• 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!

Family Values

how are family values today compared to yesterday?

  • values are higher than before

    Votes: 1 4.5%

  • values are the same

    Votes: 7 31.8%

  • values are lower than before

    Votes: 14 63.6%
  • Total voters
    22
new coup for you said:
women's liberation and civil rights were liberal movements, they were opposed by the right.

and the right-wing was always more hawkish about the coldwar.
Click to expand...

You might want to check the civil rights movement histories. Womens lib, I didn't realize anybody opposed it. Certainley troops weren't called in to stop bra burnings. Although I am sure they would have shown up....

And the result of the Cold War is what matters.
 
are you kidding? rightwing pundits today are still mad about the "collapse of the family" because of the increased independence of women

I really don't see how American society was in anyway more moral in 1950 then it is today. I think it was a sick and repulsive society built on chauvinism, racism, ignorance and violence.
 
new coup for you said:
are you kidding? rightwing pundits today are still mad about the "collapse of the family" because of the increased independence of women

I really don't see how American society was in anyway more moral in 1950 then it is today. I think it was a sick and repulsive society built on chauvinism, racism, ignorance and violence.
Click to expand...

Well I am not a huge follower of right-wing pundits, but what little I have heard, I've never heard them denigrate womens independence, i.e. "Because women have jobs, families are ruined". I suppose as a liberal you regularly follow right-wing pundits and listen to their shows? I suppose I have heard some derogatory comments towards rabid feminists, and that could be construed as being against womens independence, but if thats so, sign me up. There are simply a few women that want to replace men, in the power structure of our society, rather than be equal with them.

I don't think we were more moral in the 50's than we are now either. I agree that the chauvanism, racism and ignorance were worse back then. But it was a societal thing, not a liberal or conservative thing. Progress has been made on all those fronts by both movements. I already mentioned what I thought the one alarming trend was, and it has nothing to do with any moral superiority codes. Rather my look back to yesteryear for something that was better than now, was the adult responsibilites the youth of those days were able to take on and overcome. Something I think even my generation is incapable of, as a whole.
 
new coup for you said:
women's liberation and civil rights were liberal movements, they were opposed by the right.

and the right-wing was always more hawkish about the coldwar.
Click to expand...

Conservatives were not against the Civil Rights Movement... Racists were, get it straight. :roll:
 
new coup for you said:
are you kidding? rightwing pundits today are still mad about the "collapse of the family" because of the increased independence of women

I really don't see how American society was in anyway more moral in 1950 then it is today. I think it was a sick and repulsive society built on chauvinism, racism, ignorance and violence.
Click to expand...

I think it's bs to attempt to paint morals as liberal or conservative. It was liberals who wanted Palin back in the kitchen and it was liberals that made nasty comments about how she couldn't be VP when she had so many kids to take care of. It was also liberals who tore Palin's daughter a new asshole for having the audacity to be a pregnant teen. Both sides of the aisle are perfectly capable of shocking you with their morals. I can't even count how many times I've listened to liberals defend the cruel treatment of middle eastern women by claiming those women like being treated that way.

As to the family I think there has been a "father" problem that wasn't nearly as present in the 50s. In the 50's most kids had a dad at home, their dad. Today most kids are not living with their dad though ultimately many of them end up in some sort of step family. I am curious as to what caused the "father" issue. There was a certain amount of dishonor in the past when it came to walking out on your kids. That shame is gone today. So many men don't live with their kids today that it's fairly common to talk to a man who doesn't share a roof with his children. So common that there's no need to ask, "why?" It's not at all unusual. Some of these men are still active fathers. Many many -too many are not and nobody gives them any **** for it.

