The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / Life  % width posts: 175

Single mothers in Poland


TheOther 6 | 3,664
31 Jul 2015 #121
You have described situations where a mother would have to cope with adversity, so surely you don't regard that as irrepsonsible misconduct.

That was not my point, Polonius. I've asked you how you can judge someone this way...

...so someone or something along the way must have encouraged such irresponsible misconduct.

without knowing the exact circumstances. Basically, you see a single mother with a child and call her a slut - why?
Polonius3 990 | 12,349
31 Jul 2015 #122
call her a slut -

Who told you that? Coping with adversity, trying to create some semblance of normality in an incomplete household, possibly holding down two jobs to provide their kids with opportunities -- that is heroic, not reprehensible.
TheOther 6 | 3,664
31 Jul 2015 #123
Who told you that?

That's how you came across, and I wanted to make sure that I understood you right. Thanks for the clarification.
Harry
31 Jul 2015 #124
Who told you that?

Your words and your attitude.
Polonius3 990 | 12,349
31 Jul 2015 #125
Your words and your attitude

As always takne out of context, twisted and distorted. But at least I'm glad you have rebounded following your procedure and are your normal nasty self again.

single mothers

The poor single mothers have undeservedly been taking a beating on the forum, when it should be remembered that many if not most of them got that way thanks to stupid, selfish, footloose macho studs. The 4-F* variety of chat-up and hook-up artist out only to satisfy his passing lust whenever it emerges, totally oblivious to any consequences, totally irresponsible and wholly incapable of committing. They do their thing, go their merry way and let the woman fend for herself.

In general society unfairly stigmatises women but lets men get away with murder. In the US police vice squads are constantly swooping down on prostitutes. Too bad they haven't tried the Swedish solution. There not the prostitutes but their "johns" (customers) get detained and fined.

USA Slang: Find 'em, feel 'em, f*ck 'em and forget 'em!
Harry
31 Jul 2015 #126
As always takne out of context, twisted and distorted.

Not at all, your words are that people either are "a complete, non-dysfunctional family comprising married parents with children" or "shack up and breed like animals". No middle ground, no reality.
Polonius3 990 | 12,349
31 Jul 2015 #127
complete, non-dysfunctional family

This is the ideal to which we should aspire. But we are fallible humans so all too often it doesn't work out. My criticism is mainly aimed at those -- media, entertainment industry, celebrities, pop culture in general -- who popularise, glamourise and try to normativise dysfucntional arrangements and make them look cool, trendy and upscale to gullible youth. It's as simple as that.

My home is not 'broken'

I was not defining your home - what made you think that? I always prefer discussing issues of society-wide significance than individual people's foibles. Do you read celebrity gossip mags? I avoid them with a passion.

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

Your wishful-thinking-style statement about the kids of single mothers being totally unaffected by their circumtances is one the most ridiculous and outrageous things you have ever posted here, and you've come up with some doozies. In fact, if you were someone influential, that would be a downright depravatory act, because it might be taken as a go-ahead: unwed motherhood does nto adversely affect children in any way. Fortunately, your private opinion is of little consequence to anyone. The following may englighten you, but I doubt it. You are too set in your ways!

Children born to unmarried mothers are more likely to grow up in a single-parent household, experience instable living arrangements, live in poverty, and have socio-emotional problems. As these children reach adolescence, they are more likely to have low educational attainment, engage in sex at a younger age, and have a birth outside of marriage. As young adults, children born outside of marriage are more likely to be idle (neither in school nor employed), have lower occupational status and income, and have more troubled marriages and more divorces than those born to married parents.

childtrends.org/?indicators=births-to-unmarried-women
Atch 20 | 4,155
1 Aug 2015 #128
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.

Yes indeed it does and together with the short-term strategies we use, the schools I taught in all had quite an extensive network of supports in place. It's too detailed to go into here but it includes a home/school liaison program involving home visits by teachers, an anti-drugs/alcohol program which starts when children are four years old and a program that identifies individual children at risk of dropping out of school. We try to get them as early as possible, even at pre-school level and start working with them and the parents at that stage. There's one pilot program in Dublin targeting young pregnant women and trying to start the process even before the children are born.

