Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.sex,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: raising children
From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 05:12:32 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

   OK, I'm a bit behind with my news reading since my system crashed several
days ago cutting me off from the Net...(any email sent to me probably didn't
get through, BTW...)


Lubosh <Lubosh.Hanuska@anu.edu.au> writes:
>Joe P Woodhouse, woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au writes:
>>[Joe says : kids of 1-parent families found to be more independent
>> and enterprising]
>
>Hence I don't know what Angel would think (some people don't like to
>engage in a flame war), but I suppose - yes single-parent kids are more
>enterprising.

   I see you don't talk about "independence", however...


>This is probably particularly true about boys, because they
>lack some co-operation an example of a male father, and they have to find
>their own way.

   I'm sorry?

   First - why assume that there are no adult male figures in these
childrens' lives?

   Second - why assume that that the sole parent *isn't* the father?

   Third - why assume that not having an example of a "male father"
(I didn't know there were all that many other kinds, biologically speaking)
means the kids "have to find their own way"?

   Fourth - (and perhaps most offensive) why assume this only affects
male children?


>They feel behind the
>other kids, and thus feel an urge to get on the top some other way, and
>draw the attraction of their peers.

   I'm afraid that I require a bit more than just your assertion for me
to accept this as a blanket rule.

   And as I said in my last post - if they do indeed "feel behind the other
kids", don't you think the line you are constantly pushing of "these kids
*are* less than the others" might have something to do with this?


>We all observe what ways they use -
>many times in their early teens their "enterprising" gets them into
>shoplifting, "trying" smoking and other drugs, tasting sex, etc.

   And you say this is because "the boys don't have a male father example
and so have to find their own way"?? 


>(Again I
>don't say other kids don't do it, but kids from incomplete families -
>this might be a word you wouldn't like -

   Good guess.


>these kids have a higher tendency for these things.)

   One. I don't even necessarily accept your stereotype at all.

   Two. I'm less than convinced that having a family that doesn't fit
your nice neat picture of "two parents, one woman, one man" is itself
solely & completely responsible for this.


>That's all - I just want to stand behind a
>male/female family... if somebody defends other types of families, let
>him/her have it, or live in such a family.

   That's funny. That's not what you said earlier :

>>[Angelia says]
>>But it looks as if children need two parents of
>>opposite genders to fill some basic emotional
>>and sociaslization need.
>[Lubosh says]
>Absolutely.

   So I'm afraid you're on record as going a little bit further than "if
someone else defends other types of families, let them have it".


>What if we'd try to make a
>survey among some kids with a question "What kind of parents would you
>like to have - 1. a mum and dad; 2. two mums; 3. two dads; 4. a dad and
>two mums; 5. a mum and two dads; 6. a dad and 7 mums; etc.... ?!?

   I've seen this argument before - it seriously seems like you are
saying "oh, a non-ultra-traditional family is just too *confusing* for
me, we'd better not allow them at all".

   And I'm glad to see you're not consistent - all of your arguments
against 1-parent families are in fact very good arguments *for* families
with more than 2 parents. But no! It seems that you're bigoted about
Poly issues as well...


>Some people might call be a bigot, because they have a non-traditional
>views, but I think their views of the world are not just different - they
>are ridiculous!

   Again, Thank You For Sharing That.

   20 years ago, in the US, many states had laws prohibiting inter-racial
marriage...that would make such r'ships rather non-traditional even now
in many areas. Tell me - are these people "ridiculous" too? Tell me, given
that you've shown yourself to be prejudiced on Poly grounds, same-sex
grounds, and 1-parent grounds, are you a racist in your spare time too?


>Oh, Joe, my dad was horrible, but he still is my dad and
>I love him. He was drunk every second day, but would he be a female I
>wouldn't be here to write this...

   Oh *of course*, female-female couples (or male-male either) *can't*
have children, can they? That's very interesting, especially as I know
plenty of the former and even some of the latter group too...


>>[Joe says - no male parent = much less chance of child rape and other
>> abuse]
>
>This is a problem of male adults who were raised in "problem families",

   Oh, *come on*! Plenty of women are raped or otherwise abused as
children, and somehow they seem to manage to not do the same to their own
children! This excuse just doesn't hold water for me.


>Of course the
>quantitative statistics is in favour of non-standard families - just for
>how long when some people always want to be different just for the sake
>of doing something different then their parents did?

   Are you seriously suggesting that (for example) people become sole
parents, or non-heterosexual, or Poly, just to be different to their
parents?!?


>Please note - I take into consideration that there are opinion different
>than my own.

   Please note - well-dressed hypocrisy and prejudice always leaves a
sour taste in my mouth.

Joe.

  / Joe Woodhouse        / I'm just a sweet bisexual...   / Hello, there.
 / Latrobe University   /    (think - Rocky Horror)      / Threesomes are fun.
/ Melbourne, Australia / Music. Magic. Mathematics. Me. / I like cats! (miaow!)