I don't know what led to the father problem. I imagine there are a wide variety of factors. But men need to get their crap together.
 
talloulou said:
I think it's bs to attempt to paint morals as liberal or conservative. It was liberals who wanted Palin back in the kitchen and it was liberals that made nasty comments about how she couldn't be VP when she had so many kids to take care of. It was also liberals who tore Palin's daughter a new asshole for having the audacity to be a pregnant teen. Both sides of the aisle are perfectly capable of shocking you with their morals. I can't even count how many times I've listened to liberals defend the cruel treatment of middle eastern women by claiming those women like being treated that way.

As to the family I think there has been a "father" problem that wasn't nearly as present in the 50s. In the 50's most kids had a dad at home, their dad. Today most kids are not living with their dad though ultimately many of them end up in some sort of step family. I am curious as to what caused the "father" issue. There was a certain amount of dishonor in the past when it came to walking out on your kids. That shame is gone today. So many men don't live with their kids today that it's fairly common to talk to a man who doesn't share a roof with his children. So common that there's no need to ask, "why?" It's not at all unusual. Some of these men are still active fathers. Many many -too many are not and nobody gives them any **** for it.

I don't know what led to the father problem. I imagine there are a wide variety of factors. But men need to get their crap together.
Click to expand...

I think that the "father" issue is as much women walking out on their marriage/husbands as it is men walking out on their family.

The difference is, that the women, for better or worse, is generally granted custody over the children instead of the father...
This makes it appear to be a "father" issue instead of simply a marriage break-up issue...

I agree that there are many horrible dads that abondon their family,
But when emotions and all that are taken into consideration, the woman
has just as much fault many times as the cause of the break-up/walk-out.
 
“No fault divorce and birth control has done so much good for ‘family values’…” – rivrrat

“No, things were not better. They're better now because of liberals.” – new coup for you

And the continual decline of the family unit is evidence of this?

Really?
 
The Baron said:
“No fault divorce and birth control has done so much good for ‘family values’…” – rivrrat

“No, things were not better. They're better now because of liberals.” – new coup for you

And the continual decline of the family unit is evidence of this?

Really?
Click to expand...

You mean people actually leaving bad relationships instead of subjecting their children to the toxic effects of being forced to remain in them? Absolutely.

You mean people actually having children when they are ready instead of being forced to have them when they are not? Without a doubt.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I think that the "father" issue is as much women walking out on their marriage/husbands as it is men walking out on their family.

The difference is, that the women, for better or worse, is generally granted custody over the children instead of the father...
This makes it appear to be a "father" issue instead of simply a marriage break-up issue...

I agree that there are many horrible dads that abondon their family,
But when emotions and all that are taken into consideration, the woman
has just as much fault many times as the cause of the break-up/walk-out.
Click to expand...

I agree. I'm sure that women being able to work and support themselves has led to a situation where women are inclined to walk away from a marriage quicker. That said though - nobody has power over whether or not a dad abandons his kids but dad. I realize the courts are more female friendly but just because maintaining a working relationship with ones child is difficult doesn't mean it's ok to just quit.

I tend to think it's a vicious cycle. We've gone through a large stretch of time where many many men were derelict in teaching their boys how to be men. These absent fathers just gave up on and abandoned their own kids. Then those fatherless men went out and had kids and had no idea how to be a father. This is a huge problem throughout our society. It's an even bigger problem in the African American community where fatherless boys are way more likely to end up in jail. A man brings something to the family -to both his sons and daughters that a woman just can't. Since many of our men today never received this I imagine some of them are at a loss when it comes to how to give it.
 
rivrrat said:
You mean people actually leaving bad relationships instead of subjecting their children to the toxic effects of being forced to remain in them? Absolutely.

You mean people actually having children when they are ready instead of being forced to have them when they are not? Without a doubt.
Click to expand...

