Single mothers in Poland

Jon puts his two cents in on all posts that challenges homosexuals or socialism with his self induced twaddle.
Only a masochist could come here day after day to take the abuse he does.
According to research out of Harvard Business School however, there are significant benefits for children growing up with mothers who work outside the home.
The study found daughters of working mothers went to school longer, were more likely to have a job in a supervisory role, and earned more money - 23% more compared to their peers who were raised by stay-at-home mothers.

The sons of working mothers also tended to pitch in more on household chores and childcare, the study found - they spent seven and a half more hours a week on childcare and 25 more minutes on housework.

Lazy single welfare mom's that have 101 excuses for not working generally raise the same type of toxic kids.


No they get thick skinned to it and have no shame blaming it on not having a father or working mother for a role model.

Jon is one of the few people here who is 'out' as a gay man and is willing to challenge lazy stereotypes and unthinking nastiness.

So I see him more as brave than 'masochistic'.
What were you wittering about socialism? is he for it or against it? Your writing is very unclear.

No abuse Tori, except from Pol3 who nobody takes seriously and I notice some fairly foul behaviour from yourself. Says much more about your own inadequacies than anyone else.

Your Harvard study is some foreign thing that doesn't take into account the specific conditions of Poland, especially rural stigmatisation and problems within schooling. This is a Polish matter that is alien to you.

To repeat, there's nothing to disapprove of about a non-nuclear family and those who try to stigmatise a woman for choosing/or ending up having to to bring up a family without a male present are shameful. Not her.

The ones who really should be stigmatised are the opinion-moulders, the entertainment industry, indivudal celebrities and media people who glamourise pathological situations. Unwed motherhood has been around for ages as an unfortuante situaition to all concerned, but now it is being glamourised and promoted as a trendy so-called "lifestyle option". Naturally the kids and often the mother eventually suffers because of it, but the promoter nonchalantly watches his bank account grow.

"Pretty woman" was na excellent example of glamoursing prostitution which caused a wave of attractive young girls from North Dakota, Minnesota and suchlike to head for big cities. They all wanted to find a millionaire admirer like Julia Roberts did. Instead they were, exploited, beaten and even killed.

Commercial popculture with its huge power of persuasion (or brainwashing) is one of the main causes of society's ills.

This is absolutely true. Having taught in various inner city schools, with a high proportion of single mothers, alcoholic and substance abuser parents, our focus was always on how best to help the children. The only way we could do that was by befriending these women as much as we could. You don't get anywhere by shouting the odds at them or shunning them. Simple example. A four year old boy in my class was coming to school with no breakfast because mother couldn't get out of bed and a neighbour was bringing the child to school. So I simply chatted sympathetically to the young mother and then suggested that she leave a box of cereal on the kitchen table at night before she went to bed and keep some dishes in one of the low level cupboards, milk in the bottom of the fridge, so that the child could get something to eat. She actually managed to do that. A very small thing but a big difference for the child. If I'd simply lectured her about her shortcomings she would have avoided me from then on (that's what they always do) and the child would have continued to come to school on an empty stomach.

Congrats, Atch! I tip my hat! That was a clever stop-gap move, adn those are certainyl necessary. But does it not behoove people like yourself concenred about their fellow-man to ask: what can be done to demotivate people against getting hooked on drugs, drink and promiscuous behaviour. We are all born tabula rasa - so someone or something along the way must have encouraged such irresponsible misconduct. Who has failed in the educational and socialisation process: the family, the school, the Church, the media, society in general?

How can you tell just by looking at someone? A young mother could've as well been raped, her husband might have left her when she got pregnant or has died, someone had a psychological problem and got hooked on his or her prescription drug after taking it for a while, and so on. You never know the whole story without asking, so how are you even able to blame someone?

You have described situations where a mother would have to cope with adversity, so surely you don't regard that as irrepsonsible misconduct.

Or she may simply choose not to be with a partner. Plenty do and nobody else's business.

An individual case is only that person's business if she/she are within the law. But when the number of such cases multiply and evolve into a social phenomenon, then it affects and concerns all of society. Whatever solution is proposed, it nearly always involves the taxpayer's hard-earned money. A growing number of unemployed unwed mothers, children from broken homes, substance-abusing drivers, speeders, school dropouts, burglars, etc. obviously impacts every country's social-welfare, educational and/or law-enforcement. system. No-one in his right mind can say "that is nobody's business".

Surely you aren't suggesting legislation on this?


You're mixing different issues here. All of those phenomena happen regardless of the marital status of a woman.

And yes, whether a woman chooses to have/stay with a man is nobody's business.

If it develops into a social phenomenon then it's everybody's business and must be addressed.

Nope, a 'social phenomena' as you so glibly call it does not need to 'be addressed'. A problem like bigotry, racism, homophobia, religious indoctrination, hooliganism, may well. Women bringing up their kids without male support does not. The only role of the society is to respect choices, ensure that nobody in society falls below the poverty line and that all children get as good an educational start in life as we can give them.

