• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

Wyatt Mazour

MadRat

God, Family, Football
2 Year Member
The broken homes raising broken children is usually mutually exclusive to trauma history. Prison by itself is not a bad institution for society and it's role is overly maligned. The most violent criminal men of today need to be kept away from young, vulnerable minds. When the large numbers of convicted felons were released, after the federal courts revisited mandatory minimum sentencing, we saw a big spike of crime. We also had large spikes in child abuse. Some people are just ill prepared for living with other human beings.

The sports institutions of American society have long been focused on broken homes for good reason. The coach may be the most influential man in the lives of a large proportion of young men. This is exactly why we cannot idolize anti-establishment and anti-police types like the Colin Kapernicks in American sport.
 
Last edited:
I've met some great people from single family homes, but it's just harder for one parent to do it all.
The admiration that we have for single moms who still manage to keep things together and raise the children on her own is understandable and admirable, but ... that doesn't mean that we want more single moms. It seems like anytime this discussion is started, it is taken as a personal attack against single moms. Can't we admire and praise the single-moms who are doing all that they can while simultaneously saying that it would be better to have fewer single-parent homes? Politicians won't touch this with a 10-foot pole because they'll be branded as heartless, mean, etc. It brings to mind Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men: We can't handle the truth.
The broken homes raising broken children is usually mutually exclusive to trauma history.
There is a generational slope towards brokenness that is general, and it can have a chicken-or-the-egg quality to it. What I've seen in my lifetime in rural South Dakota had already happened in inner-city Chicago, and is starting to happen everywhere else. Someone without the means of raising a child ends up pregnant, and then is either abandoned, divorced, or never deeply connected to the father of the child. The kid grows up with an observable lack of self-control, anger issues, and an innate defiance towards authority, and usually starts getting into more serious trouble around late elementary and the start of middle school. Unless something happens to break that cycle--a teacher, pastor, coach, uncle, someone!--that kid is infinitely more likely to not graduate, get in trouble with the law, and have children out of wedlock on his own. If Mom shacks up with another loser while the kid is still in the home, he is much more likely to be abused by that man.

When does the abuse start and when does the generational transfer of violence and fatherlessness take hold? It's hard to parse that out, but this would be a good time to point out that anyone reading this (and especially since the majority will be male) can probably think of at least one or more boys in your extended family or neighborhood or in friends' families who is growing up without a positive male role model. You can't "fix" his situation, but you can take him fishing and show him how to mow the lawn and talk to him about the importance of education. If you can get him plugged into a sports team with a good male coach, all the better for helping him with valuing and respecting authority.

Incidentally, for most national statistics, the various U.S. bureaus who keep track of such statistics have decided to count a live-in boyfriend in a home with a single mother of children who are not biologically his own children as being a "2-parent home." Meanwhile, a traditional nuclear family--married mom and dad with their own biological children--is statistically the safest environment both for women and children to live, while the unmarried live-in boyfriend is the most dangerous for both women and children to live. Yet we group those two groups together and pretend that they're the same.
 
Last edited:
It's almost like policymakers were willfully promoting instability...
I don't think that it was/is a conspiracy so much as the blindspot of a worldview that doesn't care for traditional families or traditional values. I have these sorts of conversations all of the time will well intentioned teachers who never connected the dots to notice that the kids who were so consistently getting into trouble were fatherless. Once I pointed that out, they would still look for some other cause because they had been raised to believe that family structure and having a father around were not as important as race, wealth, etc. It's such a ridiculously obvious correlation that I've posited the theory that any given year the top 10 small town schools in South Dakota based on standardized testing are also the towns with the lowest percentage of kids from one-parent homes. I've taught at a couple of those schools, and that was clearly why they were successful. Even those who have benefited from growing up in a community of stable families are blind to it.
 
Last edited:

wcbsas

All Legend
15 Year Member
I don't think that it was/is a conspiracy so much as the blindspot of a worldview that doesn't care for traditional families or traditional values. I have these sorts of conversations all of the time will well intentioned teachers who never connected the dots to notice that the kids who were so consistently getting into trouble were fatherless. Once I pointed that out, they would still look for some other cause because they had been raised to believe that family structure and having a father around were not as important as race, wealth, etc. It's such a ridiculously obvious correlation that I've posited the theory that any given year the top 10 small town schools in South Dakota based on standardized testing are also the towns with the lowest percentage of kids from one-parent homes. I've taught at a couple of those schools, and that was clearly why they were successful. Even those who have benefited from growing up in a community of stable families are blind to it.
I'm not so sure. From "it takes a village", to the #Metoo movements and everything in between is trying to denigrate the male role in raising a family. You said it yourself above, someone standing up and advocating a traditional nuclear family invites vitriol from those who take it as an attack for non-traditional family structure.
 

MadRat

God, Family, Football
2 Year Member
Maoism at its finest. Antifa, btw, is an openly Maoist organization.
 

1960Husker

Recruit
It's almost like policymakers were willfully promoting instability...
I don't think that it was/is a conspiracy so much as the blindspot of a worldview that doesn't care for traditional families or traditional values.
You can't pass a law that requires the government to pay young girls to have babies conditioned exclusively on them NOT having a father in the household and then turn around and call fatherless households an accident.

Its all about power. People dependent on government payments are doomed to vote for politicians that support perpetuation of the system that provides for them, be damned whats best for the masses and the country.

Consider the Chicago Public School System, the stories of young teenage girls telling their teacher they are "going to have a baby so they can get their own apartment" have been common place for generations. In turn, the streets are a war zone....literally.

The truly sad part of this human tragedy is that a person can't even begin meaningful discourse in the public square about this deception without an unrelenting, well-organized onslaught from the perpetrators demonizing anyone who dares discuss this evil practice as racist and heartless when the exact opposite is actually true.

Sometimes its good to have our Big Red as a distraction. Our world is troubled.
 
Last edited:
Top