I think people end relationships today for some stupid reasons. Second marriages tend to work out better not because the people pick better partners but because the people finally grow up enough to know their issues follow them into new relationships so they might as well get to work on working on them.
 
talloulou said:
I think people end relationships today for some stupid reasons. Second marriages tend to work out better not because the people pick better partners but because the people finally grow up enough to know their issues follow them into new relationships so they might as well get to work on working on them.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter why. Doesn't matter whose fault it is. Doesn't matter if it's because someone needed to "grow up". What matters is people getting out of relationships that do not work for them, that are detrimental to all involved - most especially the children. The why is really irrelevant, IMO.
 
talloulou said:
I agree. I'm sure that women being able to work and support themselves has led to a situation where women are inclined to walk away from a marriage quicker. That said though - nobody has power over whether or not a dad abandons his kids but dad. I realize the courts are more female friendly but just because maintaining a working relationship with ones child is difficult doesn't mean it's ok to just quit.

I tend to think it's a vicious cycle. We've gone through a large stretch of time where many many men were derelict in teaching their boys how to be men. These absent fathers just gave up on and abandoned their own kids. Then those fatherless men went out and had kids and had no idea how to be a father. This is a huge problem throughout our society. It's an even bigger problem in the African American community where fatherless boys are way more likely to end up in jail. A man brings something to the family -to both his sons and daughters that a woman just can't. Since many of our men today never received this I imagine some of them are at a loss when it comes to how to give it.
Click to expand...


Oh, I agree. Personal responsibility is on the one that leaves. A walk-out is different than differences that lead one to want to simply divorce and still see the kids. I did not mean to negate the value of mothers that must deal with this issue, or the fault of dead beat and walk-out fathers. I was just including a more dual role presentation to the issue. There are many variables that lead to these instances, and many times fathers leave/walk out simply due to the vicious/vindictive nature of the woman. Should they bail on their kids? Nope. Many don't know what to do though, since many times these guys aren't that smart, to be honest.

I wonder what percentage of walk-out dads are below the average IQ level?

Still, no excuse, just an understanding...
 
rivrrat said:
Doesn't matter why. Doesn't matter whose fault it is. Doesn't matter if it's because someone needed to "grow up". What matters is people getting out of relationships that do not work for them, that are detrimental to all involved - most especially the children. The why is really irrelevant, IMO.
Click to expand...


The why is extremely relevant if we want to see the unit be as happy and adjusted as possible...
 
WI Crippler said:
I don't think we were more moral in the 50's than we are now either. I agree that the chauvanism, racism and ignorance were worse back then. But it was a societal thing, not a liberal or conservative thing. Progress has been made on all those fronts by both movements. I already mentioned what I thought the one alarming trend was, and it has nothing to do with any moral superiority codes. Rather my look back to yesteryear for something that was better than now, was the adult responsibilites the youth of those days were able to take on and overcome. Something I think even my generation is incapable of, as a whole.
Click to expand...

Notice how progress as far as chauvanism, racism and ignorance started become a reality at around the same time people started going to church less often, women started fighting for their rights and old timey liberals had their heyday(think flower power, hippies etc.) It is my opinion that liberalism brought all these changes. I think what NCFY is talking about is that on average liberals try to change the status quo while conservatives seek to preserve a way of life. I don't think it has much to do with left or right on any particular position as far as just the role each play in the game.
 
talloulou said:
I agree. I'm sure that women being able to work and support themselves has led to a situation where women are inclined to walk away from a marriage quicker. That said though - nobody has power over whether or not a dad abandons his kids but dad. I realize the courts are more female friendly but just because maintaining a working relationship with ones child is difficult doesn't mean it's ok to just quit.

I tend to think it's a vicious cycle. We've gone through a large stretch of time where many many men were derelict in teaching their boys how to be men. These absent fathers just gave up on and abandoned their own kids. Then those fatherless men went out and had kids and had no idea how to be a father. This is a huge problem throughout our society. It's an even bigger problem in the African American community where fatherless boys are way more likely to end up in jail. A man brings something to the family -to both his sons and daughters that a woman just can't. Since many of our men today never received this I imagine some of them are at a loss when it comes to how to give it.
Click to expand...

