[Liberator]

Some weeks ago, a conservative author released a book.

She devoted a whole chapter to the subject of Unwed Mothers, and how the rise in the number of Unwed Mothers can be tracked to the rise in violent, perpetual criminals.

So here's the puddin...where do you fall on that subject.

If you need help I'll be back in about 2 hours.

[redsniper]

It is most certainly better for children to grow up in stable family units, and I would say that unwed single mother families have a greater tendency to be unstable than your traditional nuclear family. Which, of course, isn't to say that all nuclear families are great and that it's the only way to go, nor that single-parent families can't be stable and healthy. I would say it's also important for children to have some kind of good male role model in their lives, whether it's a father or uncle or what have you.

So I guess I tentatively agree, but I also want to see more hard data on this.

[Turambar]

I believe the solution to this problem is abortions.

[StarSlayer]

They are probably both symptoms rather then cause and effect

[General Battuta]

They are probably both symptoms rather then cause and effect

This

I believe the solution to this problem is abortions.

and also this.

And some good sex education, instead of abstinence-only.

[The E]

Correct. The problem isn't so much of Mothers being unwed, it's about children being unwanted, and their mothers not being ready for them, neither in a financial nor in a psychological sense.
[rant] Social conservatives, "Pro-Life" people or whatever else one may call these people who create a climate where young women are either unaware of or unwilling to avail themselves of solutions that would not only spare their children a difficult childhood, but also allow these young people a chance to get their own life running before starting another.[/rant]

[Janos]

what is this book

[General Battuta]

Janos reminded me of something I forgot to mention.

CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION

For example, I can track the rise in unwed mothers to the drop in violence in Iraq. It is transparently obvious that unwed single mothers, seeking to provide for their children, join the military and perform heroic deeds in order to defeat the insurgency.

You need to find a new book.

[The E]

There is that, of course. Unless someone can prove a correlation like that, take any "revelation" like that with a saltmine.

[Herra Tohtori]

Being wed or unwed doesn't enter into it. At all. It's all about having parents, and two is better than one.

A child with loving parents hardly gives a damn whether the parents are married to each other. Marriage is just an institution.

I obviously have not read the book, but could you tell if it actually specifies parents not being married (divorced or just in cohabitation?) as the reason to violent behaviour, or does it actually mean people raised by single parent (unwed mother) and therefore lacking one parental figure? Also, what kind of statistics does it refer to?

If the former, I blow a raspberry to both the book and the author for attempting to attach the violence issue to a religious institution (marriage specifically), as if being married or not would be the deciding factor in whether or not the kid grows up to a mob hitman or a respectable member of society.

If the latter, there might be a point in it but it would be necessary to also look into such things as how the kids raised by single fathers fare in similar inspection, for example. Also a check of other common features with children raised by single mothers might reveal some things that could potentially be linked to increased violent behaviour.


In other words, violence might correlate with being raised by "unwed mother", but it doesn't necessarily mean there's a causation between the two. Or at least direct causation.

...like Battuta said.

[Janos]

There is that, of course. Unless someone can prove a correlation like that, take any "revelation" like that with a saltmine.

hey you just have to make an unfalsifiable claim and then seek random data that supports it

I don't even know what this magical book is! I bet its good and revolutionizes social sciences

[The E]

hey you just have to make an unfalsifiable claim and then seek random data that supports it

I don't even know what this magical book is! I bet its good and revolutionizes social sciences

A method which, while common, does not deserve to be called science. I would hope that social science as practiced by non-idiots has more rigorous standards than that (Mathematics and Computer science are much more comfortable and less forgiving that way).

[General Battuta]

hey you just have to make an unfalsifiable claim and then seek random data that supports it

I don't even know what this magical book is! I bet its good and revolutionizes social sciences

A method which, while common, does not deserve to be called science. I would hope that social science as practiced by non-idiots has more rigorous standards than that (Mathematics and Computer science are much more comfortable and less forgiving that way).

Yes, it does.

[Janos]

hey you just have to make an unfalsifiable claim and then seek random data that supports it

I don't even know what this magical book is! I bet its good and revolutionizes social sciences

A method which, while common, does not deserve to be called science.

ding ding ding

I would hope that social science as practiced by non-idiots has more rigorous standards than that (Mathematics and Computer science are much more comfortable and less forgiving that way).

it does

But basically these kinds of books (I'm going out on a limb and I assume this is some kind of a political commentary or some **** like that) simply pick out a desirable goal ("family is GOOD"), then find some random crap and slap it on it and lazily come up with some really far-fetched allegories and use this as Science Which We Base Our Politics on.

It's ridiculous

ed: where's Liberator! I want to debate someone, I want to debate someone HARD

[Liberator]

I obviously have not read the book, but could you tell if it actually specifies parents not being married (divorced or just in cohabitation?) as the reason to violent behaviour, or does it actually mean people raised by single parent (unwed mother) and therefore lacking one parental figure? Also, what kind of statistics does it refer to?

I didn't mention the title simply because you'd blow me out of the water as a whacko without considering the argument, because the author makes the controversy surrounding Salman Rushte look like a mild summer shower.

The author is Ms. Ann Coulter.
http://anncoulter.com/

The book is "Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America".
http://www.amazon.com/Guilty-Liberal-Victims-Assault-America/dp/030735346X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240009136&sr=8-1
In the book she separates Single Mothers, women who have decided to bear a child for whatever reason, into a class apart from women who have lost they're husbands either through divorce or death.

Using this strict definition, you can account for something like 85% of the currently incarcerated violent offenders in America's prisons.  Taking it a step further, she goes on, this accounts for the vast color differential in America's prison population, without that 85% there is almost no difference in the number of black or latino offenders vs. white offenders.

[Janos]

this cannot be serious

say it isn't

[General Battuta]

So what you're saying is that we need more abortions?

Or more social services and welfare to support single mothers and their children?

Or better public school systems to keep these kids in school?

Or more affirmative action to help them get into college?

And go back and read the earlier posts, too.

[Nuclear1]

The author is Ms. Ann Coulter.

This is how you know you should stop reading that book.

Sorry, my blood boils everytime I hear her name.

[General Battuta]

I am not particularly partisan, but I must say that any 'research' she's done is not going to shine through all the ideological pablum she heaps on top.

[Liberator]

So what you're saying is that we need more abortions?

Or more social services and welfare to support single mothers and their children?

Or better public school systems to keep these kids in school?

Or more affirmative action to help them get into college?

And go back and read the earlier posts, too.

Those are treatments to the existing condition, not the causal agent.

The causal agent is a society that, while not outright sanctioning it, has begun turning a blind eye to Single Mothers.  

It was not that long ago that if a girl became pregnant, she was forced to leave whatever school she was attending, moved to a different school specifically for girls in her condition and her family was scandalized.  This often resulted in so called "Shotgun Weddings' where the young man would be forced into marrying the mother of his child.

Somewhere along the line, it became "ok" for a woman to have a child out of wedlock with a man.  Later, a government program was created to help these women, which in turn created a culture where the children were looked upon as a form of income, more kids = more money.  All the while, you have the sexual culture of these areas changing bit by bit so that promiscuity is not looked down upon as it once was.  Say what you will about my "outdated" perspective, but society created the problem, and society has to fix it.

Young boys, especially as they begin to mature into biological adulthood, need a male roll model that is not a gang leader or a thug.  I would love to see a generation full of Bill Cosby and Condoleezza Rice emulators instead of Tupac or Lil' Kim wannabes.  You can extend that beyond race also, Mr. Cosby and Ms. Rice are worthy of emulation no matter your color or nationality.