most of them.

Marriage is has been the norm in western culture for sometime. A deviation from that does not constitute something bad in and of itself, it depends on the implementation. Also, social transition means that people have to find new ways to cope, which they are and will, this can cause some minor problems to be exacerbated.

The ‘change’ in marriage isn’t the symptom of a problem. It is a reflection of the way in which our society is ordered. At one point marriage, was a formalized method of something that was naturally occurring, lifelong cohabitation. The reason that we are seeing less marriage is that the constraints which cause lifelong cohabitation are dissolving, and new constraints are being added. The decline is marriage is individual ADAPTATION to the new factors in society.

I will not speculate on all of these causes, but I believe that economics is clearly a related factor. Our current market and economy allows people to be more self reliant than in previous generations, and means that people don’t have to stay in dissatisfying relationships, or can more on to new ones. It also means that they can raise children by themselves. Both people in a relationship now have careers, and people are no longer economically limited to the extent that one person has to sacrifice that career.

Society is an extension of human psychology, and therefore it will always be forced to adapt to the changes in the physical world, whatever they may be.
 
I may be going out on a limb here, but my guess is that the 50% and growing divorce rate is a good deterence from getting married early these days.
 
Originally Posted by Morrow
There are a lot of problems with your post, but I’m going to ignore most of them.

Dont take the cowardly way out bro. Gonna dish it out, then back it up or keep it shut ;)

I would like to see you point out a "lot" of problems with a post that asks a few questions about a REAL ISSUE.

The ‘change’ in marriage isn’t the symptom of a problem. It is a reflection of the way in which our society is ordered. At one point marriage, was a formalized method of something that was naturally occurring, lifelong cohabitation. The reason that we are seeing less marriage is that the constraints which cause lifelong cohabitation are dissolving, and new constraints are being added. The decline is marriage is individual ADAPTATION to the new factors in society.

Yes yes yes, this is all UNDERSTOOD already.

The question is WHY? Why are people doing this? Of course it is adaptation due to progressive ideas. But why are people doing this? What about having children and raising them within the confines of a STRUCTURED ENVIRONMENT (which is what children desire and NEED)?

A woman would rather get her career going, wait until she is 35 to have a baby, when the rate of Birth Defects rises dramatically, geta C-Section, hire a nanny or put them in day care so that she can go to yoga, etc. What the hell is wrong with the better educated Liberals that do this.

A man would rather do what? Party? Get laid? Hang out playing video games? Work on their careers? What is it? Wait wait wait and marry a younger woman when you are 40 and be 60 when your kids graduate high school, unable to play ball because you are almost old enough to retire.

Family Values is easy to attack when it messes up people's selfish desires. It is easy to overlook what is best for the kids.

Society is an extension of human psychology, and therefore it will always be forced to adapt to the changes in the physical world

This isn't psychological Darwinism. This is not a mandated change for survival. This is seflish people indulging themselves at the cost of a potential societal breakdown.

Our current market and economy allows people to be more self reliant than in previous generations

There you go. Self reliant is a PC way to say Selfish.

Both people in a relationship now have careers, people are no longer economically limited to the extent that one person has to sacrifice that career.

And now you justify it. People no longer have to sacrafice their CAREER? Instead they sacrafice their family and children.

why do they both have careers? There is no need. We create the world that we live in. People can do without many things.

To many people spend money that they dont have
To buy things that they dont want
to impress people that they dont like.

and means that people don’t have to stay in dissatisfying relationships

Why dont people understand who they are and that marraige is not a fairy tale. That people have issues. That they have issues. That it takes work. Too many people want the package and wont put in the work. They bail like chickens and whine and bitch about society. They justify actions of incompetent people that play the PC game. It is cyclical.

Most of the issues are due to Liberals and Liberal Policies. Not all are bad, by any means, but by not addressing the REAL issues, you are just playing the PC game and not really saying anything. ;)
 
Last edited:
A woman would rather get her career going, wait until she is 35 to have a baby, when the rate of Birth Defects rises dramatically, geta C-Section, hire a nanny or put them in day care so that she can go to yoga, etc. What the hell is wrong with the better educated Liberals that do this.