I think you need to make a clear distinction between a dad who abandons his kids, prehaps as a result of a divorce(or sometimes not) and dads who are simply unable to live with their kids due to a divorce. When a divorce happens, its not as if dad is asked by the judge if he would like to remain living with his ex-wife and children. There is a huge difference between the two. And I have experienced both myself. I do not know, nor have I ever met my biological father(well, since I was about 18 months old I guess). I did see my step father for a while, after he and my mother got divorced.

Part of the problem with young men not knowing how to be "fathers" could certainley stem from the abandonment issues you spoke of. I think its mostly because our society is putting so much damn emphasis on empathy these days, something most men are simply short on.
 
rivrrat said:
Doesn't matter why. Doesn't matter whose fault it is. Doesn't matter if it's because someone needed to "grow up". What matters is people getting out of relationships that do not work for them, that are detrimental to all involved - most especially the children. The why is really irrelevant, IMO.
Click to expand...

I disagree entirely. Talk to folks on their second marriages. Most of them realize why the first one didn't work out. They also realize what parts they played in it not working out. Often the same issues arose in their second marriage but instead of quitting they worked on their issues so as to not go through a divorce again. Most couples are not divorcing because one of the parents is a hardened drug user, an alcoholic, or an abuser. Most are ending over stupid immature b.s. that eventually is revisited in marriage number 2 but it's dealt with more maturely the second time around.

If daddy is beating mommy then yes it's best for the kids that mom pack up and leave. But if mommy and daddy are just ill equipped at dealing with stressful times, immature, or overly selfish the kids are better off when the family stays intact vs. bringing step parents in to work on the same dang issues.
 
“You mean people actually leaving bad relationships instead of…” – rivrrat

No.

I “mean” exactly what I stated originally which are those things that support the nuclear family (dad, mom and kids) as the most fundamental unit of our culture.

Anything that weakens that is harmful.
 
family values are hard to quantify.

you can measure things like the divorce rate, but without also understanding what caused people to stay in marriages previously and what is causing them to leave them now, such information is meaningless.

divorce rates might be going up because more marriages are broken, or because more people are leaving broken marriages. how does one quantify which matters more?

this is without even trying to define family values, and we all know that there are some strong differences in opinion here.
 
FallingPianos said:
family values are hard to quantify.

you can measure things like the divorce rate, but without also understanding what caused people to stay in marriages previously and what is causing them to leave them now, such information is meaningless.

divorce rates might be going up because more marriages are broken, or because more people are leaving broken marriages. how does one quantify which matters more?

this is without even trying to define family values, and we all know that there are some strong differences in opinion here.
Click to expand...

Well what we do know without a doubt is that children in two parent homes do better in school and tend to be provided for properly whereas kids in single family homes are far more likely to live in poverty, perform poorly in school, and the boys are more likely to spend some time in jail. A child is less safe in a home with no father. No matter how women want to spin that, no matter how much they think "dads" are expendable, the statistics show that if we value children we need the dads to stick around. Thus keeping mom and dad intact is a big part of family values.
 
WI Crippler said:
You'll have to explain how conservatives are responsible for domestic enslavement, not ending the cold war, and segregation. Hell, liberals are the reason there is a "Parental Adivsory" sticker on CDs. It was Tipper Gores PMCA that started all that garbage, and there were hearings about music by the democratic lead Congress over the issue in the 80s.
Click to expand...

