Haha, this is brilliant! Melanie Phillips could have written it herself (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1197756/Hooray-The-Tories-backing-marriage–theyre-wrong-pretend-relationships-equal.html)

Great bit of satire.

“Surely society would crumble if it were to allow raging homosexuals the same rights as non-perverts; imagine your horror if, for example, you discovered your young son’s favourite teacher was gay, or a lesbian was driving your taxi.”

That’s my favourite bit.

I don’t know if you saw Penny Marshall’s article in the Mail about the teenage fad of ‘faux-lesbianism’, but I’ve blogged about it here http://shanecroucher.co.uk/2009/07/02/penny-marshall-in-the-daily-mail-faux-lesbian-kisses-and-middle-class-girls/

It’s loosely disguised homophobia.

Fabulous! Though that large sea of red in your graph: that is why plenty of gay people are Conservative voters already.

‘And you can’t argue with a Bishop can you?’

Isn’t this otherwise known as ‘beating the bishop’?

Fine piece thanks – loved the pie chart.

hehe, excellent. And the graph is brilliant too.

Melanie Phillips’ piece is so off the charts that even most of the commenters underneath think she’s talking rubbish.

I don’t know if you saw Penny Marshall’s article in the Mail about the teenage fad of ‘faux-lesbianism’

Not until you posted the link but it obvious she’s never come across any of the literature on situational lesbianism in adolescent women.

Great stuff, especially in light of the lazy homophobia in the Tory Section 28 thread.

test

“Cameron’s absurd fruit-baiting tolerance falls apart. If he were to truly believe in the peerless position of marriage as the best choice for loving families, he would legislate against the amoral ‘relationship choices’ vying for support against it.”

Why ? You can recognise marriage as being an ideal without banning any alternatives (unless you are a left wing totalitarian of course ).

You can recognise marriage as being an ideal without banning any alternatives (unless you are a left wing totalitarian of course ).

Oh dear, it seems the universal translator’s on the blink again – where it says ‘left-wing totalitarian’ in Matt’s comment, it should actually read ‘right-wing religious fucknut’.

“Why ? You can recognise marriage as being an ideal without banning any alternatives (unless you are a left wing totalitarian of course ).”

Like these guys?

You gotta love the idea of a bunch of right wing reactionaries trying to run with the ‘left wing totalitarians’ meme

unless you are a left wing totalitarian of course

Like Mad Mel, yeah? Gawd I hate those pinko fascist lefty scum.

Wait, now my brain’s itching.

Oh dear, it seems the universal translator’s on the blink again – where it says ‘left-wing totalitarian’ in Matt’s comment, it should actually read ‘right-wing religious fucknut’.

Well, China, Cuba and North Korea – which are pretty much the last true communist dictatorships in the world, all ban gay marriage, not even allowing civil partnerships. Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Bolivia (whose newish left wing government has recently overturned legal gay marriages), India – all left wing (or very left wing) countries do not allow civil partnerships or gay marriage.

If you’re looking for right wing religious fucknuts who have banned gay marriage, you’re really left with the Muslims. Israel, incidentally, spiritual home of right wing religious fucknuts, recognizes same sex marriages, and allows same sex civil marriages.

You forget to mention Tim – these countries might be nominally left-wing on economic issues, the reason they actually ban gay marriage is because they’re very right wing and conservative on social issues. Especially the Muslim countries.

Now, given that many right-wing commentators want to turn our country into a right-wing version of Saudi Arabia (why else would they keep comparing us to how the Saudis oppress their minorities?) – they probably admire that stance.

You forget to mention Tim – these countries might be nominally left-wing on economic issues, the reason they actually ban gay marriage is because they’re very right wing and conservative on social issues. Especially the Muslim countries.

Wait, China and North Korea are right wing? I’m beginning to think that those labels just don’t have any meaning… In the sense presumably meant by Matt upthread, what on earth is meant by a left wing totalitarian state if China, North Korea, Cuba and Zimbabwe don’t count?

Now, given that many right-wing commentators want to turn our country into a right-wing version of Saudi Arabia (why else would they keep comparing us to how the Saudis oppress their minorities?) – they probably admire that stance.

But wait – surely on your definition Saudi Arabia is right wing?

yes, Saudi is right-wing. Which is why I say that many right-wing / christian commentators here secretly wish we were the Christian version of Saudi.

As for NK, Cuba and China – they’re totalitarian straight up – left or right has no meaning there.

Socially conservative and totalitarian countries ban gay marriage. It has nothing to do with left v right wing.

I’m beginning to think that those labels just don’t have any meaning

In this context, yeah probably. You can be a homophobe whatever your political persuasion: Right, Left, Hitler, Stalin – they all hate on teh gays. It’s an egalitarian kind of intolerance.

Then there’s Mad Mel, who’s on a whole different plane of wingnuttery, sitting outside conventional brackets of the political spectrum hurling bile at them all.

As for NK, Cuba and China – they’re totalitarian straight up – left or right has no meaning there.

Aaaargh! We have just had, on this site, a whole series of posts on why the BNP are right wing, and how it is bigoted and ridiculous to deny it, on which I argued that they fall outwith the standard left/right axis. You wrote a piece entitled “why the BNP are definitely right wing”.

So your position is that fascism is definitely right wing, and communism is, um, er, definitely not left wing. Yassus.

And c’mon. Name me a serious conservative commentator who is calling for the banning of democracy, the banning of women driving, the mandating of wearing hijabs, the abandonment of the rule of law, any of it. You’re being ridiculous.

So your position is that fascism is definitely right wing, and communism is, um, er, definitely not left wing. Yassus.

Erm, it’s really quite simple. Totalitarian governments can be economically right wing (Chile, Pinochet) or economically left-wing. They can be socially conservative (Middle East etc) or can be socially liberal (nothing immediately comes to mind).

But social conservatism is definitely right wing and that is the measure the BNP are judged against.

@ sunny. I’m not sure you can be a totalitarian government with socially liberal policies, simply because the personalities that promote authoritarian policies are motivated by fear of the other and need for conformity whereas social liberalism depends on at least an acceptance of ‘the other’ and the freedom to be an individual. This threatens the cohesion of the ‘in group’ and has to be eliminated.

This entire debate proves, again and beyond all reasonable doubt, that the terms right and left wing are completely useless for any form of rational political debate. When you are in the position of arguing that China and North Korea are right wing states, or (as the BBC did many years ago) that it was conservatives in the politburo that were opposing Gorbachev, you have moved beyond a point where these terms have any meaning.

It is utterly incoherent to argue that fascist parties should be defined as right wing, but that communist parties should not be defined as left wing. Either the term is a useful indicator for both or for neither.

I don’t think you can really classify Chile (which was definitely a dictatorship) as totalitarian – for the very reason that its economic policies were right wing – a removal of state control of the economy rebuts the charge of totalitarianism. For a state to be totalitarian, its economic policies need to involve ‘total’ state control.

And how on earth can a totalitarian regime be socially liberal? The terms are mutually exclusive.

@22 right-wing originally meant “economically restrictive and against social freedom” (= the aristocracy); left-wing originally meant “economically liberal and in favour of social freedom” (=Whigs, etc).

Hence, it’s perfectly coherent to describe any government that’s socially conservative as right-wing, irrespective of their economic policies. There is no reason why we need to follow the lead of the random geezer on the internet who set up the Political Compass and pretend that ‘right’ and ‘left’ are primarily economic terms.

Agreed that a socially liberal totalitarian government doesn’t make much sense, though.

Left wing and right wing best (but not perfectly) describes the amount of government control of the economy, left wing meaning more and right wing being less. The labels just don’t fit when talking about social attitudes.

George Galloway has his social conservative moments. However he is most certainly not right wing.

(Proper) libertarians are social liberals, but you try telling Devil’s Kitchen he’s a lefty.

The more Duncan Smith opens his mouth the more you see that the Tories have not changed one bit. They are still a bunch of brown shirt fascists who love to boss everyone about on social issues. While this sort of stuff will play well with the Tebbit wing of the party, you do have to wonder at all these foolish middle of the road liberals who are going to vote for Cameron because they think the Tory party has changed.

Boy are they in for shock.

The Conservative party is increasingly a carbon copy of the American Republican party. Just look at how giddy all the right wing commentators went over Sarah Palin. One of the funniest question times on record was the one where all the politicians had to say how wonderful Palin was and what a great intellect she had. priceless.

Interesting to see the trolls on here trying to confuse the issue of left and right. This is quite clearly a right wing talking point that has come from America. The American Right has in recent years tried to paint all fascist regimes as left wing. Apparently, in the never never land that is the moronic right wing there is no such thing as right wing dictatorship.

I do agree with Sally on the blurring of the issue by getting bogged down in who ‘owns’ bigotry and that facism is a faculty of the Left (whatever that is), it’s merely covering for the issue at hand, which is homophobia and associated bigotries have no place here or anywhere else for that matter.

This is the best post I have read on this site in a loooooooooong time.

‘band of super Tories’ – hahaha.

When you are in the position of arguing that China and North Korea are right wing states, or

Tim J – I didn’t actually argue N Korea and China were right-wing! They may be somewhat left-wing in theory (though in reality it’s a bizarre form of totalitarian capitalism ) but it’s just totalitarian period. Not left or right.

in reality it’s a bizarre form of totalitarian capitalism

What, North Korea? Juche is a form of capitalism? I’ll have some of what you’re smoking…

I agree with you that, on any Western political scale of left and right, the communist dictatorships fall outside the standard classifications. I also think that’s true of fascist wannabes.

Interesting to see the trolls on here trying to confuse the issue of left and right. This is quite clearly a right wing talking point that has come from America. The American Right has in recent years tried to paint all fascist regimes as left wing

Sally, I’ll bite briefly. The argument put forward by Sunny here is that communism cannot be described as left wing as it falls outside the useful classifications of left and right wing. My argument earlier was that fascism cannot be described as right wing as it falls outside the useful classifications of left and right wing. Sunny disagrees, thinking that while it is obviously unhelpful to think of communism as left wing, it is bigoted nonsense not to think of fascism as right wing. I think this is a very contradictory position.

Rather then arguing about lthe left or right stuff, why can’t you guys just deal with the problem at hand. Briatin has at least 50% of its children living in single parent families. It has been shown that children from single parent families tend to suffer more from poverty and its associated symptoms for the child and those in their surroundings.

Single parent families are somewhat a result of previous government policies which benefitted the single parent over the married one. They need to change. Arguing what to change it to is what will be useful.

What is it with threads that mention LGBT issues? They attract right-wing anti-social loons like Lilliput above who wants to blame everything on single parent families and that we need to force people to stay together.

Good grief, can we not have a right-wing filter here?

I thought @32 could be read as suggesting that a two parent set up (regardless of the gender of the parents) was better than a one parent set up. Two gay parents v one straight parent sounds like an interesting debate…

It sounds like a debate that will encourage people to trot out their homphobic views and it would need to accept Lilliput’s terrible premise that one parent bad, two parents good.

Does that mean 8 parents even better?

I smell bullshit.

Daniel, please – I’m not right wing or homophobic. I just happen to think that a father is more then a sperm donor, and two salaries are on average bigger then one.

I’m not saying that having one parent is the root of all evil – but there have been enough studies to suggest that the abscence of a father figure has negative consequences.

If you can’t add anything mature to the argument – don’t say anything at all.

I’ve never said anything about a father being just a sperm donor, goodness me, you come here with an agenda and then push it onto me.

Of course fathers are more than sperm donors, just as mothers are more than egg donors and incubators, these are all truisms you seem to think back up your non-point.

Same as the idea that two salaries are better than one, no shit Sherlock, really? You’re on fire Lilliput!

You talk about adding something mature to the discussion after trotting out truisms with a bizarre sense of righteousness, you talk about adding something mature to the debate after making up the perecentage of single parent families which is no where near 50%, but somewhere around half of that in terms of children and that represents about 1.8 million single parent families out of a total of around 18 million families in the UK.

I’m glad you’ve recinded your single parent families are evil nonsense that you intimated in comment 32, which also contained the tacit idea that single parent families aren’t as good as ‘normal’ families and the bizarre nugget of bollocks that Labour have encouraged single parent families, which is far from the truth. They may not have stigmatised them as the Tories did but they have not encouraged them you judgemental creature. Indeed Labour educational policy that I have had to implement has been to encourage single aprent families to spend little time with the children and more time in education!

Further more you talk about absensce of the father figure as if that is just a problem for single parent families, when in reality it is a problem for any familiy where the father is not very good at being a dad.

You can’t have worked with single parent families, or worked with families at all from the lines you throw out, seriously, you need to educate yourself on the matter of parenthood and the effects of parenting; it matters little difference whether there is one or two or three parents, what matters is if they are any bloody good and if you’d have worked with families and their children as much as I have, you’d have grapsed that long ago.

Now bugger off!

I’ve read some reactionary bollocks on here in my time but this is ridiculous. My question was

Why do you have to attack one institution (say the “traditional” family) in order to increase the rights of another (say, gays) why can’t gay people live happily alongside everyone else like they do in my and many other streets throughout the country ?

Normally the justification for restricting group rights is that they in some way harm another groups rights (viz the smoking debate). I’m struggling to see how any sensible, that is equal, conception of gay rights would harm the rights of a traditional family or vice versa ?

What the article seemed to be suggesting (In a hilarious satirical style…..) was that in order for gay rights to progress, or even exist, then all other forms of relationship had to be disparaged, which struck me when I read it, and does now, as ever so slightly intolerant and illiberal, and runs counter to the normal progressive argument that rights are not a zero sum game and can be incresed for all with no negative effects.

Any of the above who bit my head off care to answer that ? And while they are at it explain why it’s de riguer to attack all christians as homophobic but not muslims or jews ?

“I’m glad you’ve recinded your single parent families are evil nonsense that you intimated in comment 32, which also contained the tacit idea that single parent families aren’t as good as ‘normal’ families”

Evidence please that the offsping of single parents are not disadvanted by it. There is plenty to show that they are

“and the bizarre nugget of bollocks that Labour have encouraged single parent families, which is far from the truth.”

So the tax beneifts system doesn’t encourage single parent families by making a women with children better off financially if she lives alone ?

“IIndeed Labour educational policy that I have had to implement has been to encourage single aprent families to spend little time with the children and more time in education!”

Bully for you. Such a shame that working parents don’t get that choice

“Further more you talk about absensce of the father figure as if that is just a problem for single parent families, when in reality it is a problem for any familiy where the father is not very good at being a dad”

No it isn’t. Any father (apart from abusive/neglectfull) is better than none. You just make up this “research” to fit your agenda as you go along

I apologise for my comment @34 which was posted out of a sense of mischief… I wanted to see whether people would rather lay into single parents or gays.

@post 39

“So the tax beneifts system doesn’t encourage single parent families by making a women with children better off financially if she lives alone ?”

Are you seriously suggesting that women/men choose single-parenthood for the sake of tax benefits? You think that they would give up a partner for the sake of a few extra quid? There aren’t many who would take that as an incentive.

Besides, this system is aimed at helping those who fall into single-parenthood, not promoting or encouraging it.

Another thing – why should a familiy stay together if the parents’ relationship isn’t working? Would it not be more damaging to the children if they’re parents lived a cold, loveless, sham partnership?

All this nonsense about Labour ‘encouraging’ single parent families just doesn’t wash. The real issue of why we have had a rise in single-parent families is because people are having children at a young age. How many people have the same partner at 20 as they do at 30?
Children are being born too early into a relationship.

Educating youngsters on having kids at the right time is where we should be concentrating.

Jesus, just saw my incorrect use of ‘they’re’. I can only apologise.

Oh dear, another twat, right…(rolls up sleeves)

“Evidence please that the offsping of single parents are not disadvanted by it. There is plenty to show that they are.”

Many factors influence how children develop in single-parent families: the parent’s age, education level, and occupation; the family’s income, and the family’s support network of friends and extended family members (including the non-resident parent, if available). Disadvantages in these factors that often accompany single parenting appear to cause most of this association rather than single parenting itself.

Bascially Matt, you need to spend some time working with families.

“So the tax beneifts system doesn’t encourage single parent families by making a women with children better off financially if she lives alone ?”

Only an idiot like you would equate a tax system with an encouragement to be a single parent family, think about it, you are only ine step away there from the myth of having children so as to increase benefits claims, as ridiculous as it is offensive.

“Bully for you. Such a shame that working parents don’t get that choice.”

I’m sensing a lot of hatred towards single parent families, which you also eager to think it is always female centric, when it is not, I’ve met plenty of single parent fathers, you need to broaden your intellectualy pallet, you’re limited. And parents do get that choice, our modern society is built on childcare and people, esp. from middle-class backgrounds, having kids but not really looking after them as they rush back to work.

“No it isn’t. Any father (apart from abusive/neglectfull) is better than none. You just make up this “research” to fit your agenda as you go along.”

This is where your lack of knowledge of families and of the impact of parenting hits home, you really don’t have any knowledeg in this field aside from what your moral compass tells you to blindly follow. Come back to me when you’ve actually worked with parents and thier children, at the moment you have no knowledge or expertise. Bad parenting can occur in any set-up and hits the child hard, all damaged young people I have worked with, aside from those with disabilities, have picked up the behaviour from their parents in some form or another, as Larkin, said, “they fuck you up your mum and dad, they don’t mean to but they do.”

So yes, sometimes no father is better than a bad one and there are many, many bad fathers and mothers out there.

Well said Shane, people like Matt don’t think through the full implications of their stupid ideas, which are based on hateful concepts and a deep mistrust of humanity, which is a shame but says much about them.

Helen: it really does not take much to draw out the bigots, I’ve never seen the appeal in visiting places where I know I will disagree with the majority of what I read.

@45 I strayed over to the Section 28 discussion on a more right-leaning blog the other day and was rather startled (I use that word as a euphemism). You are probably right and I should restrain my sense of humour.

Helen, we could do with all the humour in the world to be honest esp. in debates such as these, I’m all for it to be truthful as long as I can steal your gags…

@ 39

“Evidence please that the offsping of single parents are not disadvanted by it. There is plenty to show that they are

So the tax beneifts system doesn’t encourage single parent families by making a women with children better off financially if she lives alone ?”

So kids from single parent families are disadvantaged but the single parents are not. Right?

Disclosure: I’m from a single parent family. My father died when I was in my early teens, leaving my mother to raise me and my younger brother. Of course we were disadvantaged by it. Financially, things were very difficult. You’re right then to say there is evidence that children of single parent families are disadvantaged.

But to then suggest that the benefits systems encourages single parent families is somewhat paradoxical. First, let me say quite resolutely: It doesn’t. At all. Secondly, the benefits just aren’t there to financially outweigh the loss of a parent. In fact, they should be higher, and support needs to be greater.

The tax benefits system doesn’t encourage anything whatsoever; it is there to support those in need, and it does that poorly. As Daniel mentioned, to suggest otherwise can be construed as offensive simply because the reality lies so, so far in the opposite direction.

In all of the above, I’m speaking just on the financial implications of single parenthood. Arguments are often wheeled out along the lines of ‘Kids from single parent families are more likely to be poorly educated/behaved/go feral/have some random psychological problem.’

Eh, who knows? I did start smoking when I was 15, and this one time, I crashed my car.

Daniel, I wonder if you can tell us exactly what kind of work you have done with single parent families? I think we have to start doing enhanced psychological tests along with enhanced CRB checks before we allow people to work with children.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-big-question-how-many-single-parents-are-there-and-should-they-be-forced-to-work-434358.html

Here are some figures quoted in 2007 – maybe you can find more recent ones because I assume they would have increased significantly.

As for your notion that a bad parent is worse then no parent at all – its a tough call to make as outcomes from children in care are just as atrocious!

http://living.aol.co.uk/health/health-fitness-news/teen-pregnancies-drive-fails/article/20090707192246428642625

Even more lone parents……..

Here are some figures quoted in 2007 – maybe you can find more recent ones because I assume they would have increased significantly.

Well that explains your problem – you assume, even to the point of failing to notice that these figures flatly contradict your previous assertion that at Britain has at least 50% of children living in single parent homes.

In the vain hope of alleviating your painfully obvious ignorance, approximately 25% of all families with dependent children are lone parent families, consisting of 23% in which the lone parent is female and 2% are male. Lone parent families account for 23% of all dependant children under 16, slightly less in proportion than the figure for the number of families.

AND

These figures have been stable since the turn of the millennium.

In assuming that the number of lone parents must be rising you’re making the mistake of treating lone parenthood as an outcome and not as a transition stage between relationship, which is what it is for the majority of women who do find themselves with children but without a partner.

Lilliput, Unity and others have dealt with your nonsense, I am surprised by the people that crawl out of the wood work in these threads, esp, here.

Oh and before you make digs about the work I do, you should really have made more sense the first time you spoke, rather than getting it all arse before elbow.

Take care.

Meet other Pinkochet’s here

Jamie wrote: “The tax benefits system doesn’t encourage anything whatsoever; it is there to support those in need, and it does that poorly. ”

So you ignore all the theories of human behaviour, that says people will (on average) do what is in their own best interest?

Specific case: couple with kids.
Versus single mother with kids, and single man living alone.

I haven’t done the sums, but I hear that a couple up the road pretended to seperate because they were better off financially for doing so: the tax/benefits were higher.

If I understand it, both parents are unemployed; so now the tax-ayer funds two flats and the extra costs of the cash benefit that the couple calculated. And the man’s flat is empty 6 nights out of 7.

Please refute if this is not a case where the numbers show that couples will ’split’ due to the tax system

Unity, where are you getting these figures from – because you are right – ignorance is not an excuse?

Just Visiting, I don’t need to start theorising on human behaviour, the benefit system or any other academic irrelevances you wish to bring up. I know it was hidden away there right next to the word ‘Disclosure’ in my earlier post, but I have first hand experience of this. The benefit system does not reward single parents.

Incidentally, your anecdote is wonderfully inane; how does an example of benefit fraud add anything to the debate? Shock: people cheating a system may get more than others! Who knew?!

Thanks for visiting.

54 also shows a fantastic misunderstanding of the concept of ‘evidence’: ‘there’s a bloke up the road who people say did X’ is not exactly compelling.

@ 42 “Are you seriously suggesting that women/men choose single-parenthood for the sake of tax benefits? You think that they would give up a partner for the sake of a few extra quid? There aren’t many who would take that as an incentive.”

How do you know there aren’t ? Given a choice between a 12 hour shift in McDs and state supported single parenthood which would you take ?

Besides, this system is aimed at helping those who fall into single-parenthood, not promoting or encouraging it.

It doesn’t matter what it’s “aimed at” – it matters what the outcome is and that outcome is increasing numbers of welfare dependent single parents.

Another thing – why should a familiy stay together if the parents’ relationship isn’t working? Would it not be more damaging to the children if they’re parents lived a cold, loveless, sham partnership?

This is a feminist myth/fantasy. There is no reasearch to support the idea that living in an unhappy (in adult terms) relationship is somehow preferably, from a child’s point of view, to a single parent. Ask any kid what he would rather have his parents togetheror apart. Kids don”t see the world in terms of “oh look mummys not happy with daddy, it’ll be better for me if they split up” You are putting an adult construct onto childrens perceptions.

“All this nonsense about Labour ‘encouraging’ single parent families just doesn’t wash. The real issue of why we have had a rise in single-parent families is because people are having children at a young age. How many people have the same partner at 20 as they do at 30?
Children are being born too early into a relationship.

Educating youngsters on having kids at the right time is where we should be concentrating.”

Sort of agree with you here, although I would argue that the gap between low paid work and benefits is too small to incentivise work and creates dependency. Tax allowances should be increased so that no one on say, less than half the average salary pays income tax.

“Many factors influence how children develop in single-parent families: the parent’s age, education level, and occupation; the family’s income, and the family’s support network of friends and extended family members (including the non-resident parent, if available). Disadvantages in these factors that often accompany single parenting appear to cause most of this association rather than single parenting itself.”

LOL – so the old “there are too many variables, it’s all too complicated” argument comes to the rescue. Any researchers worthy of the name would control for other varaibles and time and again the research still shows that irrespective of other factors single parenthood is the most reliable single indicator of a range of negative outcomes.

In terms of cause and effect no one can know with certainty what the direction of effect is for every factor, but common sense tells you that single parenthood is the cause of most of them – for example income tends to drop after divorce, not before, leading to poorer home environments, loss of social support systems, realtionships becoming distant and stressed etc etc

I’ll put it in really simple terms as you’re obviousy unfamiliar with even basic techniques in social psychology: Even if you come from a stinking rich family with very loving and supportive parents, even if you had had lots of friends, a great social life, the best eductaion money can buy and are super intelligent you will stil, on average, do worse on a number of indicators (pysical and mental health, life expectancy, career sucess, healthy relationships, propensity to crimiality, unemployment, homelessness, addiction etc etc) if your parents separate than someone from EXATLY the same background whose parents stsy together.

“Only an idiot like you would equate a tax system with an encouragement to be a single parent family, think about it, you are only ine step away there from the myth of having children so as to increase benefits claims, as ridiculous as it is offensive”

Only an idiot would deny it. On another thread here there is a debate about tax avoidance, which takes for grated that rich people will act in their own self interest to avoid paying tax, why wouldn’t people on benefits manipualte their social suituation to increase benefits, where they have no other gfeasible means of increasing their income ? or are you doing the usual patroning “poor people aren’t clever enough to know what their best interests are” line ?
Evenin terms of tax cradits (which 60% of working parents get althoug hthey are not aren’t technically a benefit) my partner would get more than she does now, for the kids, if we lived apart.

And the fact that something may be offensive to some people does’t mean that you pretend it isn’t happening.

“I’m sensing a lot of hatred towards single parent families, which you also eager to think it is always female centric, when it is not, I’ve met plenty of single parent fathers, you need to broaden your intellectualy pallet, you’re limited.

Stop talking like a fucking counsellor you arsehole, if I’m “limited” you’re blinkered. Yes there are obviously single parent fathers, but thanks to harperson and the family courts only where the mother had died, run off with a toyboy, or is a complete car crash (although even the latter isn’t usually enough on it’s own).

“And parents do get that choice, our modern society is built on childcare and people, esp. from middle-class backgrounds, having kids but not really looking after them as they rush back to work.”

Yes and whose fault is that ? If you’re on average wages our system is structured so that you work your arse off just to pay a childminder, all so that the government can say they are giving women “a choice”. Why not give a genuine choice – by allowing one parent to stay at home, without being financially penalised.
The irony is that single parents are the only people who have that choice and still mostly produce crap outcomes, even though they spend more time with their kids than working people do.

“This is where your lack of knowledge of families and of the impact of parenting hits home, you really don’t have any knowledeg in this field aside from what your moral compass tells you to blindly follow. Come back to me when you’ve actually worked with parents and thier children, at the moment you have no knowledge or expertise. Bad parenting can occur in any set-up and hits the child hard, all damaged young people I have worked with, aside from those with disabilities, have picked up the behaviour from their parents in some form or another, as Larkin, said, “they fuck you up your mum and dad, they don’t mean to but they do.”

Purleasse. So it’s much better to split the family up and let the state fuck them up rather than their parents ?

Shorter Wingnutya:

Absent Father = bad.
Absent Father (he’s off fighting in Afghanistan) = DOUBLEPLUSGOOD!

Nope, I can’t work it out, either.

Mr. Twat Munro:

“How do you know there aren’t ? Given a choice between a 12 hour shift in McDs and state supported single parenthood which would you take ?”

This little opening gambit perhaps best sums up your flawed world view, it shows you have no idea about benefitsd and how much you actually get and it also shows you only approach other people from the worst case scenario in their actions, when in reality, it is the other way round.

The increase in the number of welfare dependent single parents is not tax breaks you dolt but poverty and social-econmoic issues.

“This is a feminist myth/fantasy.”

A HA! Now we get the gist of it, the feminists are to blame! Sadly, you can’t just dismiss a perfectly good idea as a feminist myth and fantasy, al that does it makes your own prejudice look lazy and tired.

And for the record, the gap between low paid work and benefits is not that massive at all, it’s a myth, JSA or IS comes in at £50 a week, minimum wage work, where you can still claim Housing and Council Tax Benefit, comes in £229 a week. Also, the idea that money is the only factor in people wanting to work shows you’ve not worked with people who are unemployed and want to work. The desire to do something, in life, is the key driver, a sense of self-worth but I don’t expect you to get that.

And to repeat, just going LOL like a child doesn’t mean you’ve actually taken on the point, it may sadden you to know that life is complex and your simplisitc ideas will hold no weight in practice but that’s the way it goes. Do keep up!

The gist of your primitive argument is the old Christian Right, parents needs to stay together at all costs.

Sorry but until we live in a nation that is dominated by silly moral values people will have a choice to step out of destructive relationships, the be all and end all is not the parents staying together, it is about a postive and healthy environment for the child.

And sorry but I don’t buy the analogy that the rich avoid tax either, life is not that simple and cannot be boxed into such silly, simple concepts.

You need to spend some time in the real world, volunteer at a local young mum’s group, work with young people, young carers and young parents, put a human face on your vulgar, baseless ideas and you’ll soon learn that people to not have kids to get an extra pittance in their benefits, you’ll see most young families living hand to mouth and desperate to increase their skills so they can work and do the very best they can for their child.

Your world view speaks more of your own personal negativity and prejudice. I feel sorry for you.

Again, your rant about people running off with toy boys exposes your deep set prejudice, I’m starting to get the feeling you’re a bit of a chauvinist, your turn of phrase smacks of your gender prejudice and thus leaves ideas a bit hollow.

You ask whose fault it is and the answer is our fault, not the govenrments fault, we’ve built a world that puts work over family, we have to repair that no the government, finger pointing starts at home, we get the society we want.

“So it’s much better to split the family up and let the state fuck them up rather than their parents ?”

No, I never said that, you seem to like taking an idea an jumping with it to justify your own flawed views, try not to do that, the gaping whole in the logic lets a lot of air through it.

Evidence: “Professor Kelly Musick and Dr Ann Meier of Cornell University have carried out a study of children whose parents stay together for the sake of the kids”.

Results: Kids with parents who stay in a failed relationship do worse than children in single-parent families, worse than with gay foster-parents, worse than everyone. And yet this is precisely what Cameron is encouraging.

It’s the relationship which is key, contact time, and money. Mostly money. Bribing society to stay in groupings which no longer fit its needs is appalling, but in this case will also lead to worse results in exactly the areas Cameron’s trying to improve.

Sheesh, when even Johann Hari can prove you’re full of it, you’re really in trouble:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-when-divorce-is-the-wiser-option-1719907.html

One pice of research, against dozens which show the opposite. Are you telling me that as a child you would have been happier to never see one of your parents again just because they didn’t get on ?

And why since the 1960s has the family group stopped “meeting societies needs” when it met them adequately for centuries before that ? The need to be in a social group is innate and universal, which is why all known societies have something analogous to a family unit as the basis of their society, what is unique about the post industrial west which has suddenly negated this need ?

If you’re having trouble answering that it’s because the real reason the left dislikes the nuclear faimly is beuse it is economically and socially self sufficient, and does’t give a lot of (largely childless) psudo professional, sanctimonious state aparachnicks the chance to “intervene” in family life.

Err, it’s the 2-parent nuclear family that’s the short-lived aberration with few or no counterparts in other times or places…

@62 & 63 I know it’s only anecdotal evidence but I was much happier even just after my parents broke up than when they were staying together but hating each other because Dad stopped being “the person who is upsetting mum” ie my enemy, and became my dad again. I don’t think my academic progress has been hampered by being the child of a broken home – I have quite a few degrees and things.

“the real reason the left dislikes [yadda yadda yadda]”

Ah, now, two can play that game, look:

“The real reason the right is so keen on ‘the family’ is because they want to be free to beat and rape their spouse and children without any hinderance or ‘intervention’ from ‘the state’.”

@63: “Are you telling me that as a child you would have been happier to never see one of your parents again just because they didn’t get on ?”

Do you mean would I have preferred not to have suffered through the daily shouted arguments, the permanent poisonous atmosphere, the disruption and emotional trauma of two people trapped in a loveless marriage? Yes please. Divorce would have been better for everyone.

>>”And why since the 1960s has the family group stopped “meeting societies needs” when it met them adequately for centuries before that ?”

It didn’t. Professor Ronald Hutton of the Uni of Bristol was one of the first to speak up against this fallacy – in short, the two-parent nuclear family never was the ‘building block’ of society and nothing will fall apart if it goes. Children even a few hundred years ago were often brought up by communal groups of women, or by extended families, or other arrangements. The modern nuclear family was only possible when the Industrial revolution allowed one man to earn enough to provide for the whole family, before that both parents (and the kids) would be working all day and not see each other anyway.

But no, two loving parents of the same sex have to be worse than absent parents, parents working two or three jobs and never at home, abusive or loveless marriages… cobblers. The data is emerging and it shows that traditional marriage is not critical – contact time is critical and so is money, but a loving relationship is the key. Parents staying together ‘for the kids’ is about as effective as it sounds.

Thank god there are are a raft of us putting Twat Munro and his rightest nonsense straight.

Limited scope of understanding and thought.

Daniel Hoffman-Gill @35:

it would need to accept Lilliput’s terrible premise that one parent bad, two parents good.

Does that mean 8 parents even better?

There’s a case to be made that the answer to your rhetorical question is ‘yes’. As JohnB points out at 64, the post-industrial, post-Puritan nuclear family is anthropologically aberrant and even in this country is very recent. I grew up among people whose typical family unit included between three and six parents in the sense we use the word. The establishment a child grew up in would typically also contain at least a couple of embryonic families as the children of the core partnership started to marry but still lived at home. A typical family home would have had between 30 and 50 people in it.

Even if you think purely from a western, and common-sense, perspective there are advantages to multi-parent families; think about only being on pee-watch for the little kids one night a week instead of every night of the week. Imagine being able to get evenings in private with your partner because other parents are looking after the kids that evening. Financial advantages of pooling salaries and buying supplies in bulk, significant childhood socialisation advantages…

What I don’t believe is that there’s anything wrong with single-parent families. What I do believe is that it’s a hell of a lot of work for one person to take on, and that sharing the load has merits too.

I agree with you, the best families I have worked with have been ones with wide, wide suypport networks of not just family but friends and peers for the children so that a well developed social circle is availible for the developing child and the parents development as parents.

Good stuff!

Unity, where are you getting these figures from – because you are right – ignorance is not an excuse?

Office of National Statistics – look for ‘Social Trends’