This is caused by employers attitude towards women who have kids. Many women wait until later to have kids so they can establish a strong enough career that having a kid won't ruin it.

And now you justify it. People no longer have to sacrafice their CAREER? Instead they sacrafice their family and children.

why do they both have careers? There is no need. We create the world that we live in. People can do without many things.

Having a good steady income is a benefit to the family. However, I agree that in many cases that kids would benefit from having more contact with their parents. Thats why I proposed part time jobs. If thats not possible, than the choice for who works and stays at home should be decided by who has the better job, not pointless gender roles. We need to have more stay at home dads.

Most of the issues are due to Liberals and Liberal Policies. Not all are bad, by any means, but by not addressing the REAL issues, you are just playing the PC game and not really saying anything

None of the reasons I listed have anything to do with liberal policies. Unless you consider women entering the workforce to be a "liberal" thing.
 
Originally Posted by rathi
This is caused by employers attitude towards women who have kids. Many women wait until later to have kids so they can establish a strong enough career that having a kid won't ruin it.

Do you see the inherent flaw in this line of thinking?

I agree that in many cases that kids would benefit from having more contact with their parents.

I think that you need to make a correction and say "in all cases kids would benefit from having more contact with parents that want to be parents FIRST"

None of the reasons I listed have anything to do with liberal policies. Unless you consider women entering the workforce to be a "liberal" thing

Sufferagettes / Progressivism / Liberalism / Whatever you want to call it, yes I do.

I would also add that most of what Liberalism IS regarding individuality is selfish in nature.
 
Do you see the inherent flaw in this line of thinking?

Indeed I do. Corporations needs to recognize that female employees are going to have kids and not penalize them for it.

I think that you need to make a correction and say "in all cases kids would benefit from having more contact with parents that want to be parents FIRST"

Thats the problem in todays world. Having enough money to provide your kid with a decent lifestyle is just as vital as sharing "quality time." A family might be able to raise a better kid if they spend more time with them, but then he gets shot because they live in a bad neighborhood because they couldn't afford better. Raising a kid requires both time and money.

Sufferagettes / Progressivism / Liberalism / Whatever you want to call it, yes I do.

You think that conservatives are opposed to women voting and entering the workforce? You might want to ask a few. I doubt that very many will agree with you.

I would also add that most of what Liberalism IS regarding individuality is selfish in nature.

You think that women working is selfish? I be more inclined to say that if one parent needs a job and the other needs to stay home, the person able to get a better job should work and the other should stay home.
 
Originally Posted by rathi
You think that conservatives are opposed to women voting and entering the workforce? You might want to ask a few. I doubt that very many will agree with you.

I didn't say that I think that conservatives are opposed to women voting and entering the workforce. I said that I consider women entering the workforce to be a "liberal" thing. I, personally, have no problem with it though.

Originally Posted by rathi
You think that women working is selfish? I be more inclined to say that if one parent needs a job and the other needs to stay home, the person able to get a better job should work and the other should stay home.

No. Women working is not selfish. I feel that Liberalism promotes individuality and individuality is selfish in nature if it is not altruistic or insightful. Individuality is not a bad thing though. I feel that women wanting a career and kids is selfish if they are going to put their job ahead of their kids unless it is mandatory for Survival. I know lots of parents that can't wait to go back to work, they want their lives back. They are selfish. They are also viewed as great parents by others that I know, though they daycare is raising their kids. Just my opinion.

Originally Posted by rathi
Indeed I do. Corporations needs to recognize that female employees are going to have kids and not penalize them for it.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by rathi
Thats the problem in todays world. Having enough money to provide your kid with a decent lifestyle is just as vital as sharing "quality time." A family might be able to raise a better kid if they spend more time with them, but then he gets shot because they live in a bad neighborhood because they couldn't afford better. Raising a kid requires both time and money.

Agreed. But people also want more than they need, and once people realize this they will also realize that they are being selfish and not giving their kids what they really needed, but what they thought they needed. Materialism. People don't "Need" two cars or a 4 bedroom house for a family of four or a vacation to New York or Hawaii every year. People don't "need" these things, they want them. They sacrafice what is best for the kids in order to chase a needless dream. Kids generally still turn out fine, but that is not the point either. :)
 
The New York Times, which based its report on an analysis of census results, said 51 percent of women in 2005 reported living without a spouse, up from 35 percent in 1950 and 49 percent in 2000.

