6 ms·

A dig at fathers in the first paragraph, and a diplomatically stated rejection of the nuclear family in the second. You need to be very generous to interpret t

• calvinmorrison 6y ago
  And across all the KPI's we know of - kids in a two parent household are more successful by every measure.
  • jjeaff 6y ago
    Which is why it says they reject the "requirement". No one is denying that a 2 parent home is better. But if you are a kid that grew up with one parent, we need to have alternatives to help those kids thrive. Harping on the fact that 2 parents are better than 1 does nothing for kids with only one parent (except maybe make them feel defective and disadvantaged).
    • monstersinF 6y ago
      Who made it a requirement?
      • jjeaff 6y ago
        They are probably referring to policies or laws or just culture that make it more difficult to thrive if you don't have 2 parents, one male, one female. It's obviously not an actual, literal requirement, hence the quotes.
  • gedy 6y ago
    I've encountered people who say that's bad, biased, unfair, etc. - and not that we should encourage more two parent households.
    • slowmovintarget 6y ago
      "Some say" doesn't make it so. Two-parent households make children more successful; emotionally, intellectually, and economically.
  • freedom42 6y ago
    Does that measure have an inherent bias? Is it like saying kids with parents that tolerate each other are successful? When they don't tolerate, they separate and are not a two parent household anymore and so don't show up in the measure. Maybe it just means kids in peaceful households fare better?
    • TomatoDash 6y ago
      It does. This text picks it apart concisely. https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2021/03/01/the-success-sequence-has-found-its-latest-mark/ https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2021/03/01/the-success-...
      • hajile 6y ago
        That text doesn’t actually dismantle anything (and ignores mountains of other evidence) and doesn’t defend its own alternative either. Put simply, if redistribution worked, we’d see poverty rates decrease rather than stagnate or increase. In contrast, single parent households drastically reduce the chances of success in life along a ton of metrics. Those kids get worse grades, drop out early, suffer learning and mental disorders at a much higher rate, are much more subject to domestic violence, etc. A shocking statistic is that around 85% of people in prison had no significant father figure in their life. This isn’t a one-off statistic either as incarceration rates do seem to track with single mothers over time. It even affects the mothers themselves who report higher rates of mental health issues (this tracks over time and across racial and ethnic groups). Note: This probably would occur with single fathers too, but fathers are unlikely to be granted custody unless the mother has extreme issues going on and the father has a pristine record in comparison. Likewise, with 90+% of elementary teachers now being women (this wasn’t always true), finding a male role model is more difficult during the early, formative years.
        • TomatoDash 6y ago
          > Put simply, if redistribution worked, we’d see poverty rates decrease rather than stagnate or increase. That is what we see, in other countries with more robust (and more redistributive) welfare state systems than the US.
• wetmore 6y ago
  Yes, if the traditional family implies that the bulk of child rearing falls on mothers and there is little help from the community in that respect.
• danaliv 6y ago
  I don't think this is a very charitable take. To me this statement is about making sure mothers don't have to do all the child-rearing, and coming together as a community to raise children. In any event, I definitely don't buy "tradition" as the sole reason to keep doing something a certain way. I also don't think the tradition you're talking about is nearly as traditional as you think.
  • throwawaysea 6y ago
    The reason I don't interpret it in that innocuous way is because the founders of Black Lives Matter are self-described "trained Marxists" (https://www.city-journal.org/marxist-revolutionaries-black-lives-matter https://www.city-journal.org/marxist-revolutionaries-black-l...), are follows of the ideologies of various Marxist theorists like Lenin and Mao (https://time.com/5171270/black-lives-matter-patrisse-cullors/ https://time.com/5171270/black-lives-matter-patrisse-cullors...), and therefore know full well that a core tactic of socialist/communist theory is to disrupt the family unit as a way to eliminate private property, increase the collectivist/state-rearing of children (propagandizing), and diminish competing ideologies/culture that can emerge from family structure (https://thefederalist.com/2015/06/29/americans-buy-into-marxist-family-planning/ https://thefederalist.com/2015/06/29/americans-buy-into-marx...).
    • specialist 6y ago
      That's an amazing inference. IIRC, The Occupy Movement heavily influenced BLM. David Graeber talks about the origins of Occupy in The Democracy Project. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Democracy_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Democracy_Project Sure Anarchists like Graeber are adjacent to Socialists, Marxists, and other groups. But Anarchists are for participatory democracy, against government. The left-wing version of libertarians. So Anarchists oppose Socialists, Communists, and Liberals (today's Democrats & Republicans) equally. I couldn't say if Occupy or BLM are Marxist, Socialist, or whatever. Or since everyone uses their own definitions, what that could possibly mean. Things get nutty when people try to use 100 year old terms to talk about contemporary stuff. It's on my to do list to find similar write-ups about BLM. Please share if you found any.
• slowmovintarget 6y ago
  Right, and that's straight from Engels' playbook on advancing Marxist agendas. Nuclear families lead to private property, therefore, inveigh against nuclear families. [1] This is exactly backward for how to elevate poor and minority interests. Strong ("nuclear") families, education (not indoctrination), and _more_ private property from which those families can build security is what's needed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_the_Family,_Private_Property_and_the_State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_the_Family,_Priv...
• runako 6y ago
  > A dig at fathers in the first paragraph The writers are African-American women. Working has been a feature of most African-American women's lives for the entirety of America. It's not a dig at the fathers, who have historically also been working. The traditional African-American family has typically had two workers. (The "double-shift" is working for someone else, then coming home and doing homemaking. Commonly, the father would be working a second job during the evening hours.) I think reading this as an attack on the traditional American family is making a lot of assumptions about which families are considered "traditional."
• nucleogenesis 6y ago
  > We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work That’s not a stab at fathers. It’s a stab at the societal norms that force single mothers to work double shifts just to support their family. They are purporting that this is due to the fact that our society is patriarchal (run by men - which it is). Whether they’re right or wrong it’s not a dig at traditional dads. They’re attacking the societal norms that a straight cis mom and straight cis dad are the only foundational units for a legitimate family.
  • ipnon 6y ago
    We have to separate micro from macro. At micro, there are many succesful families of all kinds. At macro, families where biological parents raise their children are happier, wealthier and safer.
• genghisjahn 6y ago
  The first sentence is "We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children." That seems very pro traditional family. What is the dig at fathers that you speak of? Is it the women working double shifts thing? If the double shift thing is true, then it's a rightful dig at fathers that should happen. We should do more domestically. If you think there isn't a double shift and that all domestic tasks are shared equally, then I can see it coming across as an unwarranted attack. Personally, I don't.
  • specialist 6y ago
    There is no dig. Just people finding excuses to be offended. Based on the assumption that any thing pro-motherhood is necessarily anti-fatherhood. Good grief.
• specialist 6y ago
  > traditional family What's a "traditional family"?
  • ipnon 6y ago
    Typically it means children being raised by their biological parents.
    • specialist 6y ago
      So foster kids like me aren't traditional?
      • seneca 6y ago
        No, a foster family is not a traditional family. That's not a value judgement, it's a basic classification. Is there a point to your line of questioning?
        • specialist 6y ago
          I'm trying to figure out why the GP was triggered by some random BLM statement about families.
      • ipnon 6y ago
        If I offended you, I'm sorry. The terminology we are using in this context was not invented by me. My only intent with the post was to clarify the definition of the term in question.
      • jfengel 6y ago
        That's the point. There will be people who look down on your foster family for not being their idea of "traditional" and therefore inferior. Increasingly, lots of different kinds of families are being recognized as good, and they're pushing back against people who insist that only one kind of family is acceptable.
• threatofrain 6y ago
  It’s calling for a village rather than just nuclear families. But somewhere someone reads this passage and their instincts tell them that traditional families are being attacked. What is your vision of traditional black family?