" unemployed unwed mothers, children from broken homes, substance-abusing drivers, speeders, school dropouts, burglars, etc. obviously impacts every country "

'My home is not 'broken' thank you, it is perfectly functional.
You do know how offensive you are don't you?

I think there is a lot of stereotyping and anger in this debate. Surely we can all agree a few points.

In a perfect world, every child would have two parents who are together, love each other and the child very much, are good parents and also good providers and role models.

However we don't live in a perfect world. Sometimes, one parent dies, the parents stop loving each other, one changes in personality and creates an unpleasant environment for the other and any children so there is separation. Some other times, a woman becomes pregnant and doesn't know who the father is, or the father is not interested in being part of the child's life, and she does not have an abortion (possibly because she has seen some of the comments on forums such as this about women who make that choice, or because she lives in Poland where the procedure is illegal in almost all cases).

For all these reasons and more, sometimes children live in homes where there is a mother but no father. In most instances, this happens for unavoidable reasons or because the mother is trying to provide the best life she can for her child, given that she cannot provide the 'ideal' I described at the very beginning.

In some other cases, there is only a father. I notice nobody is condemning men for bringing up children on their own...

You have proved my point. Society's duties as you have outlined them translate into £££, $$$, €€€ or zł zł zł of the taxpayer's hard-earned money and that makes it a public concern. There has never been a shortage of welfare cheats trying to milk the system to their own selfish advantage.

Well, Pol3, in the words of the bard "a grand don't come for free" and if you don't like your tax zlotych (or dollars perhaps in your case) going to support the poor, I suggest you find a desert island.

Your 'argument' also makes no sense either. Are you seriously saying that because poor families are more likely to need support from the community than rich ones we ought to moralise about their family structure? To what end? To force a woman to marry against her will? To prevent her from divorcing? To seize her kids?

You're just moaning without making any sense, like an old biddy in the post office queue muttering that everything in the world's "disgusting" when what she really means is that her daughter doesn't phone and her arthritis is playing up.

The honest poor definitely, but welfare cheats? Those abusing public aid are robbing the honest poor, handicapped, disadvanatged and underprivileged. What do you think should be done about the abusers?

Who is


and what do you suggest doing to single mothers? Ritual humiliation? Forced marriage?

Your riposte reminds one of an old joke:
"Why do you Jews always answer a question with another question?" - "Vy shouldn't ve?"

I think that single mothers should have their children placed into a state nursery, their heads shaved, and they should be forced to wear bright orange jumpsuits and clean the streets with a toothbrush.

F.ucking slags.

Most people nowadays can only dream of a "state nursery"

;-)

Here comes jon's odious insults as usual towards people that dispute his twaddle to flaunt his authoritarian inadequacies.
Now that we established that we both think each other is an ass can we stay on topic.
Anyone that is a drain to societies pocketbook is societies problem jon.
Anyone that puts themselves before their children's well being to raise them without a male role model is societies problem.
Their little girls turn out to be controlling hags and their little boys turn out to be fems in more cases than not.
Some single mothers even think this is normal and call it a functional home because they themselves are controlling hags.
The ones that are not a single mom by choice without attitude and smile are usually helped by many people to survive the circumstance.
It's a choice to be a single mother in most cases as is it a choice to be a drunk.
A stigma comes with both.

Kind of blows jon's theory out of the water though about his selfish meism, "if it feels good then it is o.k. to do" lie.

To normal people that is an unfortunate developement, but there are those (also on PF) who view that with optimism and delight: more "fresh young meat" on the market!

as there is only about one 'out' gay man on PF, P>, that is incredibly offensive.
Anyway it is rubbish, sons of single mothers are no more likely to become gay than sons of two parents living together.
I must say I was pretty relieved that my son was free to experiment and have a laugh by slipping on one of his sister's dresses - his dad would have gone seriously, damagingly mental.

You nailed that one. Children from single parent homes are no more or less likely to anything than children from two-parent homes.


Yes, but there is also at least one poster here who is very clearly so deep into the closet that he's enjoying the company of Aslan. Perhaps it's that gentleman who looks forward to 'fresh meat' being 'on the market'

So you're effectivley saying that a complete, non-dysfunctional family comprising married parents with children is a total waste and displays no virtues or benefits. Maybe it should be done away with. A punitive matrimonial tax equivalent to the married couple's annual income imposed on all those who refuse to shack up and breed like animals should do the trick. If the PO win, they're the ones who'd be the most likely to propose such a "progressive" measure.

er no P., he was saying that a boy brought up by a single mother is no more likely to be gay than one brought up by a married couple.

Your imagination on what other people are 'saying' is very fertile isnt it?

That doesn't make any sense, Polly3, as usual.

You seem to be looking for a value judgement, that one type of family is better than another. That all type x are better than all type y or vice versa. The reality is very different.

You really are very unhealthy

I'm saying that I know some marvelous people who grew up in loving single-parent families. I also know some utter scumbags who came from families which didn't get divorced (for example because the RCC doesn't allow divorce) and had such a fcuked up childhood that it's not in the slightest bit surprising that they turned out to be scumbags.

I know it's Friday but even so....