3 ms·

This is treacherous discussion. Broaching the idea that there's any biological basis for parenting, child development, etc. is pretty much verboten since it run

This is treacherous discussion. Broaching the idea that there's any biological basis for parenting, child development, etc. is pretty much verboten since it runs askew of idealism.

apexalpha 6y ago
I'm sorry I don't think I fully understand your comment. Are you saying it's bad to point out that it's good to have both parents around?
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  I get the sense most progressives, at least in the US, would be uncomfortable with/hostile to someone saying: > the strongest statistical correlation whether someone becomes "successful" later on in life is whether they have a male father figure growing up, or not since it implies that there's something intrinsic/fundamental about men(and a nuclear family more generally) being needed for healthy child development honestly even mentioning statistics around a social issue is risky
  - apexalpha 6y ago
    I intentionally put quotes around successful because successful means different things to different people. But, yeah, the strongest indicator for whether you will grow up successful or not seems to be whether your father is in the picture growing up. I'm not saying it's causal. And I'm sure many grow up fine with just a mother, but it's very strongly correlated in my country.
  - rootusrootus 6y ago
    > most progressives You're casting a pretty wide net there. Data is data, feel free to present it. And if there is a demonstrable statistical correlation, great. People should still have the freedom to marry someone of the same gender. Single parents should still be allowed to stay single.
    - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
      > People should still have the freedom to marry someone of the same gender. Single parents should still be allowed to stay single I never said anything contradicting that
  - mam2 6y ago
    > honestly even mentioning statistics around a social issue is risky That illustrates that in america, mentionning truth instead of ideology is risky.

This is treacherous discussion. Broaching the idea that there's any biological basis for parenting, child development, etc. is pretty much verboten since it runs askew of idealism.

apexalpha 6y ago

I'm sorry I don't think I fully understand your comment. Are you saying it's bad to point out that it's good to have both parents around?

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
I get the sense most progressives, at least in the US, would be uncomfortable with/hostile to someone saying: > the strongest statistical correlation whether someone becomes "successful" later on in life is whether they have a male father figure growing up, or not since it implies that there's something intrinsic/fundamental about men(and a nuclear family more generally) being needed for healthy child development honestly even mentioning statistics around a social issue is risky
- apexalpha 6y ago
  I intentionally put quotes around successful because successful means different things to different people. But, yeah, the strongest indicator for whether you will grow up successful or not seems to be whether your father is in the picture growing up. I'm not saying it's causal. And I'm sure many grow up fine with just a mother, but it's very strongly correlated in my country.
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  > most progressives You're casting a pretty wide net there. Data is data, feel free to present it. And if there is a demonstrable statistical correlation, great. People should still have the freedom to marry someone of the same gender. Single parents should still be allowed to stay single.
  - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
    > People should still have the freedom to marry someone of the same gender. Single parents should still be allowed to stay single I never said anything contradicting that
- mam2 6y ago
  > honestly even mentioning statistics around a social issue is risky That illustrates that in america, mentionning truth instead of ideology is risky.