"Coupled with the fact that in 2005 married couples became a minority of all American households for the first time, the trend could ultimately shape social and workplace policies, including the ways government and employers distribute benefits," the newspaper said.

It said that several factors are behind the shift including women marrying at a later age and living with partners for more often and for longer periods. Women are also living longer as widows and once divorced, often opt to stay single, the report said.


Majority of US women living without spouse - Yahoo! News

What is this invisible factor that is leading us down a path of single people, single mothers (voluntary ones at least), dead-beat fathers, etc.? What is it? Why are we seeing less married people and broken or disjointed families more and more?

Yes, this is an extension of the last thread, so for all of you that can't fathom reality to save your life, this should be fun.
Just because a lady works and has a job,, as is the media promoted norm in our country, does not mean that the person is against marraige.

to do anything about this, like going back to traditional life styles, would never work. Women and Men are equal, as citizens of the uSA, of the world, and as children of God. We live on planet that is becoming overcrowded and overused. Maybe having as many families is not necessary. I don't know the answer. Who knows what is needed in the future.
 
Is it reasonable to say that society hates families just because establishing them has become less common? Maybe alot of people, years ago, established families because that was what was expected, but were never really enthusiastic about doing so.
 
Selfishness. Go back to the pre-divorce era and you see a bunch of married people who didn't appear to obsess on their kids nearly as much. They didn't divorce and generally mom stayed home along with the other moms on the block to raise the wee ones. The kids were raised in "stable" homes which is probably one of the most important things you could do for a kid.

Nowadays you have parents who seem to obsess on their kids to a ridiculous degree but many of them aren't providing "stable" homes. Little kids are watching their parents date other people. The parents might read 50+ books on the best way to raise johnny and jenny but they're still sending them off to daycare during the day and going out on dates at night!:roll: Many women believe the whole idea of "fatherhood" is optional. In other words the father of her kids is only as important and she decides to make him. A large portion of divorced fathers give in and give up ridiculously deciding that the kid is better off with the wife and her new boyfriend conveniently freeing him up to bow out.

It's all just selfishness. We appear to care and obsess over our kids more than ever but the truth is they've fallen all the way to the bottem of our priorities and the obsessing is just smoke and mirrors for appearance sake.
 
Thats the problem in todays world. Having enough money to provide your kid with a decent lifestyle is just as vital as sharing "quality time." A family might be able to raise a better kid if they spend more time with them, but then he gets shot because they live in a bad neighborhood because they couldn't afford better. Raising a kid requires both time and money.

There are many families where both parents absolutely have to work but there are many more where one parent could stay home but that would mean giving up some material things and many are too selfish to do so.
 
Originally Posted by Talloulou
There are many families where both parents absolutely have to work but there are many more where one parent could stay home but that would mean giving up some material things and many are too selfish to do so.

THAT'S what I'm talkin about!
And then I shout, "WHAT ABOUT 'WHAT IS BEST FOR THE KIDS'?!!!"
 
Originally Posted by Talloulou
There are many families where both parents absolutely have to work but there are many more where one parent could stay home but that would mean giving up some material things and many are too selfish to do so.

THAT'S what I'm talkin about!
And then I shout, "WHAT ABOUT 'WHAT IS BEST FOR THE KIDS'?!!!"

You guys are idolizing the 50's. Believe me, it wasn't that great. In all of history before that, women worked in the family stores, on the family farm, etc. and while they had their children with them, they didn't dedicate their entire days to them. In that brief period of time, the fifties, when men "worked" and women "didn't" (actually, women ended up with a 24/7 work schedule and were often exhausted from it), men generally paid little attention to child-rearing, so children were deprived of a father's attention. In a relationship, the one with the money has the power, so women were left powerless, men felt because they were the wage-earners, they were entitled to a maid/cook/nanny,etc. at home. Women generally had less education, so for financial reasons they were stuck in the relationship. Today, women not only want the socialization that comes from the job, they want to make use of their expensive educations, and for many careers, it is not practical to take off for a few years. The kids are not necessarily the losers because of this, they are generally getting MORE attention from Dads and they are generally getting as much attention from Moms as they did historically.
 
