Comments on: Non-traditional families are not good for children

By: soccer dad

soccer dad — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 18:25:22 +0000

Let’s put it this way, the stories I referred to are not about families where the mismatched last names are indicative of the wife’s professional status.

I should have been more precise.

By: Bookworm

Bookworm — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:24:09 +0000

The one thing I’d say in challenge to SD’s point is that, in my community, indeed, in my household, kids often have their father’s not their mother’s last name. Women here tend to marry and start a family late in their careers, and many opt to keep their own names for practical reasons: credit history, employment history, professional reputation, etc. When you’ve got a short history, it’s not a big deal. When you’ve got 15 years of building that history under one name, it’s quite a big deal to switch it to another.

By: soccer dad

soccer dad — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:20:54 +0000

If you pay attention to the evening news over a period of time you’ll see that the majority of missing/ kidnapped/ killed children do not have the same last name as their mothers.

It just emphasize the point that children brought up in a traditional family are the best protected (and almost certainly best loved) children.

For all the flack Dan Quayle got for his Murphy Brown speech (3 pages), there was at least one social scientist who said that he was right.
http://jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby022607.php3
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_2005_03_14.php3

By: Danny Lemieux

Danny Lemieux — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:51:50 +0000

Thank you for the positive comments, everyone. Happy Thanksgiving! There’s so much to be thankful for.

By: Allen L.

Allen L. — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 03:32:27 +0000

Scott,

Pardon my verbage ladies, any male can be a sperm donor. A man knows that the most sublime accomplishment he can achieve is to be a husband and a father.

By: Deana

Deana — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 02:08:01 +0000

P.S. When I think “feminist,” the first word that pops into my mind is not “moral.”

A feminist may very well be moral but being a feminist does not, in and of itself, make one moral.

By: Deana

Deana — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 01:44:43 +0000

Scott -

I disagree with you.

Traditional notions of femininity do NOT prevent women from making decisions in their own best interest. I can’t even begin to count the number of solid, happy marriages of people I know who are older than 75, marriages in which the husband and the wife respected each and honored each other.

I can count on one hand the number of marriages I know of people UNDER 65 who have that type of marriage. All of these are people who grew up in the 60s, 70s, and 80s in which women did everything BUT exercise traditional notions of femininity.

Please note that I’m not arguing that traditional femininity results in a solid marriage. But ditching traditional femininity definitely does NOT lead to better marriages.

Also, did you ever consider that perhaps the reason so many women do not go out and aggressively pursue a man may be rooted in biological reasons? I don’t know the answer to that - I’m just asking the question.

Deana

By: Bookworm

Bookworm — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 01:19:00 +0000

As for that, Scott, I don’t know why a man who isn’t ready to settle down and have a family should get married. In the old days, unless he liked to frequent prostitutes, which was always a dicey proposition in terms of health, wealth and reputation, marriage was the only way to get sex. Now, since that isn’t the case, I can see only two, no, make that three, reasons for men to marry: (1) because they want to raise children in the optimal two parent environment; (2) because they’ve fallen in love; (3) and because they want a help mate in terms of life management (two working people, two incomes, two people managing the household).

However, I still think society should encourage people who are going to have children to get married. Once you have children, as many of us know, it’s not about you anymore, it’s about the kids. Or, at least it should be, since they didn’t ask to be born, and I feel we owe it to them, having decided to have them, to give them the best upbringing we can — and that means a stable marriage.

By: Scott in SF

Scott in SF — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 01:15:02 +0000

When I hear a good reason why I should get married in the state of California before having children, I’ll consider it.
What this really says is that we should teach girls how to pick a good mate! 90% of woman wait to be asked out, and that is a foolish way to find a partner unless you are seeking the most aggressive men. Yes, it is true that some women are reckless, but mostly I think they have traditional notions of femininity that prevent them from making decisions in their own best interest.

Sorry folks, my truly moral feminist upbringing trumps all your hoopalla.

PS. the “tax advantage” is not a convincing reason to get married.

By: Heather

Heather — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 18:56:59 +0000

Lulu, re. my friend: I’m not totally sure; we’re not really that close of friends. I know that #2 was planned (she was married) and #3 was an accident (the brief marriage was failing at that point). Number 4 was an accident also, I think. Some major hormones involved, I guess - or being taken advantage of?? She’s a very sweet, quiet, mild-mannered girl - just the kind that a guy could easily take advantage of.

But, regardless, you are correct that the children will suffer from it.