Liberalism Destroys Families?

[Sandman]

What does the Republican party have to do with this?

[Odin]

To me the best way to help families is economic. maybe the family would be better if wages were high enough so both parents didn't have to work (NOTE TO PC NUTS; this is not a sexist comment, dads can staty at home just as mons can). Maybe we should be concentrating on that instead of the OMFG TEH EVIL GAY PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DISTROY TEH FAMILY crap the Republicans spew.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sandman
What does the Republican party have to do with this?

The opening post.

[Berzerker]

Bosh

Aaaaargh! I'm agreeing with some of what berzerker says!

*bashes head into wall*

Really tight-knit extended families are wonderful things to see in action. I never really had one at home and its been really interesting to start being inducted into one here in Korea...

Molly

I think it's more bizarre associating divorce with liberalism, and not bothering to place divorce in context or in fact defining 'liberalism'.

I identified certain policies, liberal policies, that I believe resulted in higher divorce rates and out of wedlock birthrates. If this is the case, higher divorce rates, not divorce itself, are linked to liberalism. You haven't even tried to refute anything in my post so how can you call it bizarre?

But then I don't expect the quotidian from you, and I didn't defend the Welfare State with Henry VIII.

You're disputing my critique of the welfare state and the results of it which includes higher divorce rates by sarcastically pointing out that Henry VIII was not a liberal. I never said your defense of the welfare state was effective or even made sense, but since that was all you offered I had to consider it an attempted rebuttal.

MrFun

Or how about the basic reality that families could no longer live off of one person's income for quite some time now.

You really outta catch up with the times, man.

Covered by my 4th point, I mentioned high taxes (and regulations which have the effect of a tax) as a cause of more families needing 2 income earners.

John T

n regards to this, I would counter-argue that the reason so many parents "have" to have two careers is their inability to "suffer" a decrease in their standard of living just for the sake of a child.

If that is destructive of the family, then it is self-inflicted. That doesn't counter the complicity of liberalism though, it merely shows there are multiple causes. But for parents most in danger, young parents with little income and very young children - the formative years - both parents working just to get by because of liberal policies and tax rates hurts those families.

Sandman

Yes, life is so much better in those places without welfare, women's rights, taxes and divorce. Places where the family is king. Places like Kurdistan, India and Nigeria.

The family is king in those places? They are all former colonies still stuffering the effects of foreign rulers and the bureaucracies they set up to run their colonies, not intact extended families. Strange argument...

[Odin]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Bosh



Molly

I identified certain policies, liberal policies, that I believe resulted in higher divorce rates and out of wedlock birthrates. If this is the case, higher divorce rates, not divorce itself, are linked to liberalism. You haven't even tried to refute anything in my post so how can you call it bizarre?



You're disputing my critique of the welfare state and the results of it which includes higher divorce rates by sarcastically pointing out that Henry VIII was not a liberal. I never said your defense of the welfare state was effective or even made sense, but since that was all you offered I had to consider it an attempted rebuttal.

MrFun

Covered by my 4th point, I mentioned high taxes (and regulations which have the effect of a tax) as a cause of more families needing 2 income earners.

John T

If that is destructive of the family, then it is self-inflicted. That doesn't counter the complicity of liberalism though, it merely shows there are multiple causes. But for parents most in danger, young parents with little income and very young children - the formative years - both parents working just to get by because of liberal policies and tax rates hurts those families.

Sandman

The family is king in those places? They are all former colonies still stuffering the effects of foreign rulers and the bureaucracies they set up to run their colonies, not intact extended families. Strange argument...

Berz, you are such a BAM it's not even funny. You say this crap, yet you give NO DATA TO BACK IT UP. Untill then you are pulling this stuff out of your ass.

[MrFun]

I'm not an expert, so I have a question.



Could one of the long-term increases in divorce since the 1950s be due to the possibility that less people wish to marry or remain married with the wrong person for reproductive purposes? Maybe the fundamental motivations in marrying has been slowly changing over the long term?



Where is an expert sociologist on Apolyton . . . . . .

[Odin]

The rise in divorce rates is a result of it not cariryng the social stigma it did 50 years ago, and because women are now less likely to stay in a bad marrige for economic reasons because the workforce is much more open for women than it was 50 years ago. Berz's nonsense about how welfare is cauising divorce makes just as much sense as Ned's claim that Britian caused WW2. The reason both parent's work now is a result of the drop in wages relative to prices as a result of the 70's stagflation. That is traight from the mouths of both my US Government professor, who is a moderate libertarian Republican) and my US History proffesor (who is a centrist Democrat). So Berz, two of my Proffs say you are wrong, and they are no left-wingers, PWNED. QED.

[Berzerker]

Doc

Maybe if employers and the government didn't have such a libertarian attitude in this country people would be paid enough that they could look after their own kids.

We dont have free trade in this country, far from it. But this is where liberalism runs into trouble again, liberals condemn Nike for employing a bunch of people in the 3rd world at low wages but dont want to trade freely with those people. How is the 3rd world to progress if all the left wing countries try to keep them down? Paraphrasing Ben Franklin, no country was ever ruined by free trade.

I think that our over-sexed, me-first, self-centered culture is more likely at fault.

Welfare states have the effect of absolving people of responsibility.

The average teen boy generally isn't thinking "Aw heck, if we screw up let the government pay for it" when he seduces Sally, they don't think that far in advance.

True, but when it comes time for those average teens to raise their child, he does get to walk away because the government is there to take over his job as provider and the extended family may be so split up due to other liberal policies there just isn't enough family support.

He's thinking about how all the other young bucks have mucho notches in their sex pistols and he neds to work over time to catch up. Ditto with the girls. Maybe if we didn''t have such a libertarian attitude about sex in this country the out of wedlock rate wouldn't be so high.

You're confusing libertarianism with libertinism and trying to separate the welfare state from the results we see coming from it. Obviously teens will have sex, that has nothing to do with ideology. But ideology does become a factor when it induces the choices people make after conceiving a child. If the boy can walk because a liberal policy assumes his responsibility, the family is hurt in the long run.

So libertarianism isn't for women too? My, my, my

Read my first post again, I clearly said these were the socially conservative arguments against liberal policies.
I see you're trying to bring libertarianism into this. Why? This thread is about liberalism and the socially conservative critique of its policies. Furthermore, why is it anti-woman to point out that women who decide on careers with small children at home or on the way isn't wise unless the alternative is worse?

No, the vast majority of women work not because they want careers, unless you consider flipping burgers a "career", nor did they do so because of hubbies high taxes - the job that paid enough to but Dad into a tax bracket went overseas years ago. They went to work because they want a chance to live like everybody else - 2 cars, 2000+ feet of living space, a TV in every room. etc., etc.

Where did I mention a vast majority of women? And if you think women dont have to work because of the cost of government, you're beyond the outfield wall... Millions of women work because they want careers or because they have to because of taxes. True or not?

In tightly knit clans the adult children remain essentially children until the parents are close to death. Think about Prince Charles. Divorce is high in this country because our culture so highly values individualism. Unfortunately the obverse side of that coin is often one person in the pairing sucking up mountains of abuse just to maintain the marriage.

Individualism has not been increasing in this country Doc, its been on the decline ever since the welfare state started having an impact. Individualism involves responsibility, welfare states seek to decrease responsibility.

You ended your post by quoting me explaining this was a socially conservative critique, why did you keep trying to blame libertarianism for the results of a welfare state?

[MrFun]

Thanks for your reply, Odin.



I knew the gradual elimination of stigma was one factor, but I also thought that from one generation to the next, the norm of getting married just to have children (often resulting in marrying the wrong person) has declined.

[Ben Kenobi]

I've tried to present what I think is the socially conservative set of arguments since they are under-represented here at Poly. The evidence is rather damning...

Well thank you Berz, but I never figured on you bringing up all these arguments which I agree with totally.

Interesting how economic conservativism coincides well with social conservatism, eh?

[MrFun]

What's interesting about it?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Interesting how economic conservativism coincides will social conservatism, eh?

not always, my relatives are somewhat to the right socially but quite far to the left economically.

[Ben Kenobi]

my point is not that there are people who fall outside of that, just that they positions do work well together.

The evidence of some people who do not fit, does not eliminate how the two can work well together.

[Drake Tungsten]

How far did you get in school?

Bachelor's degree...

[Berzerker]

Odin

The rise in divorce rates is a result of it not cariryng the social stigma it did 50 years ago, and because women are now less likely to stay in a bad marrige for economic reasons because the workforce is much more open for women than it was 50 years ago.

Social conservatives opposed liberalising divorce law, especially no fault divorce, another nail in liberalisms' coffin? But I never said there was only one cause to the effect we see nor does identifying multiple causes exonerate liberalism of its complicity. Divorce for good reasons isn't bad, but if there are children, the dysfunction of a family would have to be severe before it could outweigh the negative consequences of divorce.

Berz's nonsense about how welfare is cauising divorce makes just as much sense as Ned's claim that Britian caused WW2.

Hell, welfare induces out of wedlock births and you dont think it induces divorce? Dont be silly... I've known people who divorced to participate in welfare programs. If your parents become "independent" because of Social Security (dependent on politicians), they wont be there to help raise the kids. Its no coincidence "the nuclear family" entered the vernacular a few years after Social Security. So what is the nuclear family? Mom, Dad, and 2 1/2 kids. What happened to the dozen or so relatives - the clan, the village? The family unit has changed and not all the results are so good.

The reason both parent's work now is a result of the drop in wages relative to prices as a result of the 70's stagflation. That is traight from the mouths of both my US Government professor, who is a moderate libertarian Republican) and my US History proffesor (who is a centrist Democrat). So Berz, two of my Proffs say you are wrong, and they are no left-wingers, PWNED. QED.

Is that called inflation? Welfare states can cause that too since the government pays for alot of stuff we should be paying for directly. Health care and education costs go up faster than the rate of inflation and government is involved. Liberals like to call national health care "single payer", it's 3rd party payer and it induces inflation because its "free". Now, wages and prices are another issue. If your professors have told you women dont enter the workforce to help pay off the government, get a refund and give it back to us. I doubt they said that...