Anti-Racism Commission

A better approach than tying ropes to Christopher Columbus's neck and pulling his head off. I can predict with confidence there will be no destruction of property or tear gas fired or tens of thousands of dollars of police overtime paid during the activities of this Commission, as well as no unnecessary spread of the virus due to huge gatherings.

A good way for an Academic Conference to make a difference without anyone being bullied, villified, or having their health endangered.

The destruction of the nuclear family doesn’t sit well with me.

The nuclear family was destroyed over a 200 year period, when fathers, mothers, uncles, aunts, cousins were sold down the river.

It should not have “sit well” with Fr. Mulledy and the Maryland Provence, and others in the church, when parts of families ended up in Louisiana and other states that allowed slavery.

Wonder how much the lives of the half dozen or so Black children who were shot to death this weekend matter to them vis-a-vis the non-government-affiliated Black men that shot them?

It seems counterproductive to me.   Yes, it's nice when neighbors pitch in and help out, but doesn't every statistic show that kids do better in a two parent household?   I don't understand the logic of breaking down a dynamic that gives kids the best chance to succeed in life.

“It takes a village”

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_takes_a_village

The societal construct is different from one of rugged individualism by a purely concentric nuclear family that is seen in American culture.

When one views life through only a filter that they are comfortable, a change of filter is seen as an aberration or anathema. In viewing comments on Crossports, I see that of a perspective from a monolithic view, not one of an understanding that comes by travel or true reflection of different societal constructs other than “Western”.

The reaction I am seeing is “Primordial”. The reaction ..... It has always been that way in my world, I am now exposed to another construct, and I am not use to it, therefore it is wrong.

Glad that I had Dr. Imse for several classes. He provided a path to understand coexistence within a society.

Ideally, one would want to have a Father, a Mother, both sets of grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins all within a relative close proximity. In essence a “village”.

Unfortunately our society, post WWII, moved away from families being within proximity. This is seen across all ethnic groups within the US.

It is very difficult for a single parent to raise a family, be it either mother or father. I know that I would have been “Up the creek” without my wife in raising my children.

I think that the evidence is mixed and there are a lot of factors at play (economic stability, domestic violence, frequent arguing without domestic violence, etc.)  Lots of books and journal articles have been written about this topic.  Of course, those all generalize.  Each family has its own situation.

May I assume that if you think having a father in the home produces better outcomes that you must really like families with kids being raised in a nuclear family with two dads?

I didn't read the BLM statement as saying that nuclear families are bad.  I read it to acknowledge that we have to find room to liberate all families from violence, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ageism (should matter to a class of 75 guy.) 

Having been raised by a single mom (her husband died in WWII), grandmother, and great grandmother...a "house of women."  (A neighbor did play a bit of surrogate dad role.) I saw first-hand the role of an extended family. My grandfathers and uncle stepped in and helped Mom raise me. Having two parents in the home can be a positive force. When I worked in Paterson, I saw how the welfare system forced Dads out by providing more too homes where there was no father present. It was a cause of huge negative reaction in the local community. It is not an either/or situation. Kids who feel loved and supported benefit from that. regardless of the sources of that affection.

However, the lack of support for fathers in some minority communities is troubling (to put it mildly). I wish there had been a stronger position in the mission about the role of fathers, but I don't see that as a major flaw.

That astounds me--I thought the evidence was overwhelming


Here's a website that purports to lay out some supporting data on this issue. Alas, I believe it is a conservative leaning site so the Left can dismiss it out of hand even if the data are factual

lifeisbeautiful.org/statistics-on-fatherless-homes/


I think there's also a difference between the single parent household (mother only) where the father is not there due to death ( e.g. "my Dad was a firefighter and died in the line of duty; I'm the son of a hero") and the one where the father is just absent ("my dad abandoned me--why?". That's just my speculation--no evidence to cite there.

There is a pendulum and the farther you push it to one side the more powerful the overcorrection is when it swings back. I hope we find the sweet spot in the middle soon as the worldwide pandemic is disruptive enough on it's own.

Obviously there are other factors.   A kid from a single parent rich household might have a greater chance of success than a kid from a poor two parent household.   A kid from a single parent household might be better off than a kid from a two parent household if one of the parents is abusive or has substance abuse problems

Perhaps it's more accurate to say all other things being basically equal, kids from two parent households have a better chance of success than kids from single parent households