He also refuses to acknowledge that it was democrats who kept fighting so hard to keep segregation legal. But whatever...facts don't make for very good hysterical rants.
 
talloulou said:
Well what we do know without a doubt is that children in two parent homes do better in school and tend to be provided for properly whereas kids in single family homes are far more likely to live in poverty, perform poorly in school, and the boys are more likely to spend some time in jail. A child is less safe in a home with no father. No matter how women want to spin that, no matter how much they think "dads" are expendable, the statistics show that if we value children we need the dads to stick around. Thus keeping mom and dad intact is a big part of family values.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with the statistics, but I think there are more ways that they can be interpreted.

if your comparing children born out of wedlock to children born and raised with both parents, yes they are more likely to be poor and suffer other negative consequences. but if the dad isn't there, theres probably a reason and forcing him into the picture (aside from child support payments) wont necessarily make things better. this is one of the reasons I believe birth control is so vital.

if you are comparing children who's parents are together with children whos parents are divorced, you are also correct that the kids of divorced parents are also more likely to suffer negative consequences. but those could be caused by the circumstances that led to the divorce, rather than the divorce itself.

the more valuable comparison, would be comparing children in broken homes of parents who stay together, with children from homes where the parents divorced. the problem is that there would be so many variables to control for that it would be impossible to do such a study without a huge sample size.

obviously, it would be best if all children were born to parents who love and respect each other, and it would be best if parents never encountered circumstances where they felt like a divorce was necessary. But this never has, and never will be the reality of the situation, and forcing people to stay together will never fix it.
 
jallman said:
He also refuses to acknowledge that it was democrats who kept fighting so hard to keep segregation legal. But whatever...facts don't make for very good hysterical rants.
Click to expand...

I don't think he was talking about Democrats or Republicans but the notion of who is seeking to continue the status quo(usually conservatives) and who seeks to change things(usually liberals).
 
talloulou said:
I disagree entirely. Talk to folks on their second marriages. Most of them realize why the first one didn't work out. They also realize what parts they played in it not working out. Often the same issues arose in their second marriage but instead of quitting they worked on their issues so as to not go through a divorce again. Most couples are not divorcing because one of the parents is a hardened drug user, an alcoholic, or an abuser. Most are ending over stupid immature b.s. that eventually is revisited in marriage number 2 but it's dealt with more maturely the second time around.
Click to expand...
The people changed, as people do. They grow, they evolve, they learn. THAT is why second marriages generally work out better. I agree. However, that doesn't negate the fact that if a relationship is bad, is toxic, the people in it should get out of it. Some people just do not need to be together. Doesn't matter if it's because one of them still had some growing up to do. Doesn't matter if it's because they were selfish. (who isn't?) What matter is: Is the relationship working, or not? Are the people in the family happy, or not? If not, then either fix it, or GTFO.

If daddy is beating mommy then yes it's best for the kids that mom pack up and leave. But if mommy and daddy are just ill equipped at dealing with stressful times, immature, or overly selfish the kids are better off when the family stays intact vs. bringing step parents in to work on the same dang issues.
Click to expand...
I disagree. No kid is better off with parents who hate each other or parents who are chronically unhappy with each other, themselves, or the living situation. NO CHILD should be forced to live in a such a situation just because some self-righteous assholes think it's "better for the children" to live with both of their parents together. It is not always better for the children. If mommy and daddy are ill equipped or too immature to deal with one another, then mommy and daddy need to get the **** out of the relationship and not force their kids to suffer their poison. If they can't even deal with each other, the last thing they should be doing is trying to raise a kid together.

If getting divorced expedites the process of them "growing up", and they subsequently find another, healthier relationship... then fantastic!


The Baron said:
“You mean people actually leaving bad relationships instead of…” – rivrrat

No.

I “mean” exactly what I stated originally which are those things that support the nuclear family (dad, mom and kids) as the most fundamental unit of our culture.

Anything that weakens that is harmful.
Click to expand...

Nothing can "weaken" a family other than the family itself.
 
“you can measure things like the divorce rate, but without also understanding what caused people to stay in marriages previously and what is causing them to leave them now, such information is meaningless.” – FallingPianos

No fault divorce was first introduced to this country in 1970. Divorce rates have been going up since then until today when most marriages end in divorce.

Make divorce easy and commitment becomes a thing of the past.

There’s no mystery here.

divorce_rate.gif
 
"Nothing can "weaken" a family other than the family itself." - rivrrat

See above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom