Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Is what all kids in broken homes think :(
a man on the internet declared today.
Why not have five or six, working in round-the-clock shifts? Makes sense to me.
Nice try though.
I would totally go for part-time househusband as a career.
and even better still when those parents are good-looking, and EVEN EVEN betterer still when those parents have a pool, the Government will declare today.
it's been coming for quite some time. Not sure why they believe in this one-size fits-all approach and still unclear whether IDS recognises the difference between correlation and causation, but at the moment it doesn't appear it's impacting policy.
and lend themselves so well to helpful and succinct generalisations such as this one.
This is not news is it? What are they going to do about it?
which is biased towards their standard model of the family unit, whilst punishing any family which fails to adher to their standard model.
to used to being a think-tank wonk pumping out opinions rather than policies.
hilarity (and probably lifelong psychological damage) would be bound to ensue.
Only a financial incentive will counter the brainwashing of my boyfriend by his mum, that girls will marry you, have your babies and then take everything you've got.
girls will just take your good stuff and leave you their crap in return. Girls aren't stupid.
It would balance out the negative impacts of rising unemployment, the disruption from being uprooted and removed from school due to housing benefit caps, the cutting back of social services provision, the reduction in and the availability and quality of health care following the NHS bill, the abolition of the EMA?
To get a pet too, and for the children to have grandparents that aren't dead.
so when even a tory admits to the futility of it by making a joke 'yes' as well.......well that just takes the biscuit
a good fucking war.
Genuinely didn't know that, cheers. That's me told.
There's a consultation on it going on soon.
The claim by the Archbishop of York that the Church's agreement would be needed to change the legal definition of marriage is bizarre and inaccurate.
for example, getting married in a registry office,
then no church should have any say in the definition
or terms of that marriage as a lawful union of two people.
the state's intention to introduce gay marriage as a civil construct, then?
Cameron's trying to rush the legislation through.
Do you have a link for this? What I thought is that they announced it, and now are just dilly-dallying until the sheep come home.
but they have a consultation planned in the next couple of months, the outcome of which is strongly rumoured to be in the bag already (that they'll introduce it).
Politics is like wrestling, isn't it? Inevitable outcomes with the participants putting on a good show.
Ok. well i'll reserve judgement until it's on the statute books then.
I'm not married to her mum.
No-one's ever batted an eyelid when they've been informed of this monstrous fact and I've never approached my parenting with the attitude that I could up-sticks and leave at any moment, just because I'm not wearing a wedding ring.
I am, however, getting hitched on Friday. I'll inform you if my attitude changes.
Except I've got 3 kids, and no plans to change marital status.
I actually know a bit about this. It's a fact that married couples enjoy better lifestyle circumstances and provide better parenting contexts than cohabiting ones (that's the real comparison here) but unfortunately there's no evidence for the relationship between formalised partnership and these outcomes.
The real effect is that people who marry are different to those who cohabit. They are in more stable relationships, they're better off, they live in nicer areas, they have better family support, they have more relationship experience, and a load of other stuff. Relationship quality is a much more important determinant of outcomes than partnership form.
If you're interested there's an excellent IFS report on this, that IDS and the Centre for Social Justice did an absolutely awful response to:
'Promoting' marriage is ass-over-tit: marriage occurs on the basis of good quality stable relationships, but does not have the ability to promote relationship quality within a bad relationship. The government's approach here is probably primarily ideological (vote-winner: married people, of which there is a majority, like to hear nice things about marriage and feel like they are being pandered to in terms of taxation and policy).
Tertiary educated, above average incomes, kids born in our 30s, planned pregnancy. We just never bothered to do it.
Couple of interesting things in there:
"However, our findings suggest that the gaps in
cognitive and socio-emotional development between children born to married parents and those
born to cohabiting parents mainly or entirely reflect the fact that different types of people choose
to get married (the selection effect), rather than that marriage has an effect on relationship stability
or child development"
The increased cognitive advantage of children from married couples from age 3 to age 7 is due to ethnic minority children, most of whom are married.
It seems to me the government would be better served encouraging education for all, rather than marriage before child-bearing.
Not sure child brides are they way to go
and what would have been the best for me would have been for society to stop saying nasty things that seemed to be directed to my mum when I was growing up.
My mum worked hard, did not drink or smoke or gamble, did not go out.
So to have stupid men (supposedly respected by society) call my mum (indirectly) very inacurate and hurtful names, made me totally against the man and societies mores. (I had so many issues and problems at an all boys grammar school that It was eventually suggested that it would be best if I left and joined a nearby 6th form college)
so yeah I think that being in a single parent family certainly did cause agro and problems for me and my mum......from other tw**tish
busybodies speaking their stupid branes
in that age, single women who had children were considered so irresponsible that there was an impetus from some religeous quarters (supported by some gov) that such children should be given to the church for sending to australia (where many became slave labour and fodder for sadistic church employees)
So please take into account the history and pedigree of this type of thought and attitude (Im not saying there isnt some truth to it, but I am questioning the motivation and true intent)
Because I hadn't heard that before. Although your mention of slave labour and sadistic church employees brings to mind the many war orphans sent here in the 40s who suffered terrible abuses of exactly that sort (including sexual abuse).
Australia had a terrible record of forcing unwed mothers to immediately give up their children for adoption in the 50s and 60s. It's all come up again following a recent documentary, which I even saw reported on the BBC. It was just heart wrenching, especially for anyone who's ever had kids of their own.
as you said, australia was doing this to single mums in the 50's and 60's (so even if I have been misinformed, you are aware of this 'we know better than you' and 'single mothers are s**t' attitude that authorities were applying)
it's pretty obviously true in most cases.
Just as their stuff on adoption, race issues in care and social work have been...
LISTEN TO US SHOUT ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE GOOD (so you don't question why we are simultaneously eroding the single biggest indicator of stability and stress reduction within families... namely – economic security.)
oh, "The Government is “concerned” by the long-term trend away from marriage", is it? well, since there's absolutely fuck all the government can do about people's relationship choices, maybe the government should be working on making life as easy and well-supported and accepting as possible for the millions of children who don't have that advantage instead of making their lives *worse* by depicting them as pitiable aberrations and their families as immoral freaks, yeah? srsly, death to this nuclear family worship
Secondly, correlation != causation.