How things have changed...

theia · Post by **theia** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:28 am

a thread about the differences between "your" then and now.

In the late 60s I found that I was pregnant and unmarried at 18, so shameful then. I "had" to get married. I couldn't wear a white dress of course, not that it mattered, the wedding was more like a funeral than a wedding.

There was a girl at school with me who had her baby and didn't get married. In a small town, this caused all manner of cruel gossip. I met her again recently and she asked me if I remembered the outcry she caused...we both found it highly amusing from today's perspective.

Post by **spot** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 10:16 am

And yet that's precisely the position right-wing advocates of the nuclear family have to return to if they're to re-establish marriage as the core value of the nation. And they pin so much on achieving it. No more riots, no more unemployed, no more foreigners, no more dead-end estates, all so long as people get married decent before they start a family and then stay married thereafter with divorce as an upper-class affectation. And why not, they ask, it's what the country had between the wars.

It's what they - right-wing advocates of the nuclear family - called Victorian Values a while ago, though how they kept a straight face when they said it puzzles me. They've not gone away. On the other hand they're dead easy to mock. You'd think they'd feel daft being so reactionary and ineffective but apparently not.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 10:36 am

theia;1369864 wrote: a thread about the differences between "your" then and now.

In the late 60s I found that I was pregnant and unmarried at 18, so shameful then. I "had" to get married. I couldn't wear a white dress of course, not that it mattered, the wedding was more like a funeral than a wedding.

There was a girl at school with me who had her baby and didn't get married. In a small town, this caused all manner of cruel gossip. I met her again recently and she asked me if I remembered the outcry she caused...we both found it highly amusing from today's perspective. Your post made me think. I can not think of one child In my family born out of wedlock ( not that I care ) except one.

My late sisters daughter had been dating D for about 2 years and really loved him although we were concerned about his dissapearing acts. She was 16 and living at home with Mum and Dad when she fell pregnant. D seemed delighted and accompanyed her to all the anti-natal classes etc. He was a little older than her at 20 years old. The Idea was they were saving for a home of their own and to marry. A date was set for the wedding and my niece L made all the plans. However, In a small village, even though D was her first and only boyfriend, the tongues wagged. We were also very suspicious that she had never met his parents especially as the wedding was being planned and he's been seeing her for two years.

Just 2 weeks before she was due to give birth, D didn't turn up to collect her for a shopping trip as planned. She waited on his call that never came. After three days, we all thought something must have happened to him so we tracked down his parents home address. My sister went to see them and to cut a long story short, It turned out D was already married with 4 children and his parents knew nothing about my niece or that a new grandchild was about to be born. Frankly, I wanted to kill him.

The heartwarming part was that D's parents Immediately went to see my niece and accepted all they were told.

D had a younger brother R, who my niece had never previously met and he was heartbroken at what D had done to her. He started to visit her every day taking her gifts for the baby and giving her money. A friendship formed.

My niece had a baby boy and the younger brother R told him when he was born... I'm going to be your Daddy'.

Two years later, my niece married R, went on to have more children and her and R have been very happily married for nearly 20 years.

The baby boy now 18 years old was always told the truth and he has a very good relationship with his biological Father.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 2:25 pm

Oscar - I'm not quite getting your point, the lad's natural father was obviously dishonest, would have been considered dishonest back then, and now. I can't imagine opinions on him and his actions would have changed over the years. :-3

I'm glad things have changed, I cringe when I think of the things my Mother used to say!

Back in the 70's Cable and Wireless here were a big employer of 'coloured people' (Mother's words lol), my home town in the 70's was incredibly white (it still is predominantly now!). The students and workers down at Porthcurno used to have Thursdays off and would all head to the nearest town, my home town to do their shopping etc on that day. My Mum would actually tell me not to go to town that day, I could go any other day, but not Thursdays!

Another thing my Mum was outspoken about was gay people, she couldn't stand them and was incredibly scathing. I don't remember who they were (I'm terrible at remembering actors) but a couple of actors back then were identified as being gay and my Mum was devastated and refused totally to watch anything of theirs again :wah:

I'm so pleased that I had a 'balanced' Dad, brother and sister otherwise I might have turned out the same!

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 3:36 pm

Betty Boop;1369887 wrote: Oscar - I'm not quite getting your point, the lad's natural father was obviously dishonest, would have been considered dishonest back then, and now. I can't imagine opinions on him and his actions would have changed over the years. :-3

I'm glad things have changed, I cringe when I think of the things my Mother used to say!

Back in the 70's Cable and Wireless here were a big employer of 'coloured people' (Mother's words lol), my home town in the 70's was incredibly white (it still is predominantly now!). The students and workers down at Porthcurno used to have Thursdays off and would all head to the nearest town, my home town to do their shopping etc on that day. My Mum would actually tell me not to go to town that day, I could go any other day, but not Thursdays!

Another thing my Mum was outspoken about was gay people, she couldn't stand them and was incredibly scathing. I don't remember who they were (I'm terrible at remembering actors) but a couple of actors back then were identified as being gay and my Mum was devastated and refused totally to watch anything of theirs again :wah:

I'm so pleased that I had a 'balanced' Dad, brother and sister otherwise I might have turned out the same! It was 20 years ago Betty and once the truth came out, friends, neighbours etc etc were outraged.

D's parents wanted to cut him out of their lives but couldn't because they had 4 other grandchildren by him. However, by today's standards, he was treated like an outcast by the families, friends, work mates etc and It took years before he was ever accepted again.

Looking back, i just think In a 20 year span, It was far more shocking back then than It would be today. You only have to watch Jeremy Vile to see that. Today, although It would still be disgraceful behaviour, I feel it would be 'more acceptable' for want of a better phrase.

WonderWendy3 · Post by **WonderWendy3** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 8:34 pm

Theia, I agree that times have changed and I think its great that you were able to talk to the other woman and to reflect on what happened in the past. I am a firm believer in doing what is right for ourselves, but I understand that has a lot to do with the era I grew up in. I got pregnant at a young age too so I can definitely relate to your experience.

theia · Post by **theia** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 11:09 pm

When I was in my teens we had neighbours whose son had Downs Syndrome. I would baby sit him if his parents wanted a night out. He was a lovely lad, lovely temperament and he liked to talk with people...he adored music and sandwich spread sandwiches His mum always ensured that he was well behaved when they went out together. Yet, on several occasions she was told that she shouldn't take "that sort of child" on local transport!

When I was pregnant and my tummy began to expand, he would touch my tummy gently and say, "Aww, lovely baby" and give me a huge hug.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:29 am

I am a boom baby, appears many on here are too.

We are the flower power, let it all hang out, if it feels good do it generation.

I remember unmarried mothers being ashamed of their condition and hiding it away.

I was married after the birth of our first child.

But does anybody think we have gone too far ?

I hanker for the days when an unmarried teen might blush when announcing a pregnancy, and not announce it with a bugle fanfare ?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:35 am

theia;1369919 wrote: When I was in my teens we had neighbours whose son had Downs Syndrome. I would baby sit him if his parents wanted a night out. He was a lovely lad, lovely temperament and he liked to talk with people...he adored music and sandwich spread sandwiches His mum always ensured that he was well behaved when they went out together. Yet, on several occasions she was told that she shouldn't take "that sort of child" on local transport!

When I was pregnant and my tummy began to expand, he would touch my tummy gently and say, "Aww, lovely baby" and give me a huge hug. My ex husbands younger brother was Downs Syndrome also.

I know exactly what you mean... I took him once to see some horses which he loved and there were other young children there. One woman asked me If he was 'safe' among other children. What utter Ignorance !!! He had to be the most gentle child there.

He couldn't say my name Julie and the closest he got was to call me 'Tally'. He was a little monkey and would wait until my Mother In Law got right to the top of the stairs with the hoover and then turn It off at the mains... full of mischief.

He had a heart attack and could not be revived at the age of 15... I still miss him and the total Innocence In the way he looked at the world.

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:37 am

Bruv;1369962 wrote: I hanker for the days when an unmarried teen might blush when announcing a pregnancy, and not announce it with a bugle fanfare ?Teens have no business getting pregnant under any circumstances, married or otherwise. Ever.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 11:09 am

spot;1369966 wrote: Teens have no business getting pregnant under any circumstances, married or otherwise. Ever.
What about 20 year old single woman ?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 11:16 am

Bruv;1369970 wrote: What about 20 year old single woman ?
Touche :wah:

eraser · Post by **eraser** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:21 pm

spot;1369966 wrote: Teens have no business getting pregnant under any circumstances, married or otherwise. Ever.

Both sets of my grandparents married in their teens. Each couple celebrated 50+ years of wedded bliss.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:42 pm

eraser;1369975 wrote: Both sets of my grandparents married in their teens. Each couple celebrated 50+ years of wedded bliss. Most of my family married In their teens and started families. They are still married.

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:55 pm

oscar;1369972 wrote: [QUOTE=Bruv]What about 20 year old single woman ?Touche :wah:[/QUOTE]You'll pardon my puzzlement oscar but I haven't the slightest idea why either Touche or wah might be appropriate there, nor even why the question was put.

Bruv, I haven't the least problem with 20 year old single women deciding to have a child. I object to the idea of either motherhood or fatherhood at a younger age on the grounds that the parent's education gets interrupted and the person still has a less than fully-formed mind. Note I didn't say brain, just mind. And do go back and read my words, I deliberately wrote of both men and women when I wrote the teen comment, as presumably given your earlier wording did you.

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:59 pm

eraser;1369975 wrote: Both sets of my grandparents married in their teens. Each couple celebrated 50+ years of wedded bliss.

That's just colonial frontier bragging. I have marriages at fourteen up my family tree but I'd not use it as a recommendation to rational behaviour in an urban 21st century setting.

theia · Post by **theia** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:31 pm

spot;1369981 wrote: You'll pardon my puzzlement oscar but I haven't the slightest idea why either Touche or wah might be appropriate there, nor even why the question was put.

Bruv, I haven't the least problem with 20 year old single women deciding to have a child. I object to the idea of either motherhood or fatherhood at a younger age on the grounds that the parent's education gets interrupted and the person still has a less than fully-formed mind. Note I didn't say brain, just mind. And do go back and read my words, I deliberately wrote of both men and women when I wrote the teen comment, as presumably given your earlier wording did you.

Could you expand on what you mean by a "fully-formed" mind?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:47 pm

spot;1369981 wrote: You'll pardon my puzzlement oscar but I haven't the slightest idea why either Touche or wah might be appropriate there, nor even why the question was put.

Bruv, I haven't the least problem with 20 year old single women deciding to have a child. I object to the idea of either motherhood or fatherhood at a younger age on the grounds that the parent's education gets interrupted and the person still has a less than fully-formed mind. Note I didn't say brain, just mind. And do go back and read my words, I deliberately wrote of both men and women when I wrote the teen comment, as presumably given your earlier wording did you.

Posted by Spot

Teens have no business getting pregnant under any circumstances, married or otherwise. Ever

Bruv then asked you what about a 20 year old.

So perhaps you could explain why a woman of 19 years 364 days Is any different to a 20 year old as Bruv pointed out.?

What changes In that one day?....

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 2:19 pm

I'm not talking about one day, I'm talking about a seven-year swathe of time, the teenage years, during which a child transforms into an adult. There are things that can only be done as a teenager. Getting distracted by parenthood takes that time away which otherwise goes into doing those teenage things. Quibbling about the day one hits twenty is like quibbling over any other nominal age at which people do things. One can't drive before a seventeenth birthday despite some people being likelier at sixteen than others at eighteen to be ready to learn to drive. The principle of not allowing children to drive is nevertheless a good one.

As to theia's question of what makes a fully-formed mind I think it's a matter of how much a person's experienced while coming to terms with physical maturity. Putting off adulthood in order to increase the range of those experiences is what I had in mind, finding enough time to fit enough of it in. Adulthood brings its own problems of responsibility. Exploring the later teenage years in a spirit of immaturity is, I think, a good thing and one which can't happen if mature considerations like bringing up a baby come into the picture.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 2:34 pm

There is a lot of twaddle and point of order going on here......as always seems to bog down some threads on here.......right got that off my chest.....now I shall rephrase my cryptic question and expand a little.

I was questioning the rise of single families, namely unmarried mothers who never marry, have no intention of marrying or sticking to one father for their off spring.

Is there something missing these days with people's moral values ?

This may I add is not meant to be a Times letter from Colonel Disgusted from Chipping Sodbury.

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 2:44 pm

Bruv;1369997 wrote: I was questioning the rise of single families, namely unmarried mothers who never marry, have no intention of marrying or sticking to one father for their off spring.

Is there something missing these days with people's moral values ?None whatever, in my experience. Marriage can be wildly corrosive, destructive and pointless to the participants and more so to the offspring. It can equally bring deep benefits to all concerned. Were I to be asked I'd recommend not risking the former in the overoptimistic certainty that a particular couple is destined for the latter. The single mother is far less at risk of corroding or destroying her children than is a catastrophic marriage.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 3:00 pm

spot;1370002 wrote: None whatever, in my experience. Marriage can be wildly corrosive, destructive and pointless to the participants and more so to the offspring. It can equally bring deep benefits to all concerned. Were I to be asked I'd recommend not risking the former in the overoptimistic certainty that a particular couple is destined for the latter. The single mother is far less at risk of corroding or destroying her children than is a catastrophic marriage.

So you don't subscribe to the old fashioned theory that children need stability and parents as role models, so that they grow into rounded adults ?

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 3:04 pm

Bruv;1370008 wrote: So you don't subscribe to the old fashioned theory that children need stability and parents as role models, so that they grow into rounded adults ?
I've always regarded that as unsubstantiated propaganda by religious bigots and reactionary conservative bullies. I've certainly met examples of rounded adults brought up by a single parent and screwed-up adults brought up by warring parents to provide instances where that theory, if it can be dignified as theory, is blatantly wrong.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 3:18 pm

Hmmmmm Well I was born in 69 so I'm a child of the 70's and a teen of the eighties. I guess I've seen the rapid change and been apart of it . My mum and dad married at the ages of sixteen and 18 and are still married (ummm 53 years ) My eldest sis arrived 5 months later .

Mum and dad were extremely strict and well all up they didn't suffer fools or any shenannigins.

In the seventies you still married the one you lost your virginity to. Both my elder sisters did .

For me in the eighties ? all that went out the window you could have sex (as long as you didn't get AIDS) abortion in society was acceptable and I had one at 16 ...no drama outside the home but in the home ....well I had to leave of course. Then fell pregnant at 18, didn't have to get married. Wasn't a drama because I had a very good mindset (hence the abortion when I was 16) not wanting to end up like others that had come before me. Having a child at 18 was easy peasy I'd been babysitting my sisters new borns since I was ten so knew what it was all about . I was never obligated to do anything was never shunned.

Government took well care of me and I returned the favour . I knew gays and rockers and hippys and every manner of personage. Never seemed to be any judgement calls .

But I can tell you it all changed in the nineties. Total flip of societal standards.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 3:20 pm

spot;1370009 wrote: I've always regarded that as unsubstantiated propaganda by religious bigots and reactionary conservative bullies. I've certainly met examples of rounded adults brought up by a single parent and screwed-up adults brought up by warring parents to provide instances where that theory, if it can be dignified as theory, is blatantly wrong.

Christ I hope my boys never see their fathers as role models. And sometimes i hope they don't see me as a role model but not for the reasons you may think.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 3:29 pm

spot;1370009 wrote: I've always regarded that as unsubstantiated propaganda by religious bigots and reactionary conservative bullies. I've certainly met examples of rounded adults brought up by a single parent and screwed-up adults brought up by warring parents to provide instances where that theory, if it can be dignified as theory, is blatantly wrong.

So you don't subscribe to the theory that there is a breakdown in social cohesion, whatever they call it, where people no longer have respect or consideration for anything other than themselves.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 3:32 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1370010 wrote:

But I can tell you it all changed in the nineties. Total flip of societal standards.

Changed ? What societal standards flipped ?

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 3:36 pm

Bruv;1370016 wrote: So you don't subscribe to the theory that there is a breakdown in social cohesion, whatever they call it, where people no longer have respect or consideration for anything other than themselves.

In some sections of society there undoubtedly is such a breakdown among a proportion of people, but I see no causality between having children outside of marriage and the breakdown you describe.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 3:46 pm

Bruv;1369997 wrote:

I was questioning the rise of single families, namely unmarried mothers who never marry, have no intention of marrying or sticking to one father for their off spring.

Is there something missing these days with people's moral values ?

This may I add is not meant to be a Times letter from Colonel Disgusted from Chipping Sodbury.

I live five miles from Chipping Sodbury and don't know of a Colonel Disgusted. However, I do know of a General Outraged from a the nearby town of Sodding Typical.

Over the years, the so called experts have blamed all manner of causes for the fact that the UK has the 2nd highest teenage pregnancy rate In Europe ranging from a breakdown of society and morals to binge drinking and the generous benefit system.

Personally I believe the benefit system has contributed. Years ago If a teenager became pregnant, the onus was entirely on her parents. There seemed to be more of a family unit 40 years ago where the pregnant teenager would be funded and cared for by the family. Knowing the onus was on their parents may, and I say, may, have deterred some young girls from getting pregnant.

Today, the state takes care of them even In some circumstances, providing child care while they persue college or work.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 3:48 pm

spot;1370019 wrote: In some sections of society there undoubtedly is such a breakdown among a proportion of people, but I see no causality between having children outside of marriage and the breakdown you describe.

Not saying that having the odd child outside of marriage as you quaintly put it as the cause, but what about the widespread acceptance of such behaviour ?

In the natural world an apparently minor change can have a domino affect, we are part of the natural scheme of things.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 3:49 pm

spot;1370019 wrote: In some sections of society there undoubtedly is such a breakdown among a proportion of people, but I see no causality between having children outside of marriage and the breakdown you describe.

Absent fathers and social breakdown go together like smoking and cancer – Telegraph Blogs

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 3:49 pm

@ bruv

Well these days there is pressure on 16 year olds to abort ......otherwise they are irrisponsible bringing a child into the world . Nothing to do with morals or such , just pure economics. (even though our teen rate of pregnancy is at an all time low)

Young women don't have the thiings I had when I became pregnant. Their children do not have all the things provided to them that my eldest son had provided for him .......You know that whole thing about "it takes a whole village to raise a child"? It's not in our society anymore . I think my eldest son was one of the last to experience total government benefits .......and before some say that just makes people lazy and breed as those before them bred and being brought up being taken care of is a dangerous thing .....My eldest son went right through high school and got his VCE. Has never been out of work since he left home . Doesn't have a string of offspring all over the place and if he did he would immediately take care of them. And feels a debt to his society and his family history and is joining the navy.....what more do you want?

These days what he government calls benefits sucks big time. Charities run the same programmes that the government used to and are overcrowded by those not in single parent situations so they real ones needing it don't even get a look in . Single parents are forced out to work when their last child turns 7 years old. We've lost a whole population of volunteers because no one is at home anymore to do these extra things that is needed in our society . I never knew any one in my position at that time in my life that didn't volunteer to keep themselves occupied .....even if it was duty at the Kinda or helping with reading at their childrens local school. It's all gone . and benefits have not kept up with the rising energy bills, and costs of living .

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 4:03 pm

Bruv;1370022 wrote: Not saying that having the odd child outside of marriage as you quaintly put it as the cause, but what about the widespread acceptance of such behaviour ?

In the natural world an apparently minor change can have a domino affect, we are part of the natural scheme of things.
I didn't say "odd", you added that. What I said was that I see no causality between having children outside of marriage and the breakdown you describe.

Oscar's propaganda piece in the Telegraph is an example of what I mentioned about religious bigots and reactionary conservative bullies, it has no scientific basis whatever, it's an attempt to impose repressive measures on the poor. If and when it's adopted it will lead to a measurable increase in deaths at which point I hope it can finally be discarded for the nonsense it is.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 4:12 pm

Ummm Bruv ...if humans were part of the natural scheme of things we'd be still leaving our babies in the desert to die .

What you call a natural scheme of things is an orchastrated attempt to keep the majority in line . Thank god we don't all adhere to it because we would not have art, the intelligensia, sport as we know it and you love, or free thinkers .

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 4:21 pm

spot;1370026 wrote: I didn't say "odd", you added that. What I said was that I see no causality between having children outside of marriage and the breakdown you describe.

Oscar's propaganda piece in the Telegraph is an example of what I mentioned about religious bigots and reactionary conservative bullies, it has no scientific basis whatever, it's an attempt to impose repressive measures on the poor. If and when it's adopted it will lead to a measurable increase in deaths at which point I hope it can finally be discarded for the nonsense it is.

Why pick up on my addition of the word ODD, added for dramatic effect, when you ignore THE point of the sentence ?

That being, the widespread acceptance of lone females of any age knocking out kids.

Why is everything down to the class struggle with you ?

An attempt to impose repressive measures on the poor my derriere !!!!!

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 4:26 pm

Bruv;1370028 wrote: An attempt to impose repressive measures on the poor my derriere !!!!!That's exactly what it is. The removal of benefits from those incapable of working by reason of bringing up preschool children regardless of whether they have support mechanisms capable of keeping them housed and heated and fed, without which I claim there will be a measurable increase in deaths and children forced into institutional care. You don't see that as in any way repressive? It's intended to scare single women off having a child and the way its meant to scare is by providing examples of destitute mothers losing their children to social services because they didn't see which way the wind had blown.

In an ideal society, marriage would be merely a sign of religious fundamentalist belief on the part of the couple concerned. Lone females of any age knocking out kids, as you put it, should be the norm. The fact that most child-raising will have a long-term involvement of the father seems to have escaped you, as has my suggestion that it would be far more likely to be civil and less likely to blight the child's life.

http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/178055 sums matters up remarkably well, given that it was written in 1971 when marriage was the anticipated standard.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 5:10 pm

spot;1370026 wrote: I didn't say "odd", you added that. What I said was that I see no causality between having children outside of marriage and the breakdown you describe.

Oscar's propaganda piece in the Telegraph is an example of what I mentioned about religious bigots and reactionary conservative bullies, it has no scientific basis whatever, it's an attempt to impose repressive measures on the poor. If and when it's adopted it will lead to a measurable increase in deaths at which point I hope it can finally be discarded for the nonsense it is.

It never ceases to amaze me that when a reasonable piece Is put forward of which disagree's with your opinions. you dismiss It out of hand as propoganda.

The net Is awash with the same findings by a variation of more qualified on the subject than you.

After all, what you are saying Is purely a notion on your part of which you have no stats or evidence to convince otherwise.

http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.u ... akdown.pdf

Experiments in Living: The Fatherless Family

There has been many studies Into the effects on children absent of Fathers... all rather more qualified than you.

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:03 pm

oscar;1370040 wrote: There has been many studies Into the effects on children absent of Fathers... all rather more qualified than you.There's a difference between claiming to be qualified, which I've not, and claiming to be able to evaluate the studies of professionals, which I would. The trouble with "you have no stats or evidence to convince otherwise" is that I've far more than I can easily summarize.

I'll tell you what. You browse quietly for a while through JOINT CUSTODY RESEARCH (to pick an example almost at random) and choose an aspect that catches your fancy and then we can dig down instead of painting such broad strokes. The chunks will be manageable on that scale. Choose a paper out of all the papers and we'll explore what it actually tells us.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:11 pm

spot;1370045 wrote: There's a difference between claiming to be qualified, which I've not, and claiming to be able to evaluate the studies of professionals, which I would. The trouble with "you have no stats or evidence to convince otherwise" is that I've far more than I can easily summarize.

I'll tell you what. You browse quietly for a while through JOINT CUSTODY RESEARCH (to pick an example almost at random) and choose an aspect that catches your fancy and then we can dig down instead of painting such broad strokes. The chunks will be manageable on that scale. Choose a paper out of all the papers and we'll explore what it actually tells us.

We are not discussing Joint Custody are we?

We are discussing the effects of the ABSENCE of a Father

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:22 pm

And ff you actually click the link you'll get past the webpage title, won't you.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:30 pm

spot;1370049 wrote: And ff you actually click the link you'll get past the webpage title, won't you. I have had a look. It's one report In many that state the opposite of many other reports, so this thread will descend Into first past the post again.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 8:05 pm

I didn't see the question of whether or not it should happen as relevant as how it should be dealt with socially if it does happen.

Lots of things happen that might have turned out better had they happened differently but "better" is subjective and assumes you know what would have happened otherwise. Fact is, no one knows what will happen to them tomorrow so make the best of what happens today.

Post by **spot** » Tue Sep 20, 2011 5:01 am

oscar;1370052 wrote: I have had a look. It's one report In many that state the opposite of many other reports, so this thread will descend Into first past the post again.

It's blatantly not one report, that's why I posted it. It's a reference index to several dozen reports all of which reflect different aspects of the problem and none of which you'd be able to agree with at all, from your biased politically-motivated perspective.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Sep 20, 2011 7:12 am

Post ww2 there were an awful lot of absent fathers come to that there were even more post ww1 yet both these are the good old days when teenagers knew their place and didn't hang around on street corners terrorising their neighbourhoods and all was for the best in the best of all possible worlds. There were fewer teenage pregnancies - there weren't actually but everybody pretended it didn't happen and the girl that so shamed her family was shipped off to a baby farm pronto and the baby given up for adoption whether she wanted to or not but since fallen women clearly couldn't be trusted with children that was all right then. Women stayed married because you couldn't get divorced unless you were rich and if your husband beat you up that was too bad because the police would not get involved in a domestic dispute and besides you needed to belt the wife every now and then. Only certain types of women went in to pubs and pubs were there so you could get totally pissed and forget the misery of a working week. Child abuse didn't exist because any child making such a claim was clearly a liar - especially if they said it was a priest. Of course there were no gangs running around with razors terrorising each other and the mods and rockers met for a friendly punch up on Brighton beach and wearing the wrong football colours didn't matter because fans never hit each other

In the sixties and seventies you had urban renewal schemes and the creation of vast council estates for young families with no thought given as to where children were going to play or go to school and retailers wouldn't open shops there because after all the people would come in to them - the very same retailers who now bleat that the out of town supermarkets that filled the vacuum are taking business away from the town centre. You also had mass unemployment and industries shutting down wholesale and a generation growing up with no jobs locally, no apprenticeships no prospects living in vast estates with nothing to do - can't even play a game of football without someone complaining about kids making a noise and they shouldn't be playing on the grass anyway. If anything poverty and despair are what lead to societal breakdown but let's blame single parents and things like the acceptance of homosexuality as symptoms of the breakdown in society.

Ed West is a journalist and social commentator who specialises in politics, religion and low culture

He's a pillock and he's wrong. Society has always been broken but it's not as broken as it used to be, it's a lot more tolerant, we no longer let people starve to death if they are poor nor do we shut them away in workhouses where their misery can be held as a warning to all to be good. Teenage girls who get pregnant are no longer regarded as feeble minded. Take a wander through the social history of the western world. anyone who thinks it hasn't improved isn't paying attention. Not saying it's perfect but that golden age when society wasn't broken somewhere never actually existed I prefer it to the current fad for pillorying as shiftless, ignorant, and a worthless underclass anyone that doesn't have a job, is a single parent, lives in a council housing scheme or god forbid, has been unemployed for a few years. A few play the benefits system but compared to the damage the bankers and politicians have done to society they are just not in the same league.

Post by **spot** » Tue Sep 20, 2011 7:20 am

My own observation is that the rise of antisocial behaviour - and it certainly has risen - parallels the rise in television viewing. I recognize I have no association other than this undeniable parallel rise but I can well believe such an association exists. The very structure of television drama, the simple notion of an artificial excited frenzy for hour after hour, would tend eventually toward a long-term ingrained antisocial reaction on the part of the viewers. The extension of that frenzy into the film and computer game industries adds to the effect.

Attempting to attribute it instead to the decline of marriage as an institution would be laughable were it not so disgusting. As gmc suggests, the norm for marriage is and always has been violent exploitation and growing disrespect between all members of the family involved. Anyone with a different story to tell is describing a minority.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Sep 20, 2011 7:54 am

spot;1370095 wrote: My own observation is that the rise of antisocial behaviour - and it certainly has risen - parallels the rise in television viewing. I recognize I have no association other than this undeniable parallel rise but I can well believe such an association exists. The very structure of television drama, the simple notion of an artificial excited frenzy for hour after hour, would tend eventually toward a long-term ingrained antisocial reaction on the part of the viewers. The extension of that frenzy into the film and computer game industries adds to the effect.

Attempting to attribute it instead to the decline of marriage as an institution would be laughable were it not so disgusting. As gmc suggests, the norm for marriage is and always has been violent exploitation and growing disrespect between all members of the family involved. Anyone with a different story to tell is describing a minority.

Actually i wasn't suggesting that was the norm merely pointing out that the illusion marriage was a lasting institution in the past was just that. Far from declining as an institution marriage is actually stronger than ever. True, one in three end in divorce and a few serial brides, like katy price, get more publicity than they deserve but that also means 2/3rds of marriages last for decades and people stay in them through thick and thin because they want to not because they have to. You just need to look at comic relief or sports relief to realise we are also a more caring society, I remember the shock live aid caused and the embarrassment to governments world wide for not caring enough about what was happening. Politicians bleat about young people not getting involved in society and politics as do tory rags like the telegraph and are then shocked when they realise the young don't want to go to war and would like people not to starve to death and yes the world we live in does matter to them. But a yobbo putting in a window with a brick makes a better front page so they can forget the vast majority are not mindless vandals, want to get married and have families and generally live a goof life and the reason church attendance in decline is they no longer want to be told how to think and who to hate. Not to worry the tories are screwing up the education system to make it all better and Tony Bliar did his bit to make religious sectarianism the centre of British life yet again so who knows things might change for the better.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Sep 20, 2011 9:26 am

I don't have any answers tbh....

As my husband reminded me, he was a war baby and suffered at the hands of a sadistic, violent Father throughout his childhood yet he didn't turn Into a criminal. The difference today Is that a leftie social worker would be pleading that background to the Magistrates for some little darling caught looting.

Again, as my husband reminded me, he joined the forces as soon as he was old enough and learnt a trade. Maybe we really do need massive youth Investment to create jobs for the youngsters. Having a job gives pride... If they have some pride, maybe some morals would return to some of the young.

Great posts by the way Auld Yin

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Sep 20, 2011 9:53 am

fuzzywuzzy;1370027 wrote: Ummm Bruv ...if humans were part of the natural scheme of things we'd be still leaving our babies in the desert to die .

What you call a natural scheme of things is an orchastrated attempt to keep the majority in line . Thank god we don't all adhere to it because we would not have art, the intelligensia, sport as we know it and you love, or free thinkers .

Of course we are part of the natural scheme of things, in fact we orchestrate the natural scheme of things more than any other natural being

Post by **spot** » Tue Sep 20, 2011 10:07 am

gmc;1370104 wrote: but that also means 2/3rds of marriages last for decades and people stay in them through thick and thinUmm. No. I think it means the 2/3rds includes a significant proportion of sunset marriages between those who die before they can get irate enough to file papers.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Sep 20, 2011 10:31 am

spot;1370029 wrote: That's exactly what it is. The removal of benefits from those incapable of working by reason of bringing up preschool children regardless of whether they have support mechanisms capable of keeping them housed and heated and fed, without which I claim there will be a measurable increase in deaths and children forced into institutional care.
You seem to be looking through the other end of the magnifying glass than me.

And all you can come up with is the REMOVAL of benefits ?

And the removal is a plot to keep us all poor ?

Benefits were meant as a safety net, something that broke your fall when you fell on hard times, they are now seen as more of a cradle, far too comfortable for many to break away.

I am NOT against the benefits system.

I know several people that couldn't sustain themselves in the manner the benefits system does, this includes many single mothers and some married ones as it happens. The benefit system is far too generous to many that know the ropes. It was once seen as a privilege gratefully received by responsible people, it has changed into a right for the militantly feckless.