The moderators will no doubt think this is off-topic as I've mentioned Ireland! But such initiatives can be set up anywhere and Poland definitely needs something similar. Another thing that proved very helpful was getting the older women in the community to mentor the younger ones. We set up cookery lessons in the school for example where local women taught the younger ones basic cooking. Some of the young mothers have almost zero parenting/home-making skills. When you get to know them and they talk about their own childhoods, you find that many of them had alcoholic or violent parents, were placed in care or lost their mothers at an early age, so never had a stable home life themselves.
Roger5 1 | 1,443
1 Aug 2015 #129
Polonius, presumably you'd see children brought up by one heterosexual parent as preferable to them being brought up by a homosexual couple in a loving, stable, long-term relationship. Correct me if I misrepresent your views.
OP InPolska 9 | 1,805
1 Aug 2015 #130
Single mothers are "single" for a lot of reasons. Life is crual and often not as we had expected ;). Thus, instead of stigmatizing them, of making their situation even worse, why not helping them and their kids not only for them but also for the benefit of the whole society?

@Roger5: "tricky" question! ;)
jon357 74 | 22,469
1 Aug 2015 #131
Some people choose to have a kid without being in a relationship. Not one shred of evidence that this is bad or that they should be pitied in any way. And certainly not stigmatised or discriminated against.
Polonius3 990 | 12,349
1 Aug 2015 #132
I'm saying that I know some marvelous people

Going anecdotal again? I've got na aunt who.... The lady next door bla-bla-bla... I know this bloke that....
Good for pub chatter but not in a serious discussion.
Roger5 1 | 1,443
1 Aug 2015 #133
My lesbian ex-sister-in-law raised three fine boys, two of whom are married (to women) with kids of their own. The only problems they had in their upbringing came from the intolerance of others. I suppose some would dismiss this as merely anecdotal.
OP InPolska 9 | 1,805
1 Aug 2015 #134
@Roger: absolutely! I also have met several (male of female) homosexuals raising kids and said kids turned up alright. There are good and there are bad parents regardless of their sexual orientation.
Polonius3 990 | 12,349
1 Aug 2015 #135
Correct me

Truth to tell such a comparison never crossed my mind. The answer is obvious, I think. If the homosexual couple conudcted a harmonious well-cared-for household, kept their intimate things to themselves, didn't march in "pride" parades and avoided the negativre aspects of homosexuality (high rate of promiscuity nad break-ups, STDs, domestic violence and substance abuse), then that would probably be preferable of a single drunken and abusive parent or even a normal couple constantly fighting and rarely sober. But why think up extreme situations except for the sake of polemic?
jon357 74 | 22,469
1 Aug 2015 #136
Why would any of that matter?
rozumiemnic 8 | 3,854
1 Aug 2015 #137
But why think up extreme situations except for the sake of polemic?

well, that is a good question - why DO you do it? :)
OP InPolska 9 | 1,805
1 Aug 2015 #138
@Pol: do you have official statistics re homosexual domestic violence? I seriously doubt that gay/lesbian couples are more violent than hereto couples.
Roger5 1 | 1,443
1 Aug 2015 #139
But why think up extreme situations except for the sake of polemic?

I didn't, you did. Please post a link to your stats on high substance abuse and domestic violence among homosexuals. If you have stats on substance abuse and domestic violence among homosexual couples, all the better.
Polonius3 990 | 12,349
1 Aug 2015 #140
substance abuse and domestic violence

I've done so in the past. Scroll down a bit and you should find it.
Vox - | 172
2 Aug 2015 #141
@jon "we should stigmatise a woman whose family doesn't fall within those 'ideal conditions'?"

No, we shouldn't stigmatize anyone who doesn't willfully harm others I think it goes without saying. However, when you say - stigmatize you actually mean approve or to perceive as something as good as two parent family.

meh!

"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"

Ideologically biased hype.
No, the reality is a one type of family is better than other, namely a man and a woman plus children are a family, one-parent family are a family with one important element missing.
jon357 74 | 22,469
2 Aug 2015 #142
Nope. A family is only as 'good' as the individuals in it, regardless of number, relationship or gender. The idea of a nuclear family being regarded as 'the family' is a relatively modern and urban innovation anyway and makes no sense in many of the world's cultures.

To suggest that a woman deciding to bring up her kids without male assistance is inferior ignores so many factors.
Polonius3 990 | 12,349
2 Aug 2015 #143
domestic violence

I'm sure you're far more adept than me at netsurfing since I am your consummate anti-gagdetarian and you surely need not be led by the hand. If this subject interests you, do some exploring on your own. Just a small sample:

A study in the US suggests that same-sex relationships suffer higher levels of domestic violence than heterosexual ones.

bbc.com/news/magazine-29994648

advocate.com/crime/2014/09/04/2-studies-prove-domestic-violence-lgbt-issue

More than a third of gay, lesbian and bisexual people took at least one illegal drug in the last month, according to the largest study of its kind. Whether drug use is a psychological crutch, a way of integrating into the "scene" or perhaps both, that figure compares to 5 per cent of the wider population who admitted using a drug in the last month in the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW).

independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/drug-use-seven-times-higher-among-gays-8165971.html
Tori
3 Aug 2015 #144
one-parent family are a family with one important element missing.

You nailed it Vox.
The progressive liberals tactic is to change the wording to make it sound acceptable.
When I was growing up an illegitimate child was called a bastard, today they have become known as a "Love Child".
I think bastard might bean extreme but a "Poor Judgment Child" may be a tone softer but far from a love child.

No, we shouldn't stigmatize anyone - stigmatize you actually mean approve or to perceive as something as good as two parent family.

Again it is the progressive New Age tactics to cleverly reword to change something favorable to their liking.
What works to get better results for a six year old, Daddy this big ball of fuzzy fur followed me home, can I keep him ? OR

Daddy I found this dirty stinky mutt, can I keep him.
A single mom should not be glamourized so the younger generation sees it as no consequences and acceptable in society.
Polonius3 990 | 12,349
3 Aug 2015 #145
The poster was merely saying that unwed motherhood may be a fact of life but should not be glamourised and turned into a trendy lifestyle option by the popculture media. Hollywood celebs can afford to do all kinds of outrageous things but to promote or normativise them means emulation by ordinary people and that rarely ends well. A dysfuntional family may be only its own business until it starts affecting others -- fatherless kids running wild, engaging in vandalism and petty crime and becoming a neighbourhood threat, etc.
Tori
3 Aug 2015 #146
edit
YES IT IS others business as others support single mothers in most cases not to mention the children needing therapy
as they get older because they end up getting in trouble because they have no male role model.
jon357 74 | 22,469
3 Aug 2015 #147
Makes no difference at all.

In Poland people don't have therapy anyway.
OP InPolska 9 | 1,805
3 Aug 2015 #148
Amazing all these guys above thinking that single mothers are single by choice! Very few are but most of them would prefer not to be single ;). It is extremely difficult (also financially) to raise kids when alone.

Anyway, life can be very rough and we need to adjust. Of course, the nice clean-cut family as seen in commercials looks perfect but a lot of people don't have such families ;).

Single mothers, homosexuals and a lot of other situations that seem "non political correct" have existed since the beginning of the world and shall be for ever so best to accept ;)
weeg
3 Aug 2015 #149
The idea of a nuclear family being regarded as 'the family' is a relatively modern and urban innovation anyway and makes no sense in many of the world's cultures.

Thats completely untrue, in fact the opposite of the truth. The family goes back to at least Egyptian pyramid building times and you can be sure that neolithic hunter gatherers we a nuclear family.

The non nuclear family is a very recent concept, because a single mother and children would equate to starvation.

Sometimes your personal bias is too obvious.
jon357 74 | 22,469
3 Aug 2015 #150
The family goes back to at least Egyptian pyramid building times and you can be sure that neolithic hunter gatherers we a nuclear family

Extended families back in those days. Until very recently indeed families lived together for a whole lot of reasons. One woman, one man and 2.4 kids was very much a Twentieth Century thing.Not sure why you think 'pyramid building' is relevant to anything.


Home / Life / Single mothers in Poland