You guys are idolizing the 50's. Believe me, it wasn't that great. In all of history before that, women worked in the family stores, on the family farm, etc. and while they had their children with them, they didn't dedicate their entire days to them.
Stay at home moms work as well. I "stay at home" and my number one priority is my kids but I also am in charge of everything that needs to be done around the house and I do paperwork for my husband's company as well.

In that brief period of time, the fifties, when men "worked" and women "didn't" (actually, women ended up with a 24/7 work schedule and were often exhausted from it), men generally paid little attention to child-rearing, so children were deprived of a father's attention.

Well today millions of children are being raised without any attention from their biological father. I'm absolutely certain that having a father who eats dinner with you everynight is better than having no clue as to where in the world your father is let alone having any idea about who he is. And futhermore there is no way in hell that a woman who works 40 hours a week spent as much time with her toddlers as the mom who stayed home with the toddlers.


In a relationship, the one with the money has the power, so women were left powerless, men felt because they were the wage-earners, they were entitled to a maid/cook/nanny,etc. at home. Women generally had less education, so for financial reasons they were stuck in the relationship. Today, women not only want the socialization that comes from the job, they want to make use of their expensive educations, and for many careers, it is not practical to take off for a few years. The kids are not necessarily the losers because of this, they are generally getting MORE attention from Dads and they are generally getting as much attention from Moms as they did historically.

First off, I agree many women were stuck in bad marriages back in the day when women didn't work outside the family home and weren't educated. However that does not mean that the institution of marriage isn't favorable for children. That doesn't mean that fathers are unnecessary. Far too many women today view their independence as a sign that fathers are altogether unnecessary. The rates of children being born out of wedlock rise even as teen pregnancy rates fall. Women before were stuck in homes that were less than ideal. Now women are "opting" to purposefully put their children in homes that are less than ideal.

And there is no way that the increasing number of children who have no idea where their dad is, or the children who haven't talked to their dad in over a year, or the children who were never told who their dad is are spending more "quality" time with their dad's.
 
Woah OKgrannie! You are batting 53%! What I really think is Interesting is that you have been thanked 61 times in 116 posts.
 
Originally Posted by OKgrannie
You guys are idolizing the 50's. Believe me, it wasn't that great. In all of history before that, women worked in the family stores, on the family farm, etc. and while they had their children with them, they didn't dedicate their entire days to them

No. Not the 50's. Leave it to Beaver was not real in any sense. I idolize all the women in history who INCLUDE their children in their day, whatever that day includes. Talloulou surely does this. I have friends that do, one guys wife runs their business and includes the kids all day in projects and chores and helping with the gardening. So, yes, they did dedicate their entire day to them.

Back in the day, in tribal cultures, kids are included in all aspects of the day. Their are rituals that indicate that children are evolving into adults. Today, in our culture there is nothing like this. Today's Western Society is bland and does not treat children well. I think that parents are not so selfish as they are lost and unaware.
 
No. Not the 50's. Leave it to Beaver was not real in any sense. I idolize all the women in history who INCLUDE their children in their day, whatever that day includes. Talloulou surely does this. I have friends that do, one guys wife runs their business and includes the kids all day in projects and chores and helping with the gardening. So, yes, they did dedicate their entire day to them.

Please note that including children in your day and packing them along with you does not guarantee that one is paying more attention to them. Sometimes children get more attention from adults in daycare where activities are planned for the children's benefit.

Back in the day, in tribal cultures, kids are included in all aspects of the day. Their are rituals that indicate that children are evolving into adults. Today, in our culture there is nothing like this. Today's Western Society is bland and does not treat children well. I think that parents are not so selfish as they are lost and unaware.

In those times, kids learned what they needed to make their way in life by watching and working along with their parents. They participated in the work at the level where they could contribute. Except for housework and other household upkeep chores, that is not possible today. I believe that smaller families and making sure every child is wanted will guarantee that children are treated BETTER.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom