people who call me a no life on cod when the are max prestige and full level and participated in a championship I am only prestige 2 have the season pass and have a couple of custom packs and never been in a championship as I don't have the time for those
First off let me just say that I am sorry for taking so long to get back to you on this question you raised.
It has been a very interesting time since my last post.
Anyway to get on with answering your question, I do strongly advocated gender norms, and here's why.
For one reason, my upbringing has had a lot to do with that.
I was raised in the house with very traditional values and as an adult I adhere to said values.
The second reason being, is that I have seen proof that children do need both a male figure and a female figure in their lives, in order to have healthy relationships with the opposite sex as an adult.
For example, a man's first relationship with a woman is with his mother, and that sets the precipice as to how his relationships with women will be in the future.
It's with his mom that he learns the basics on how to interact with women, and what a loving relationship with a woman is supposed to be like.
Psychological research has actually proven that men who have dysfunctional relationships with their mom oftentimes will have difficulty in having successful relationships with women in their adult life.
That being said, that's why it is crucial for the mom to set a good example in being a mother, for if she treats her child in a cold or abusive manner, instead of being loving and nurturing, the child's relationship with women in the future will suffer.
Also, he needs to be given a good example of how a man treats the woman he claims to love.
And that's where the father comes in, and the example that the father sets by how he treats his wife, will also have a strong bearing on how he, the child in question, treats his future wife as an adult.
If a man is abusive toward the woman that he claims to love, the child may very well grow up thinking that that's how love is shown.
And these same basic social dynamics apply to girls as well, when it comes to having successful relationships with men in her adult life.
Now I realize that the things that I have said here fly directly in the face of "progressive thinking!"
But that doesn't mean that it will ever become invalid, because this acknowledges the basic mental and emotional makeup of ALL human beings.
This is the way nature has made human beings, and no matter how human beings might try conquer or manipulate nature, nature always wins.
Now in one of your posts, you said that you agree with certain points that I made.
Which points in particular did you agree with?
Just curious!
The problem with tolerance, and not that tolerance is a bad thing in itself, but if carried to an extreme, people lose their moral guideline… mores. In order to have a successful society, you need to have strong moral guidlInes and rules that people live by. And the way people traditionally received those was through the family unit.
Boys need their Fathers in order to teach them how to be Men, and to learn what it means to be a Man. And Girls need their Mothers to teach them how to be Women, and to learn what it means to be a Woman
These parts in special have intrigued me, would you mind explaining it further?
enter link description here
What pisses me off is that the young man here, Cody, that stepped in and defended the blind kid, was kicked o… moreff the school's football team and suspended for his actions. This is something that really irritates me, the school decides to punish the hero for doing what clearly no one else had the fucking balls to do, knock some sense into the asshole who thought it was okay to bully a blind kid like that. Cody did the right thing here, no question about it.
And another thing, shame on all those just standing by and watching as this shit happens, letting this punk harass a blind kid like that, all of them, along with the bully, deserve to be punished, not Cody.
For one reason, my upbringing has had a lot to do with that. I was raised in the house with very traditional values and as an adult I adhere to said values.
What a worthless argument. "I was told it, so I believe it and practice it." If you're parents would have told you killing people was perfectly acceptable, would you be a mass murderer? Would you accept murder as morally acceptable? Of course you wouldn't....
As for the rest of your argument: is it the typical mother attributes that make the child function well, or is it good parenting in general? I'd love to see thee articles.
First off let me just say that I am sorry for taking so long to get back to you on this question you raised.
It has been a very interesting… more time since my last post.
Anyway to get on with answering your question, I do strongly advocated gender norms, and here's why.
For one reason, my upbringing has had a lot to do with that.
I was raised in the house with very traditional values and as an adult I adhere to said values.
The second reason being, is that I have seen proof that children do need both a male figure and a female figure in their lives, in order to have healthy relationships with the opposite sex as an adult.
For example, a man's first relationship with a woman is with his mother, and that sets the precipice as to how his relationships with women will be in the future.
It's with his mom that he learns the basics on how to interact with women, and what a loving relationship with a woman is supposed to be like.
Psycholo… [view original content]
I was explaining why I support gender norms. when I mentioned about my upbringing, I was being honest.
The way I see it if somebody ask me a question, it's not much of an answer if I just start lying about why I feel the way I feel on certain matters.
Secondly, I have done lots of research on the subject, and the second half of my answer is when I gain from reading a psychological studies.
For one reason, my upbringing has had a lot to do with that. I was raised in the house with very traditional values and as an adult I adhere… more to said values.
What a worthless argument. "I was told it, so I believe it and practice it." If you're parents would have told you killing people was perfectly acceptable, would you be a mass murderer? Would you accept murder as morally acceptable? Of course you wouldn't....
As for the rest of your argument: is it the typical mother attributes that make the child function well, or is it good parenting in general? I'd love to see thee articles.
I was explaining why I support gender norms. when I mentioned about my upbringing, I was being honest.
The way I see it if somebody ask me… more a question, it's not much of an answer if I just start lying about why I feel the way I feel on certain matters.
Secondly, I have done lots of research on the subject, and the second half of my answer is when I gain from reading a psychological studies.
College. I's more of a business rather than something that is supposed to help people get into the field that they want to get into. It's screwed up even besides that.
College. I's more of a business rather than something that is supposed to help people get into the field that they want to get into. It's screwed up even besides that.
enter link description here
What pisses me off is that the young man here, Cody, that stepped in and defended the blind kid, was kicked o… moreff the school's football team and suspended for his actions. This is something that really irritates me, the school decides to punish the hero for doing what clearly no one else had the fucking balls to do, knock some sense into the asshole who thought it was okay to bully a blind kid like that. Cody did the right thing here, no question about it.
And another thing, shame on all those just standing by and watching as this shit happens, letting this punk harass a blind kid like that, all of them, along with the bully, deserve to be punished, not Cody.
I'm a bit late to the party, but my experience in school has been that if you resort to physical violence, even in self-defense or something like this, you are considered as just as accountable as the aggressor. The School system believes that if another students punches you, you should run away screaming like a bitch for a teacher. They think that absolutely no bullying will result from that. If you fight back, they will justify your punishment with "You swung back ;therefore, you are just as responsible."
That..was actually a bit of venting on my part. In this case in particular, Cody was punished for using physical force to stop it. The system believes the correct way to handle the situation would've been to find a teacher. If the closest teacher around is a 60 year-old, 4 foot 8 woman, by God, you better hope that old bag has the strength of Hercules!
enter link description here
What pisses me off is that the young man here, Cody, that stepped in and defended the blind kid, was kicked o… moreff the school's football team and suspended for his actions. This is something that really irritates me, the school decides to punish the hero for doing what clearly no one else had the fucking balls to do, knock some sense into the asshole who thought it was okay to bully a blind kid like that. Cody did the right thing here, no question about it.
And another thing, shame on all those just standing by and watching as this shit happens, letting this punk harass a blind kid like that, all of them, along with the bully, deserve to be punished, not Cody.
I encountered the same situation when I gave my personal tormentor a concussion in high school. It was self-defense, but the principal (and police) didn't want to hear it. Thankfully one or two votes on the school board kept me from getting expelled and the kid's mother refused to press charges.
I'm a bit late to the party, but my experience in school has been that if you resort to physical violence, even in self-defense or something… more like this, you are considered as just as accountable as the aggressor. The School system believes that if another students punches you, you should run away screaming like a bitch for a teacher. They think that absolutely no bullying will result from that. If you fight back, they will justify your punishment with "You swung back ;therefore, you are just as responsible."
That..was actually a bit of venting on my part. In this case in particular, Cody was punished for using physical force to stop it. The system believes the correct way to handle the situation would've been to find a teacher. If the closest teacher around is a 60 year-old, 4 foot 8 woman, by God, you better hope that old bag has the strength of Hercules!
Hmm, I would gladly read an article that supports your claim that ''children need both a male figure and a female figure in their lives'', if you have any, feel free to share it. I couldn't disagree more though. Actually, studies have proven that children raised by gay couples might be even happier and healthier, you can read it right here. I'll even quote the explanation to you!
''Dr Crouch said same-sex couples faced less pressure to fulfil traditional gender roles, which led to a more harmonious households. Previous research has suggested that parenting roles and work roles, and home roles within same-sex parenting families are more equitably distributed when compared to heterosexual families. So what this means is that people take on roles that are suited to their skill sets rather than falling into those gender stereotypes, which is mum staying home and looking after the kids and dad going out to earn money."
So I don't see how children need both a male and female figures in order to be happy and to have successful relationships in the future, since kids raised by homosexuals might be even happier than kids raised by heterosexuals. Is it important for children to have good guiding parents? Yes, I believe so. But I strongly disagree with gender norms.
And here's more explanation about how forcing kids to stick to gender roles is harmful to them. Here's the link if you wanna read the whole article. Let me quote some parts to you!
''this constant effort to manage one’s everyday life in line with gender norms produces significant anxiety, insecurity, stress and low self-esteem for both boys and girls, and both for ‘popular’ young people and those who have lower status in school.”
''Sociologists agree that children “learn gender” from being subjected to society’s expectations, even though pressuring kids to conform to those rigid roles can end up having serious mental health consequences for the children whose parents try to over-correct their behavior.''
Oh, and I agreed in special with items 1 and 3 from your previous comment. But as you can see, I fully disagree with your statement regarding children being raised with gender stereotypes. All kids should be raised by good guiding parents, someone who can look after them and teach them what it means to respect everyone.
First off let me just say that I am sorry for taking so long to get back to you on this question you raised.
It has been a very interesting… more time since my last post.
Anyway to get on with answering your question, I do strongly advocated gender norms, and here's why.
For one reason, my upbringing has had a lot to do with that.
I was raised in the house with very traditional values and as an adult I adhere to said values.
The second reason being, is that I have seen proof that children do need both a male figure and a female figure in their lives, in order to have healthy relationships with the opposite sex as an adult.
For example, a man's first relationship with a woman is with his mother, and that sets the precipice as to how his relationships with women will be in the future.
It's with his mom that he learns the basics on how to interact with women, and what a loving relationship with a woman is supposed to be like.
Psycholo… [view original content]
I'm going to have a look for these studies. I'm usually against gender norms, but I think it's quite possible for this to have some basis. After all, for a lot of animal species, the female is usually the one nurturing the newborns.
Also, what do you think about cases where one parent has died? Do you think it's necessary to find another figure to fill that space?
I was explaining why I support gender norms. when I mentioned about my upbringing, I was being honest.
The way I see it if somebody ask me… more a question, it's not much of an answer if I just start lying about why I feel the way I feel on certain matters.
Secondly, I have done lots of research on the subject, and the second half of my answer is when I gain from reading a psychological studies.
The problem is that we teach people not to take action on injustice. We're expected to just turn to this blanket system that doesn't recognize right and wrong. We're expected to do what the law says, instead of what's right. We need to start rewarding selflessness if we want it to exist.
enter link description here
What pisses me off is that the young man here, Cody, that stepped in and defended the blind kid, was kicked o… moreff the school's football team and suspended for his actions. This is something that really irritates me, the school decides to punish the hero for doing what clearly no one else had the fucking balls to do, knock some sense into the asshole who thought it was okay to bully a blind kid like that. Cody did the right thing here, no question about it.
And another thing, shame on all those just standing by and watching as this shit happens, letting this punk harass a blind kid like that, all of them, along with the bully, deserve to be punished, not Cody.
You raise a good question! The loss of a spouse is one of the hardest things that a man or woman can endure. Thus I would never tell a woman who is a widow, or a widowed man, on what to do about their loss, as it would not be my place. That is strictly a decision that only that person can and has the right to make.
However in my personal opinion, I would think that it would be a sound thing to do. Raising a child alone is no easy task, just ask any single parent out there! And as I stated before I do believe that a child needs both parents and its life.
Now that is not to say that people who are single parents fail at raising their children, and I'm certainly not in any way trying to put down single parents.
Far from it!
But I do firmly believe that it works better when a child has both a mother and a father.
Again, I must say that you've raised a very good question. Kudos! Because on the one hand I do believe in what I am saying, that a child both needs and deserves to have its mom, and dad in its life.
On the other hand, I don't have the right to state what a person should do, who has lost their spouse.
Nor would I ever want to presume to have that right!
Now I'm not trying to sound wishy-washy!
I'm just merely stating a dilemma.
Before you answer this, I ask that you allow me the chance to find something that you can read that will support what I am saying.
Starting from the time you read this response, give me 24 hrs to do so.
Thank you!
I'm going to have a look for these studies. I'm usually against gender norms, but I think it's quite possible for this to have some basis. A… morefter all, for a lot of animal species, the female is usually the one nurturing the newborns.
Also, what do you think about cases where one parent has died? Do you think it's necessary to find another figure to fill that space?
First off let me just say that I am sorry for taking so long to get back to you on this question you raised.
It has been a very interesting… more time since my last post.
Anyway to get on with answering your question, I do strongly advocated gender norms, and here's why.
For one reason, my upbringing has had a lot to do with that.
I was raised in the house with very traditional values and as an adult I adhere to said values.
The second reason being, is that I have seen proof that children do need both a male figure and a female figure in their lives, in order to have healthy relationships with the opposite sex as an adult.
For example, a man's first relationship with a woman is with his mother, and that sets the precipice as to how his relationships with women will be in the future.
It's with his mom that he learns the basics on how to interact with women, and what a loving relationship with a woman is supposed to be like.
Psycholo… [view original content]
That's insane! What ever happened to extraordinary circumstances? The guy deserved way worse than what he got.
Oh, and what a hard moth… moreerfucker that bully was, beating up on someone who can't defend themselves. Punk ass mark. Stuff like this is why my parents put me in martial arts as soon as I was old enough to go to school. The weak bullies who can't handle a real fight always go for the kids with disabilities.
One thing that truely grinds my gears; sociopaths who manage to avoid the consequences of their actions through their tainted and tarnished silver tongues.
You raise a good question! The loss of a spouse is one of the hardest things that a man or woman can endure. Thus I would never tell a woman… more who is a widow, or a widowed man, on what to do about their loss, as it would not be my place. That is strictly a decision that only that person can and has the right to make.
However in my personal opinion, I would think that it would be a sound thing to do. Raising a child alone is no easy task, just ask any single parent out there! And as I stated before I do believe that a child needs both parents and its life.
Now that is not to say that people who are single parents fail at raising their children, and I'm certainly not in any way trying to put down single parents.
Far from it!
But I do firmly believe that it works better when a child has both a mother and a father.
Again, I must say that you've raised a very good question. Kudos! Because on the one hand I do believe in what I am saying, th… [view original content]
Okay, I got right on answering your question.
(Let me just say that I am not trying force any type of religious beliefs on you, or anyone for that matter.
I have researched a couple of different sources on this subject, and am just sharing the results.)
Here's what the United States Conference Of Catholic Bishops had to say.
"Why Children Need Married Parents
As of 2004, 68% of children lived with two married parents. ("Family Structure and Children's Living Arrangements," Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, http://childstats.gov/amchildren05/pop6.asp)In 2004, 23% of children lived with only their mothers, 5% lived with only their fathers, and 4% lived with neither of their parents. (Family Structure...)Only 45% of all teenage children live with their married biological parents. ("The Positive Effects of Marriage: A Book of Charts," Patrick Fagan, www.heritage.org/Research /Features/Marriage/index.cfm)Children in single-parent families comprise 27% of all American children, yet they account for 62% of all poor children. ("The Positive Effects...")The three most significant reasons children are raised without their married mother and father are unwed pregnancy, cohabitation, and divorce. ("The State of Our Unions: The Social Health of Marriage in America 2006," David Popenoe and Barbara Whitehead, National Marriage Project, http://marriage.rutgers.edu print version p.33)Social Science on the Benefits that Marriage Provides to ChildrenChildren raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to be physically or sexually abused, less likely to use drugs or alcohol and to commit delinquent behaviors, have a decreased risk of divorcing when they get married, are less likely to become pregnant/impregnate someone as a teenager, and are less likely to be raised in poverty. ("Why Marriage Matters: 26 Conclusions from the Social Sciences," Bradford Wilcox, Institute for American Values, www.americanvalues.org/html/r-wmm.html)Children receive gender specific support from having a mother and a father. Research shows that particular roles of mothers (e.g., to nurture) and fathers (e.g., to discipline), as well as complex biologically rooted interactions, are important for the development of boys and girls. ("Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles," 2006, www.princetonprinciples.org)A child living with a single mother is 14 times more likely to suffer serious physical abuse than is a child living with married biological parents. A child whose mother cohabits with a man other than the child's father is 33 times more likely to suffer serious physical child abuse. ("The Positive Effects...")In married families, about 1/3 of adolescents are sexually active. However, for teenagers in stepfamilies, cohabiting households, divorced families, and those with single unwed parents, the percentage rises above 1/2. ("The Positive Effects...")Growing up outside an intact marriage increases the chance that children themselves will divorce or become unwed parents. ("26 Conclusions..." and "Marriage and the Public Good...") * Children of divorce experience lasting tension as a result of the increasing differences in their parents' values and ideas. At a young age they must make mature decisions regarding their beliefs and values. Children of so called "good divorces" fared worse emotionally than children who grew up in an unhappy but "low-conflict'"marriage. ("Ten Findings from a National Study on the Moral and Spiritual Lives of Children of Divorce," Elizabeth Marquardt, www.betweentwoworlds.org)."
Here's what the website Discussingmarriage.org had to say.
"Making the Case:
The Argument from Child Welfare
Do children fare better when raised by their biological parents?
Children are morally entitled to be raised by their biological father and mother, whenever possible. The Argument from Child Welfare presents empirical evidence that this moral entitlement is reflected in the measurable well-being of children.Social science research has demonstrated that children tend to thrive best when raised by their biological parents, and that mothers and fathers therefore each contribute something unique and valuable to the parenting enterprise. Children raised by their mother and father have a better chance of being prosperous, healthy and well-educated in adulthood. Man-woman marriage policies enshrine this arrangement as a social ideal worth pursuing, while same-sex marriage undermines this ideal altogether.Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on pinterest_shareShare on wordpressShare on bloggerShare on google_plusone_share108Share this article:
Introduction
The Argument from Parental Ideal makes the case that children are morally entitled to be born to and raised by their biological father and mother, whenever this is possible. The Argument from Child Welfare presents empirical evidence that this moral entitlement is reflected in the measurable well-being of children. Not only are children morally entitled to be raised by their biological father and mother, but social science research has demonstrated that they tend to thrive best in that environment. Thus, we are no longer talking only about philosophical rights and moral entitlements, because the material, psychological, emotional, and social welfare of children may be at stake in the marriage debate.
The Advantages of Biological Parenting
Research has thoroughly demonstrated that children raised by their biological parents in a stable, intact home usually have distinct advantages when compared with children raised by adoptive parents, step-parents, divorced parents, cohabiting parents, or other parental arrangements. This conclusion has been consistently replicated by social scientists for the past 3-4 decades.1 A non-partisan research foundation called Child Trends recently published their survey of the research, which were that “it is not simply the presence of two parents … but the presence of two biological parents that seems to support children’s development.” That is, children don’t just need any two parents, they need their parents. They continue:[R]esearch clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes than do children in intact families headed by two biological parents.2Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur of Princeton University have concluded, based on their longitudinal studies of 20,000 children, that “[c]hildren who grow up in a household with only one biological parent are worse off, on average, than children who grow up in a household with both of their biological parents … regardless of whether the resident parent remarries.”3 This research demonstrates that it is the child’s relationship to their biological parents that matters — not just that they have two parents. After surveying the existing research on the issue, the Center for Law and Social Policy concluded that:Research indicates that, on average, children who grow up in families with both their biological parents in a low-conflict marriage are better off in a number of ways than children who grow up in single-, step- or cohabiting-parent households. Compared to children who are raised by their married parents, children in other family types are more likely to achieve lower levels of education, to become teen parents, and to experience health, behavior, and mental health problems.4The Brookings Institution, the Woodrow Wilson School of Pubic and International Affairs at Princeton University, and the Institute for American Values, have each surveyed the existing research and have arrived at the same conclusion.5
Same-sex Marriage and the Biological Ideal
There is not a lot of quality research that directly compares the outcomes of children raised by same-sex parents with other children (we will discuss this in depth in the Objection from Research [Coming Soon]). However, on the face of it, same-sex couples cannot be the natural biological parents of their children. Same-sex parents must always be either a blended family or an adoptive family (or produced using assistive reproductive technologies such as in-vitro fertilization or surrogate motherhood). All of these ultimately deprive children of their biological father or mother (or both), and thus we would not expect these arrangements to be equivalent to the biological ideal.In the Argument from Parental Ideal, we argued that because of the intrinsic connection between marriage and parenting, marriage policies designate what the law will treat as the ideal parental unit. Therefore, formalizing same-sex marriage treats same-sex couples as an equally ideal parental unit in the eyes of the law. Because a same-sex couple cannot be the natural, biological parents of their children, formalizing same-sex marriage will signal that biological parenthood is no longer the ideal. It signals that children do not need their biological father or mother, and that motherhood and fatherhood are each dispensable.Because public policy influences the behaviors of real people in the real world, weakening the ideal of biological parenthood will almost inevitably lead to fewer children being raised by their biological parents. In the Argument from Marital Norms, we argued that formalizing same-sex marriage would erode marital norms (such as permanence and fidelity), since the revisionist view of marriage provides no strong reason for them to be essential expectations of marriage couples, rather than matters of personal preference. More potently, dismantling biological parenting as the ideal actively negates the idea that children needtheir fathers or mothers, and would therefore erode the expectation that fathers and mothers marry before having children, or that they stay with their spouses and children and fulfill their vital family duties even when times get rough. If redefining marriage really does lead to more divorce and fewer children born into stable marriages, the material and psychological of children — far beyond those raised by same-sex couples — may be jeopardized.We are not saying that same-sex couples cannot be good parents to their children any more than we are saying that adoptive parents or single mothers cannot be good parents. Children can be — and often are — well-raised by people who are not their biological father and mother (and often for good reasons), and this includes same-sex couples. The argument here is not related to any parents’ abilities as a caregiver, and is in fact completely unrelated to the outcomes of children raised by same-sex couples (when compared with other adoptive parents). Instead, the argument is that a child’s biological father and mother each contribute something valuable and are ultimately irreplaceable in their role as parents, and that formalizing same-sex marriage actively negates this ideal.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the Argument from Children makes an empirical case that biological parenthood matters in more than just abstract, philosophical ways. Formalizing same-sex marriage will change what we treat as the ideal, and undermining the ideal of biological parenting will lead to fewer children raised by their biological parents. This will demonstrably harm children, as children raised by their own mother and father have a better chance of being prosperous, healthy and well-educated in adulthood."
Here's an article from the Huffington post.
"Children raised by single mothers are more likely to fare worse on a number of dimensions, including their school achievement, their social and emotional development, their health and their success in the labor market. They are at greater risk of parental abuse and neglect (especially from live-in boyfriends who are not their biological fathers), more likely to become teen parents and less likely to graduate from high school or college.[i] Not all children raised in single parent families suffer these adverse outcomes; it is simply that the risks are greater for them. Why are the children of divorced or unwed parents at greater risk of experiencing poor outcomes? There are a number of possibilities.One possibility is that children in two parent families do better because of the increased resources available to them. Single parents only have one income coming into the house. On top of that, single parents often have to spend a greater proportion of their income on child care because they do not have a co-parent to stay home with the child while they work. Even beyond having more income, two parents also have more time to spend with the child. A recent study by Richard Reeves and Kimberly Howard finds that parenting skills vary across demographic groups and that forty-four percent of single mothers fall into the weakest category and only 3 percent in the strongest category.The weak parenting skills found among single parents in the study may be related not only to the lack of a second parent, but to a lack of income and education as well. Education, in particular, stands out as the most critical factor in explaining poor parenting. But it is not clear that we should look at these variables in isolation from one another. In real life, compared to married parents, single parents tend to be poorer (because there is not a second earner in the family) and less well-educated (in part because early childbearing interrupts or discourages education), and this is what matters for their children. Another possibility is that children born to unmarried mothers face more instability in family structure and that this instability results in worse outcomes for the child. In recent years, the focus of social science research has been less on the absence of a father and more on how family instability affects children. In fact, stable single-parent families in which a child does not experience the constant comings and goings of new boyfriends (or girlfriends) or the addition of new half siblings have begun to look like a better environment than "musical" parenthood.[ii] Lastly, any discussion of the impacts of single parenthood must take into account selection effects. Single parents may be more likely to have other traits (unrelated to their marital status) that cause their children to have worse outcomes than children raised in two-parent homes. It may not be the divorce or unwed birth that causes the problem but instead the underlying personal attributes, mental health or competencies that produce both a broken family and worse outcomes for the child. Children who end up in a single parent family as the result of the death of one parent do not have the same poor outcomes as children raised by single parents due to a divorce or out of wedlock birth. This may be because death, unlike divorce or out-of-wedlock childbearing, is more likely to be a random event, not connected to the attributes or temperaments of the parents. The lesser disadvantages for children ending up in a single parent family as the result of the death of one parent may reflect this fact and point to the importance of taking unobserved attributes, temperaments or behaviors into account when talking about the consequences of single parenthood for children."
Okay, I got right on answering your question.
(Let me just say that I am not trying force any type of religious beliefs on you, or anyone f… moreor that matter.
I have researched a couple of different sources on this subject, and am just sharing the results.)
Here's what the United States Conference Of Catholic Bishops had to say.
"Why Children Need Married Parents
As of 2004, 68% of children lived with two married parents. ("Family Structure and Children's Living Arrangements," Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, http://childstats.gov/amchildren05/pop6.asp)In 2004, 23% of children lived with only their mothers, 5% lived with only their fathers, and 4% lived with neither of their parents. (Family Structure...)Only 45% of all teenage children live with their married biological parents. ("The Positive Effects of Marriage: A Book of Charts," Patrick Fagan, www.heritage.org/Research /Features/Marriage/index.cfm)Childre… [view original content]
You should check out 'America's Heart of Darkness', it makes a surprisingly chilling/convincing case for the U.S. being run by sociopaths and other pathological individuals.
One thing that truely grinds my gears; sociopaths who manage to avoid the consequences of their actions through their tainted and tarnished silver tongues.
You should check out 'America's Heart of Darkness', it makes a surprisingly chilling/convincing case for the U.S. being run by sociopaths and other pathological individuals.
Feminazis, extreme political correctness, when people get too easily offended, people who say words when they don't even know the definitions, animal abusers, and when random spam pops up on your computer when you're trying to read or watch something.
Feminazis, extreme political correctness, when people get too easily offended, people who say words when they don't even know the definition… mores, animal abusers, and when random spam pops up on your computer when you're trying to read or watch something.
Comments
people who call me a no life on cod when the are max prestige and full level and participated in a championship I am only prestige 2 have the season pass and have a couple of custom packs and never been in a championship as I don't have the time for those
First off let me just say that I am sorry for taking so long to get back to you on this question you raised.
It has been a very interesting time since my last post.
Anyway to get on with answering your question, I do strongly advocated gender norms, and here's why.
For one reason, my upbringing has had a lot to do with that.
I was raised in the house with very traditional values and as an adult I adhere to said values.
The second reason being, is that I have seen proof that children do need both a male figure and a female figure in their lives, in order to have healthy relationships with the opposite sex as an adult.
For example, a man's first relationship with a woman is with his mother, and that sets the precipice as to how his relationships with women will be in the future.
It's with his mom that he learns the basics on how to interact with women, and what a loving relationship with a woman is supposed to be like.
Psychological research has actually proven that men who have dysfunctional relationships with their mom oftentimes will have difficulty in having successful relationships with women in their adult life.
That being said, that's why it is crucial for the mom to set a good example in being a mother, for if she treats her child in a cold or abusive manner, instead of being loving and nurturing, the child's relationship with women in the future will suffer.
Also, he needs to be given a good example of how a man treats the woman he claims to love.
And that's where the father comes in, and the example that the father sets by how he treats his wife, will also have a strong bearing on how he, the child in question, treats his future wife as an adult.
If a man is abusive toward the woman that he claims to love, the child may very well grow up thinking that that's how love is shown.
And these same basic social dynamics apply to girls as well, when it comes to having successful relationships with men in her adult life.
Now I realize that the things that I have said here fly directly in the face of "progressive thinking!"
But that doesn't mean that it will ever become invalid, because this acknowledges the basic mental and emotional makeup of ALL human beings.
This is the way nature has made human beings, and no matter how human beings might try conquer or manipulate nature, nature always wins.
Now in one of your posts, you said that you agree with certain points that I made.
Which points in particular did you agree with?
Just curious!
Spit it out then...
lol what a pussy
i'd slap that ho and run him over if a car is available.
(referring the bully btw)
What a worthless argument. "I was told it, so I believe it and practice it." If you're parents would have told you killing people was perfectly acceptable, would you be a mass murderer? Would you accept murder as morally acceptable? Of course you wouldn't....
As for the rest of your argument: is it the typical mother attributes that make the child function well, or is it good parenting in general? I'd love to see thee articles.
loading screens, annoying advertisements, cliffhanger
Adware..
That's a bit much.
And so is hitting a blind kid.
Damn, look at that ancient browser!
I was explaining why I support gender norms. when I mentioned about my upbringing, I was being honest.
The way I see it if somebody ask me a question, it's not much of an answer if I just start lying about why I feel the way I feel on certain matters.
Secondly, I have done lots of research on the subject, and the second half of my answer is when I gain from reading a psychological studies.
I, much like Viva-La-Lee, look forward to seeing those sources.
Process for financial aid is a pain in the ass too.
I have the antidote ad block I use it and it's awesome
Unfortunately, education is a for-profit enterprise. Just like jail and war.
People
Omg, you have to watch this without bleeping though.
Best line:
"You good Austin?"
"Fucking good, Cody."
Oh God, I was right. How did I just know this took place in California...
It wasn't on the cellphone video, but the two did later make a public call for peace and reconcilliation:
I'm a bit late to the party, but my experience in school has been that if you resort to physical violence, even in self-defense or something like this, you are considered as just as accountable as the aggressor. The School system believes that if another students punches you, you should run away screaming like a bitch for a teacher. They think that absolutely no bullying will result from that. If you fight back, they will justify your punishment with "You swung back ;therefore, you are just as responsible."
That..was actually a bit of venting on my part. In this case in particular, Cody was punished for using physical force to stop it. The system believes the correct way to handle the situation would've been to find a teacher. If the closest teacher around is a 60 year-old, 4 foot 8 woman, by God, you better hope that old bag has the strength of Hercules!
I encountered the same situation when I gave my personal tormentor a concussion in high school. It was self-defense, but the principal (and police) didn't want to hear it. Thankfully one or two votes on the school board kept me from getting expelled and the kid's mother refused to press charges.
Hmm, I would gladly read an article that supports your claim that ''children need both a male figure and a female figure in their lives'', if you have any, feel free to share it. I couldn't disagree more though. Actually, studies have proven that children raised by gay couples might be even happier and healthier, you can read it right here. I'll even quote the explanation to you!
''Dr Crouch said same-sex couples faced less pressure to fulfil traditional gender roles, which led to a more harmonious households. Previous research has suggested that parenting roles and work roles, and home roles within same-sex parenting families are more equitably distributed when compared to heterosexual families. So what this means is that people take on roles that are suited to their skill sets rather than falling into those gender stereotypes, which is mum staying home and looking after the kids and dad going out to earn money."
So I don't see how children need both a male and female figures in order to be happy and to have successful relationships in the future, since kids raised by homosexuals might be even happier than kids raised by heterosexuals. Is it important for children to have good guiding parents? Yes, I believe so. But I strongly disagree with gender norms.
And here's more explanation about how forcing kids to stick to gender roles is harmful to them. Here's the link if you wanna read the whole article. Let me quote some parts to you!
''this constant effort to manage one’s everyday life in line with gender norms produces significant anxiety, insecurity, stress and low self-esteem for both boys and girls, and both for ‘popular’ young people and those who have lower status in school.”
''Sociologists agree that children “learn gender” from being subjected to society’s expectations, even though pressuring kids to conform to those rigid roles can end up having serious mental health consequences for the children whose parents try to over-correct their behavior.''
Oh, and I agreed in special with items 1 and 3 from your previous comment. But as you can see, I fully disagree with your statement regarding children being raised with gender stereotypes. All kids should be raised by good guiding parents, someone who can look after them and teach them what it means to respect everyone.
I'm going to have a look for these studies. I'm usually against gender norms, but I think it's quite possible for this to have some basis. After all, for a lot of animal species, the female is usually the one nurturing the newborns.
Also, what do you think about cases where one parent has died? Do you think it's necessary to find another figure to fill that space?
The problem is that we teach people not to take action on injustice. We're expected to just turn to this blanket system that doesn't recognize right and wrong. We're expected to do what the law says, instead of what's right. We need to start rewarding selflessness if we want it to exist.
You raise a good question! The loss of a spouse is one of the hardest things that a man or woman can endure. Thus I would never tell a woman who is a widow, or a widowed man, on what to do about their loss, as it would not be my place. That is strictly a decision that only that person can and has the right to make.
However in my personal opinion, I would think that it would be a sound thing to do. Raising a child alone is no easy task, just ask any single parent out there! And as I stated before I do believe that a child needs both parents and its life.
Now that is not to say that people who are single parents fail at raising their children, and I'm certainly not in any way trying to put down single parents.
Far from it!
But I do firmly believe that it works better when a child has both a mother and a father.
Again, I must say that you've raised a very good question. Kudos! Because on the one hand I do believe in what I am saying, that a child both needs and deserves to have its mom, and dad in its life.
On the other hand, I don't have the right to state what a person should do, who has lost their spouse.
Nor would I ever want to presume to have that right!
Now I'm not trying to sound wishy-washy!
I'm just merely stating a dilemma.
Before you answer this, I ask that you allow me the chance to find something that you can read that will support what I am saying.
Starting from the time you read this response, give me 24 hrs to do so.
Thank you!
I can see how this would work. Still, I would appreciate it if you could probably provide a source that certifies this.
In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: Amen.
One thing that truely grinds my gears; sociopaths who manage to avoid the consequences of their actions through their tainted and tarnished silver tongues.
Thanks. I think it's a reasonable theory. It's not uncommon in animals, so I think it's not unreasonable to wonder if it applies to humans too.
Okay, I got right on answering your question.
(Let me just say that I am not trying force any type of religious beliefs on you, or anyone for that matter.
I have researched a couple of different sources on this subject, and am just sharing the results.)
Here's what the United States Conference Of Catholic Bishops had to say.
"Why Children Need Married Parents
As of 2004, 68% of children lived with two married parents. ("Family Structure and Children's Living Arrangements," Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, http://childstats.gov/amchildren05/pop6.asp)In 2004, 23% of children lived with only their mothers, 5% lived with only their fathers, and 4% lived with neither of their parents. (Family Structure...)Only 45% of all teenage children live with their married biological parents. ("The Positive Effects of Marriage: A Book of Charts," Patrick Fagan, www.heritage.org/Research /Features/Marriage/index.cfm)Children in single-parent families comprise 27% of all American children, yet they account for 62% of all poor children. ("The Positive Effects...")The three most significant reasons children are raised without their married mother and father are unwed pregnancy, cohabitation, and divorce. ("The State of Our Unions: The Social Health of Marriage in America 2006," David Popenoe and Barbara Whitehead, National Marriage Project, http://marriage.rutgers.edu print version p.33)Social Science on the Benefits that Marriage Provides to ChildrenChildren raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to be physically or sexually abused, less likely to use drugs or alcohol and to commit delinquent behaviors, have a decreased risk of divorcing when they get married, are less likely to become pregnant/impregnate someone as a teenager, and are less likely to be raised in poverty. ("Why Marriage Matters: 26 Conclusions from the Social Sciences," Bradford Wilcox, Institute for American Values, www.americanvalues.org/html/r-wmm.html)Children receive gender specific support from having a mother and a father. Research shows that particular roles of mothers (e.g., to nurture) and fathers (e.g., to discipline), as well as complex biologically rooted interactions, are important for the development of boys and girls. ("Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles," 2006, www.princetonprinciples.org)A child living with a single mother is 14 times more likely to suffer serious physical abuse than is a child living with married biological parents. A child whose mother cohabits with a man other than the child's father is 33 times more likely to suffer serious physical child abuse. ("The Positive Effects...")In married families, about 1/3 of adolescents are sexually active. However, for teenagers in stepfamilies, cohabiting households, divorced families, and those with single unwed parents, the percentage rises above 1/2. ("The Positive Effects...")Growing up outside an intact marriage increases the chance that children themselves will divorce or become unwed parents. ("26 Conclusions..." and "Marriage and the Public Good...") * Children of divorce experience lasting tension as a result of the increasing differences in their parents' values and ideas. At a young age they must make mature decisions regarding their beliefs and values. Children of so called "good divorces" fared worse emotionally than children who grew up in an unhappy but "low-conflict'"marriage. ("Ten Findings from a National Study on the Moral and Spiritual Lives of Children of Divorce," Elizabeth Marquardt, www.betweentwoworlds.org)."
Here's what the website Discussingmarriage.org had to say.
"Making the Case:
The Argument from Child Welfare
Do children fare better when raised by their biological parents?
Children are morally entitled to be raised by their biological father and mother, whenever possible. The Argument from Child Welfare presents empirical evidence that this moral entitlement is reflected in the measurable well-being of children.Social science research has demonstrated that children tend to thrive best when raised by their biological parents, and that mothers and fathers therefore each contribute something unique and valuable to the parenting enterprise. Children raised by their mother and father have a better chance of being prosperous, healthy and well-educated in adulthood. Man-woman marriage policies enshrine this arrangement as a social ideal worth pursuing, while same-sex marriage undermines this ideal altogether.Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on pinterest_shareShare on wordpressShare on bloggerShare on google_plusone_share108Share this article:
Introduction
The Argument from Parental Ideal makes the case that children are morally entitled to be born to and raised by their biological father and mother, whenever this is possible. The Argument from Child Welfare presents empirical evidence that this moral entitlement is reflected in the measurable well-being of children. Not only are children morally entitled to be raised by their biological father and mother, but social science research has demonstrated that they tend to thrive best in that environment. Thus, we are no longer talking only about philosophical rights and moral entitlements, because the material, psychological, emotional, and social welfare of children may be at stake in the marriage debate.
The Advantages of Biological Parenting
Research has thoroughly demonstrated that children raised by their biological parents in a stable, intact home usually have distinct advantages when compared with children raised by adoptive parents, step-parents, divorced parents, cohabiting parents, or other parental arrangements. This conclusion has been consistently replicated by social scientists for the past 3-4 decades.1 A non-partisan research foundation called Child Trends recently published their survey of the research, which were that “it is not simply the presence of two parents … but the presence of two biological parents that seems to support children’s development.” That is, children don’t just need any two parents, they need their parents. They continue:[R]esearch clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes than do children in intact families headed by two biological parents.2Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur of Princeton University have concluded, based on their longitudinal studies of 20,000 children, that “[c]hildren who grow up in a household with only one biological parent are worse off, on average, than children who grow up in a household with both of their biological parents … regardless of whether the resident parent remarries.”3 This research demonstrates that it is the child’s relationship to their biological parents that matters — not just that they have two parents. After surveying the existing research on the issue, the Center for Law and Social Policy concluded that:Research indicates that, on average, children who grow up in families with both their biological parents in a low-conflict marriage are better off in a number of ways than children who grow up in single-, step- or cohabiting-parent households. Compared to children who are raised by their married parents, children in other family types are more likely to achieve lower levels of education, to become teen parents, and to experience health, behavior, and mental health problems.4The Brookings Institution, the Woodrow Wilson School of Pubic and International Affairs at Princeton University, and the Institute for American Values, have each surveyed the existing research and have arrived at the same conclusion.5
Same-sex Marriage and the Biological Ideal
There is not a lot of quality research that directly compares the outcomes of children raised by same-sex parents with other children (we will discuss this in depth in the Objection from Research [Coming Soon]). However, on the face of it, same-sex couples cannot be the natural biological parents of their children. Same-sex parents must always be either a blended family or an adoptive family (or produced using assistive reproductive technologies such as in-vitro fertilization or surrogate motherhood). All of these ultimately deprive children of their biological father or mother (or both), and thus we would not expect these arrangements to be equivalent to the biological ideal.In the Argument from Parental Ideal, we argued that because of the intrinsic connection between marriage and parenting, marriage policies designate what the law will treat as the ideal parental unit. Therefore, formalizing same-sex marriage treats same-sex couples as an equally ideal parental unit in the eyes of the law. Because a same-sex couple cannot be the natural, biological parents of their children, formalizing same-sex marriage will signal that biological parenthood is no longer the ideal. It signals that children do not need their biological father or mother, and that motherhood and fatherhood are each dispensable.Because public policy influences the behaviors of real people in the real world, weakening the ideal of biological parenthood will almost inevitably lead to fewer children being raised by their biological parents. In the Argument from Marital Norms, we argued that formalizing same-sex marriage would erode marital norms (such as permanence and fidelity), since the revisionist view of marriage provides no strong reason for them to be essential expectations of marriage couples, rather than matters of personal preference. More potently, dismantling biological parenting as the ideal actively negates the idea that children needtheir fathers or mothers, and would therefore erode the expectation that fathers and mothers marry before having children, or that they stay with their spouses and children and fulfill their vital family duties even when times get rough. If redefining marriage really does lead to more divorce and fewer children born into stable marriages, the material and psychological of children — far beyond those raised by same-sex couples — may be jeopardized.We are not saying that same-sex couples cannot be good parents to their children any more than we are saying that adoptive parents or single mothers cannot be good parents. Children can be — and often are — well-raised by people who are not their biological father and mother (and often for good reasons), and this includes same-sex couples. The argument here is not related to any parents’ abilities as a caregiver, and is in fact completely unrelated to the outcomes of children raised by same-sex couples (when compared with other adoptive parents). Instead, the argument is that a child’s biological father and mother each contribute something valuable and are ultimately irreplaceable in their role as parents, and that formalizing same-sex marriage actively negates this ideal.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the Argument from Children makes an empirical case that biological parenthood matters in more than just abstract, philosophical ways. Formalizing same-sex marriage will change what we treat as the ideal, and undermining the ideal of biological parenting will lead to fewer children raised by their biological parents. This will demonstrably harm children, as children raised by their own mother and father have a better chance of being prosperous, healthy and well-educated in adulthood."
Here's an article from the Huffington post.
"Children raised by single mothers are more likely to fare worse on a number of dimensions, including their school achievement, their social and emotional development, their health and their success in the labor market. They are at greater risk of parental abuse and neglect (especially from live-in boyfriends who are not their biological fathers), more likely to become teen parents and less likely to graduate from high school or college.[i] Not all children raised in single parent families suffer these adverse outcomes; it is simply that the risks are greater for them. Why are the children of divorced or unwed parents at greater risk of experiencing poor outcomes? There are a number of possibilities.One possibility is that children in two parent families do better because of the increased resources available to them. Single parents only have one income coming into the house. On top of that, single parents often have to spend a greater proportion of their income on child care because they do not have a co-parent to stay home with the child while they work. Even beyond having more income, two parents also have more time to spend with the child. A recent study by Richard Reeves and Kimberly Howard finds that parenting skills vary across demographic groups and that forty-four percent of single mothers fall into the weakest category and only 3 percent in the strongest category.The weak parenting skills found among single parents in the study may be related not only to the lack of a second parent, but to a lack of income and education as well. Education, in particular, stands out as the most critical factor in explaining poor parenting. But it is not clear that we should look at these variables in isolation from one another. In real life, compared to married parents, single parents tend to be poorer (because there is not a second earner in the family) and less well-educated (in part because early childbearing interrupts or discourages education), and this is what matters for their children. Another possibility is that children born to unmarried mothers face more instability in family structure and that this instability results in worse outcomes for the child. In recent years, the focus of social science research has been less on the absence of a father and more on how family instability affects children. In fact, stable single-parent families in which a child does not experience the constant comings and goings of new boyfriends (or girlfriends) or the addition of new half siblings have begun to look like a better environment than "musical" parenthood.[ii] Lastly, any discussion of the impacts of single parenthood must take into account selection effects. Single parents may be more likely to have other traits (unrelated to their marital status) that cause their children to have worse outcomes than children raised in two-parent homes. It may not be the divorce or unwed birth that causes the problem but instead the underlying personal attributes, mental health or competencies that produce both a broken family and worse outcomes for the child. Children who end up in a single parent family as the result of the death of one parent do not have the same poor outcomes as children raised by single parents due to a divorce or out of wedlock birth. This may be because death, unlike divorce or out-of-wedlock childbearing, is more likely to be a random event, not connected to the attributes or temperaments of the parents. The lesser disadvantages for children ending up in a single parent family as the result of the death of one parent may reflect this fact and point to the importance of taking unobserved attributes, temperaments or behaviors into account when talking about the consequences of single parenthood for children."
Interesting articles. I'm gonna look into it a bit more. It's a theory worth considering.
i hate parents always saying games rot u
You should check out 'America's Heart of Darkness', it makes a surprisingly chilling/convincing case for the U.S. being run by sociopaths and other pathological individuals.
I will have to remember that. Thanks.
I guess he didn't spit it out...
this thread. fuck you!
kappa, just kidding lol. a lot of things.
Tories.
My life
School.
Feminazis, extreme political correctness, when people get too easily offended, people who say words when they don't even know the definitions, animal abusers, and when random spam pops up on your computer when you're trying to read or watch something.
This triggered me.