MrsHobieJoe wrote: 
I can't sit through his videos but for different reasons than you. But no, even with my feelers up I couldn't detect anything like what you're getting. He's just laying out the numbers, I think. I guess calling the "Welfare State" the "Single Mom State" was a little flagrant, but assuming his numbers are correct, it's pretty interesting. Unfortunately, I've never made it to the end of any of his videos. He weirds me out. Maybe I'll give this one a try tho, because I want to see how he ties it all together.

 MrsHobieJoe wrote: 
Interesting results so far.  Men seem take it one way and women seem take it another way. 100% so far.

So is it the message or the messenger ? 

What would the women say if the messenger were say, Hillary Clinton ?  Would that make any difference ?

I will be the first to admit that if it was Nancy Pelosi, I would not give it the attention that I did.  But Hillary ?  I would have to give it serious consideration and still probably feel the same way at the end.

 MrsHobieJoe wrote: 
Not this one.

 miamizsun wrote: 

bump for the late arrivers to this discussion.

I am a single mom of 2 kids, one of whom has significant disabilites.  I think in general our society, our government, our communities need to do A LOT more to support all kinds of families.

 sirdroseph wrote: 
Excellent and spot on.

 kurtster wrote: 
Check out the vid I posted in Guns, addresses this somewhat. This guy is really good, has been posting gun control vids for a couple of years or so. Don't know when the NRA discovered him, but they need to hire this dude as President he is a much better communicator than the clowns they currently have speaking for them.

 MrsHobieJoe wrote: 
You did answer a question with a question ... just saying.

But a good question as well.  I would like to see the answers to both questions.

Is it the message or the messenger ?

 kurtster wrote: 



maybe an empirical test is in order. Were any of the women here able to listen to him without feeling violent?!

 miamizsun wrote: 

That is what I took away from it.  He did not condemn anyone for their situations or realities, he just laid them out.  The only causation I took away from it was in regards to the notion of social engineering.  I have not seen anyone here condemn single parenting, just comments that it is not the best way to raise a child. 

I think he lays out a strong case of identifying the realities involved.  The first step in solving any problem is identifying it and agreeing on it. 
For those who do not see SPH as a problem, what makes it a good thing ?

 MrsHobieJoe wrote: 

i believe he addresses and acknowledges/agrees with the majority of your concerns

this guy at this point at this point in his life has dedicated a major portion of his efforts to the non-aggression principle and promoting non-violent behavior, especially against children

his body of work on peaceful parenting is quite good (and i know there's hours of interviews and podcasts and don't expect people to go back and listen unless compelled)

he is referencing a lot of data in this vid that basically says children are more likely to be "compromised" if they are in certain situations

he does acknowledge and applaud single parents who have had success and sympathizes with those who have made the effort

imho, this isn't about utopian ideals, pointing fingers at people who find themselves in a single parent situation through no fault of their own (he's dedicated major resources to help people with parenting and it's online and it's free)

it's more about a conversation to get attention and promote understanding to truly help children

that begins with recognizing the problems and putting them front and center

being a parent is a huge responsibility and it was/is the most difficult and rewarding thing i've ever done

and lord knows i made some mistakes

regards

 MrsHobieJoe wrote: 

thanx. you're spot on.

 miamizsun wrote: 



I had to stop listening as my feminist principles were suggesting violence.



We all need to try hard with our kids and that's the best we can do. We've made the effort ( sometimes with gritted teeth) to stay together mostly for the sake of the sprogs but I can honestly say that we have friends who are single mums and doing amazing jobs of raising their kids. I look at someone like Noenz who's in the process of splitting up and wonder what the authors are telling him about what he is doing and I don't like the message and I don't agree with it.



Whilst I totally agree that it's good to plan for kids and to aim to raise them in a secure family environment biology just doesn't work like that and never has.



I look back in my family history and there are plenty of kids being raised by one parent ( due to death or abandonment or good old out of wedlock births), another load born suspiciously early, there's one dad in prison, plenty of dads overseas in the navy, a bit of bigamy, loads of poverty and disease, child labour and god knows what else. It's real life, we all need to step up to the mark and make the best job of the kids in front of us rather than idealise society as we wish for it to be.

 Isabeau wrote: 
first, this guy has put forth a lot of good work on peaceful parenting (i've looked at a lot of it and i'd encourage others to look at it too)

i don't think this is an attack on women, he's simply going over some data/stats

around the four minute mark he get into caveats and speaks to absolutes

regards

 Isabeau wrote: 
As you wish.

I would just like to say that my opinions are still evolving as opposed to having made any hard and fast conclusions.  The video which started this discussion opened my eyes a little further and showed me just how much that we are imo, on the wrong track and that SPH's are not good for our society.  The numbers presented are too overwhelming for me to ignore.  Even if the percentages presented were halved, it would still be too much to say that SPH are a good thing or a better thing than a 2PH.

SPH's are here to stay, regardless of anyone's approval or disapproval.  I just conclude that the gov is encouraging them by making things easier in order to help facilitate them.

 JustineFromWyoming wrote: 
Looks like a contented baby to me.

 JrzyTmata wrote: 
He just wanted to take a little rest ... NTTAWWT.
 

ScottFromWyomingwrote:
I can't claim to know what went thru TV producers' heads, but after 3 wars chewing up fathers single mothers (at least widowed mothers) were a common enough sight that they didn't provide enough novelty to hang a TV show on. I can only think of two from the period: Julia, about a widowed black woman raising a son, and The Lucy Show (Lucille Ball's character was widowed, Vivian Vance's was divorced).

Actual single moms (divorced/never married moms) were mostly invisible in our culture back then, except as symptoms of a decaying culture on the news or preachy shows like Dragnet.

 steeler wrote: 
Single fathers = noble
Single mothers = tramps. 

Happily married, though? They have sex. Much easier to avoid the censor's razor blade if you just write that possibility out of the situation entirely. 

 kurtster wrote:
I'm afraid I have to disagree with your belief in deliberate social engineering conspiracies. I believe that women were just plain tired of being stuck in just a few roles, especially after WWII. They had had a taste of their own economic freedom taking over the jobs while the men were fighting. Bomb making, engineering, pilots... yet as soon as the men returned, the women were cast off and told to go back home and make babies.

And what of the Mothers who's Husbands did NOT return? With so many men dead, there weren't that many to fill the 'daddy' slots... yet these women and their resourcefulness managed to survive and make it through. I personally don't believe that genitalia, skin color, sexual orientation, religion or lack thereof has anything to do with the Human Spirit's need to be whatever It can aspire to. Movements, whatever they may be, mean little without a sea change whose time has come.... even the Suffragettes had to work 80 years before Women finally got the vote - years after the deaths of its founders Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Stanton.

I'm afraid you are sounding too close to some of the men of that age that thrived on absolutist and incendiary rhetoric. Its clear Kurt, you have your mind made up on these issues. I have enjoyed this, thank you, but I must gracefully decline any further discussion on the matter. 

Pax Vobiscum