Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Very many of us who were born in war, eras grew up without. I only had a father until shortly after WW2 began and never saw him again. Same was true for very many kids my age.
A good many of us turned out to be at least semi-decent people.
Last edited by Woodrow LI; 09-29-2014 at 04:55 PM..
If the father couldn't stand to be around the mother that he had to run away, maybe the mother is so ****ty she created a bad son......
I was lucky, my dad was to young to raise me when I was a child, so I had my grandfather and grandmother as role models and to love me. They call me their "4th" child. Now I have a good relationship with my dad now, but its more like close brothers, and friends, then it is father son.
A hell of a woman can raise a boy into a man, without a father.
The problem is most every women will tell you they can raise a boy into a man, and many think they can substitude another woman, an Uncle or a Grand father in as the equivalent of a 'good' Father. The very new experimental concept that there is minimal value in a good father is bunk. Boys and girls that have good dads know this is true.
When FDR signed the law (ADC - 1935) that became welfare, it did not apply to black women. Just white.
That's not exactly correct because you make it sound like there was some provision stating "BLACK WOMEN NOT ALLOWED". It did not specifically exclude black women, there is no mention of race, but it excluded certain OCCUPATIONS - like agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers. Those occupations were predominatly held by women and minorities so the impact was the same. But you can just as easily say it did not apply to white women.
That's not exactly correct because you make it sound like there was some provision stating "BLACK WOMEN NOT ALLOWED". It did not specifically exclude black women, there is no mention of race, but it excluded certain OCCUPATIONS - like agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers. Those occupations were predominatly held by women and minorities so the impact was the same. But you can just as easily say it did not apply to white women.
Thanks for clarifying. Strange specifications, too. Ag labor kind of makes sense, because it's seasonal. And ag workers and domestic workers don't pay into or get social security. Some of those other professions include a few men. Why would the program exclude women, since it's mostly women who raise kids alone? Was single parenthood (other than widowhood) rare back then? What about other predominantly female jobs at the time, like stenographers/secretaries? Were those jobs male-dominated back in the 20's and 30's?
I grew up without a father. Poverty. Being left out. It was all part of my life in the 1950s. But I've done well. I'm married (25 years) and have step daughters and grandchildren. But it is not often that way. Here's the truth:
The single parent family is largely the result of public policy gone terribly wrong.
When FDR signed the law (ADC - 1935) that became welfare, it did not apply to black women. Just white.
It also had a "man in the house" clause, so if a woman was living with a man, she probably didn't qualify for aid.
The Civil Rights Act (1964) corrected the White Only policy, and admitted Black women, who, because of their disadvantaged status, qualified much more often that White women.
In '68 the Man In The House rule was overturned. Now, women could live any way they chose, and still qualify for benefits because the man didn't count unless they were married.
So it became advantageous to have children, but not be married.
Sorry, but this looks like a false causal conclusion. This is very reminiscent of the way intellectuals thought in the 18th/19th centuries, though. Look up Malthus when you have time. If he were alive, he'd agree with you.
Anyway, the main assumption that this post makes (and scholars like Malthus made) is that poor people have more babies when they have more money. I don't think that the connection between those two variables is as strong as people think it is. It certainly looks that way, but I think there are other variables that have to be considered. You tend to see that birth rates are highest in developing nations. Yes, a large number of those having the most babies are poor, but I think the bigger variable is the lack of education that's common among that demographic. It has been correlated that the more educated people, women especially, in a society are, the "better" they are at family planning. In fact, birth rates and death rates follow a pretty predictable pattern in countries across the world:
1)They start about equal
2)Death rates decline with technological/medical advancements
3)Death rates stay lower, and birth rates begin to decline as the nation becomes more productive (wealthier) and the people more educated
4)Birth rates stay lower, and so death and birth rates are about equal again
Western Europe and the US went through the exact same phases, with 2 and 3 occurring sometime around the industrial revolution. The point being that women don't have babies because there's a welfare handout for which single mothers are qualified. They have babies they may not be able to afford because, ultimately, they don't have the resources to make a "better" decision.
Think about it: even if the government hands out assistance to single women with children, that doesn't change the fact that those women would have been better off remaining childless. That's because even with the assistance, children are still very costly. So, it's not like a woman increases her net worth by having a baby and getting government assistance. Single and childless she has her income minus the cost of subsistence for herself. With a baby she has her income + a supplement handout minus the cost of subsistence for herself AND the child. Not to mention all the time and attention she has give to the child, those are costs, too. That's actually the opportunity cost.
Women, even the poorer ones, know that. It seems like the poorer single women who end up mothers get that way because they couldn't/didn't know how to find a convenient way to protect themselves from pregnancy.
I don't know....I kind of think men who grow up with abusive fathers in the home as a consistent, "stable" example end up being the biggest douchebags.
Many are smart enough to rise above it. I did. But I did not have a good life.
Pinkman, Because a father is the real thing. Don't need a father figure. But a real father (or step father) makes a difference. This is basic sociology, like others said if the father is not there for the child, he has less discipline, less acountability , sometimes no consequences for poor decisions. You are correct, many men are in prison did not have father's or sadly even a mother. The just shows how important it is to be a parent that sticks around and tries to be a role model for your kid. It makes a big difference! And, of course there are exceptions, not every derelict grew up without a father, and some killers grow up with two parents!
It's an unfair assumption for us well-adjusted individuals who come from broken families. It almost sounds like you're mocking a situation that some of us had no control over. To firmly generalize no father=douchebag makes me hesitant to disclose my personal life to colleagues who share the same belief.
I stayed out of trouble growing up, currently have a good-paying job, seen and done lots of interesting things. If I get hit by a bus or something, I lived a positive, eventful life. I don't know what I missed with the absence of a father figure in the household, so there's not really anything to weigh or ponder.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
