Artful Dodger: Sorry.. but until boys start actually growing up.. why give out the false impression that a couple raises babies and they all grow up happily ever after.. Most people I would hope over the past 20 some years have observed that children are mostly being brought up by single moms.. okay.. sometimes the dads are raising them singly.. but, mostly the girls are ending up prego and the boys not really sticking around..

Artful Dodger:  Stats are biased.. yes.. single parents are usually in poverty levels due to it taking two incomes anyway to live the American dream.. hard to have those two incomes with a single parent.. Facts are.. Boys usually don't stick around.. they aren't usually mature enough to handle the responsibilities of children. Another fact.. kids are having sex around 10 years of age now.. any parent out there not wanting to take that in is in denial. At that age they simply just don't understand what can happen.. I am not saying having babies as a single girl is good.. I am just saying.. it is crazy for these girls to believe the boy is going to be there.. that is what we need to teach the girls..

I find the issues of single parenthood interesting since I myself grew up with a single mother. My father died when I was 6, so my mother had to cope alone with 3 children. Of course, while my mother being a single mother resulted out of widowhood, she was also a teenage mother (my older brother was born when she was 16.)

I am also a "Hispanic", which can mean anything as long as Spanish is your first language.

When I was a kid we were not rich. We were poor, but not miserably poor. My mother worked hard, but she managed to provide us with everything we needed. I started working when I was 13 to help pull my weight around the house. All three of us got a university education, and eventually all three of us grew up and got on with our lives.

Were we more or less happy that other families? I would say that we were the same in the sense that we had our share of good and bad times. Maybe I did not have a father growing up, but unlike my neighbor next door, I never had to see my dad get drunk and abuse my family. I never had to see my dad go out and cheat on my mom, only to find out later that I had half brothers and sisters here and there. Some of my relatives have brothers and sisters that were born out of wedlock and that they never even met.

My family was deeply religious (even though I I never believed in God, even as a child. Somehow I failed to have any faith.) My mother has remarked that if instead of weekly catechism classes she had had sexual education classes, she would not have ended up marrying at the age of 17 and having her children so young.

I find the religious arguments such as promoting "abstinence" instead of sexual education to be for the most part a failure. People have tried to suppress human sexuality not for years, not for decades, not for centuries, but for thousands of years. Abstinence always was and will always be a failed teaching because it denies human nature and the sexual nature of human behaviour. No offense to the religious out there, but promoting abstinence is hypocritical and foolish. It is like asking people to stop eating. You can't expect people to give up a very human need.

To say that children in marriages do better is not necessarily true. There are times when a single-parent family will do better than a badly dysfunctional two-parent family. Single parents might not have the same economic resources, but then neither do married couples in which one of the partners drinks or uses drugs or gambles, etc. Then when parenting money is only half the battle. Any parent can tell you that. If money was the only determining factor, the middle class would NEVER fail to parent well. Money helps, but it is not the key to parenting well.

To say that marriage is the key to parenting well, is also a misconception. There are happy marriages, and unhappy marriages. There are loving marriages, marriages of convenience and marriages of obligation. People stay married for a multitude of reasons. We wish it would always be love, but that is not always the case. Some people can parent well and marriage is an asset in that parenting process. Others can parent well, and never be married (as in some common law relationships). Some married in church, and others had only a civil marriage. The correlation between marriage and good parenting is at best coincidental. Some people have actually parented better AFTER divorce because once divorced the couple stopped fighting and could actually concentrate on meeting their children's needs.

What our young people really need is good sexual education. That is more than saying: "These are contraceptives, now, don't get pregnant." Good sexual education should imply teaching young people responsibility and good judgement in their choices. Good sexual education should also aim to give young people some of the important skills in parenting and raising children. Stigmatizing single parents or criticizing them is destructive and hypocritical because it fails to point out ot the fact that while marriage is an asset, it is not necessarily the key to parenting well.

Over here in the UK studies have been going on about a more basic problem than being a single mother or how rich you are.. a simple question..

... are you happy?

Happiness cannot be bought, it's a state of mind.

Übergeek 바둑이: excellent!

Artful Dodger: But such an a statement can be said to be rather one dimensional regarding one parent families. Also, as such this could be a one generation event and has in that no real value.

It also has not looked at why there are single parent families, ignoring that times have changed and so have people. Many single mothers now know that they are not tied to living a lie such as "healthy two-parent family structures" if the appearance is just a mask.

The cost to kids living in a house that is broken..... how do you measure that in dollars?

Artful Dodger:

Oh, don't get me wrong. You will notice in my post I never said anything bad about Mr. Huckabee. If anything, he has a valid point. Single parents do have a much harder time making ends meet, as well as issues such as child care while they work, etc. It is also true that Hollywood gives an unrealistic view of parenting. Not everybody is rich and can afford to hire someone to help.

At the same time, V is right. This is not a one-dimensional problem. While money is a central issue, there are also issues such as culture, religion, government support systems (or lack thereof), extended families, legal implications (such as divorce, alimony, women's rights), etc. I think that nobody can pin it down to a single issue.

I don't know if people like Natalie Portman or Angelina Jolie are openly portraying themselves as a role models for other women. People do look up to famous people. It does not necessarily mean that those people represent wider social values.

I think that rather than finger pointing, our famous people and politicians should engage in a more constructive dialogue. If single-parent families are having a harder time raising their children, what can we do for them?

I think that Mr. Huckabee will make another run for the presidency. When that time comes, I am sure in his platform he will touch on the subject and present his own view of a constructive approach to the problem. At least one hopes that from a candidate that one would support when election time comes. Sadly, issues such as this are always lost to bigger issues that get all the media attention. Somehow terrorism, national defense and tax cuts always seem to take precedence over things such as helping those in need have a better life, or finding a better approach to prevent teenage pregnancy and our society's increasing problem of divorce and single-parenthood. Most likely by the next election this issue will not be at the forefront of Mr. Huckabee's mind because issues like dismantling the new health care legislation will probably be more on people's minds. I would not blame or criticize Mr. Huckabee (or any other politician) for that. Politicians do respond to what the public wants to see and hear.

"In the context of a radio program that examines the culture, Huckabee's comments can't be seen as an attack (which is how the Left portrayed it)"

But it is all as it stands a one dimensional argument. Just using money as a means to evaluate how successful parents are at doing a thing that in the end has no bearing on money. But on raising children.

... It's not an attack.. just a very limited look at the whole problem!!

Artful Dodger:   short and sweet.. LOL

Übergeek 바둑이:   I really enjoyed reading your statement on single parenting and sex education. It is very important to teach our youth about sex and what the outcome can mean. I am sorry to learn your father had died when you were young. It sure gives one a different perspective of life.

We do it in France for students in the last class of the scondary school (children are about 14 - 15 years old). And condoms and contraceptive pills are free for them.
But, I think that, in France, people are less practising with religion than in USA.

Artful Dodger: WOW.....you can go to the Humane Society for spaying and neutering ....we have to go to a Gen Prac and then a Gyno

Bernice:   LOL

Seems the problem as recorded with single mothers is that they are not getting any money of the absent fathers. The men are just not living upto their responsibilities!!

....Sex education looks like the key. But of the States in the USA.... how many will teach it?

Mélusine: I cannot agree totally. It depends on the type of religion taught... I say that because we do have a state religion and yet that state supports sex education at schools. Parents are given the option to 'opt out' for their children regarding that.

... But there again.. It can be said that in the case of Bible belt USA.. the tax man is paying for church endorsed non-education. Maybe they should tax the churches to pay for their guidance!!

Artful Dodger: I hope someone decent runs. It's SO important to get rid of the anointed one.

Artful Dodger: Agreed. As regards Guantánamo, Obama is a total disappointment.

The bay.. such a nightmare mess that even good intent can't clean it up. Maybe it'll be renamed "The Bush" in honour of the President who used a sledge hammer to open an egg.

I think there are probably some reasons why Guantanamo is not closed yet:

1. Several countries don't want to repatriate the prisoners sitting there. Many of those prisoners have nowhere to go. Nobody wants them in their country.

2. Fear of reincidence is a factor too. There is guarantee that if any of these men end up free again they won't go back to doing what they did before being captured. Now they have even more reason to hate the USA,s ince many of them were imprisoned for years without formal trials or charges.

3. Prisoners disclosing what happened in Guantanamo is a factor too. What we know of interrogations there is only the tip of the iceberg. It is possible that these men are theatening to publicize what happened to them in Guantanamo. They might not be willing to buy their freedom with silence.

I think Obama was unrealistic in thinking he could close Guantanamo without giving thought to what they would do with those prisoners or how they would be legally processed. Am I disappointed with Obama? No, because I knew from the beginning that the US can NEVER close Guantanamo. The only way Guantanmo will close is if the lease runs out and the Cubans ask for their land back. Then the Gulag will have to move elsewhere.

Artful Dodger: Exactly. "Unrealistic" is an understatement. He is a complete amateur. I can't believe so many people voted for someone so Unqualified. It seems as though he is just stumbling through everything.

rod03801: They voted for him as people had gotten tired of the somewhat 'experienced' George Bush.

... I think McCain being so old and Palin being so .. ... .. utterly unsuitable didn't do the Republican camp any good.

(V): And? So? Doesn't change the fact that he is inept and just making a mess of things.

But don't get me wrong. Bush was a bumbling fool too.

rod03801: A mess?? G bay was Bush's mess. Bush made it, Obama tried to clean it up. He can't due to the problem being bigger than I gather he would of known of until he was President.

... I don't think those running for President get told much details of TOP SECRET files before they get into power.

.. Do they?

(V): Sorry, I honestly don't have much sympathy (if any) for the people that are there.

rod03801: ... And what about those killed by those who use the abuse and other crap that has happened there as part of their recruitment drive for more to join the terrorist cause?

Tuesday: His flip flopping on the subject (obama) just shows how he doesn't have a clue what he's doing.

Tuesday: Oh come on. According to Super Obama, it would be completely closed by now. Of course he is flip flopping. He is incompetent, face it.

anyways...I thought it was the economy ...stupid..(not meaning anyone here)..Obama has really disappointed me with that... I know.. its a global world, but you can't blame bush anymore.. if so then why run for pres. in the first place? and please DONT SAY HE DIDN'T KNOW how bad it was, AND WASN'T INFORMED.. HE WAS A FREAKING SENATOR,and his party was the majority in the senate also.