Alternative households breed misery and are hell for the kids

I ran across this on the net and am sharing it as food for thought. Obviously anything that does not promote anarchic altenativism, diversity and maximum "differenteness" will be odious to the forum's vociferous hedonist-libertine wing. But they are free to provide "evidence" alleging that a fly-by-night society is what's best.

So consider that children who do not grow up in a two-parent family are 75 per cent more likely to fail at school, 70 per cent more likely to be a drug addict, 50 per cent more likely to become an alcoholic and 35 per cent more likely to sink into welfare dependency.

Supporters of shack-up liaisons should bear in mind that scarcely one in 12 married couples splits up by their child's fifth birthday, while half of all parents who are cohabiting do so.

Encouraging alternative family structures breeds misery. The British intellectual elite should be ashamed of themselves for duping the gullible into believing that non-traditonal alternatives are cool and trendy.

So you thought you'd post it to annoy them. I suspect the stats are from the USA again.

There's no doubt and nobody would argue that growing up in an unstable family of any kind is damaging on some level. The child with a violent or alcoholic or mentally unstable parent or parents will suffer, even if those parents are married. Most of the ills you mention such as school failure etc are also associated with poverty and social disadvantage, which is not restricted only to single parents. There are plenty of married couples who are struggling financially,earning very little, unemployed, living in poor housing conditions in bad neighbourhoods etc. and their children experience the knock on effects of that.

Not to annoy but educate. Yes, but all things considered, a complete famly even if poor, with health or drinking problems or otherwise disadvanatged is still less toxic to kids than a incomplete or dysfucntional one. I recall one Englishwoman saying in an interview that her dad was a man of few words and rarely provided any family input. He came home from work, ate supper and mainly sat in front of the telly with a beer, BUT HE WAS THERE and that made all the difference.

Since I have always been interested in family, over the years I have read many studies but I'm at a loss to relocate them. Many were pre-digital articles and reviews in various publications. But if anyone had the need and patience, I'm sure a category by category chart could be compiled comparing the impact on children of different family/household arrangements:

complete and poor v incomplete and poor
complete with serious disability v incomplete with serious disability
complete and unemployed v incomplete and unemployed
complete with drinking problem v incomplete with drinking problem*
and many other categories. Do you have any doubts as to which side would prove more determinetal to raising kids, although individual exceptions always can occur.

*If the drinking problem involved repeated vilolence towards the spouse and children as well as impoverishing the family by selling household assets for booze, then the equation might even out.

No you are not, it is a blatant trolling thread just like the last one which amounted to nothing more than lies. You have started it for no other reason than to flame as usual.


They are from the Centre for Social Justice which was set up by Iain Duncan-Smith, and were used primarily to slam the Labour government back in 2010.

centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/media-centre/2010-press-releases/press-release-74


More of your lies. It is one in 11 married couples who split up by child's 5th birthday, and one in 3 for those cohabiting as is stated in the above link.


How the hell would you know this? Are you seriously suggesting that it's better for a child to live with an alcoholic parent so long as the couple are married? You don't think that perhaps the most sensible thing would be for the child to be removed from that toxic situation so it grows up with one loving parent, and not subjected to the horrors of living with an alcoholic? Your views truly beggar belief.


I don't know where you get this idea from. I don't think anyone advocates divorce or single parenthood, myself included. I doubt many single parents deliberately choose the option, but for one reason or another, things haven't worked out. I am not in favour of 2 miserable and deeply unhappy people staying together for the sake of the kids. That can actually be more harmful for the children than growing up with one parent.

Got out on the wrong side of the bad, have we? I get the impression that some nerve is struck whenever families are mentioned. Do you feel personally attacked? You shouldn't because I know nothing of your personal situation nor do I want to know. Accusing me of "lying again"? Different version of things are found on the net. I did not alter what I found. Besides, this is not a scholarly symposium or dissertaion where every full stop, comma and footnote has to be in place, but a laid-back, friendly discussion.


It's a known fact that labour, social democratic, socialist or other leftist governments tend to promote permissive anything-goes attitudes, whilst conservative ones defend proven, time-honoured traditions and non-dysfuinctional families.

Just tired of reading more of your moralising s.hite. Thread after thread of the same old stuff. It doesn't really matter how much you complain though, you will just have to get on with living in a society that you clearly loathe :-)


You didn't even supply a link for your evidence, and I'm not surprised given that we would have seen that yet again you posted lies. It is not a question of if full stops and commas are in place, it is that you should supply truthful data so all can comment accordingly.


You haven't actually 'discussed' the last couple of points I raised at all. This topic is not one for discussion, it is for you to bang on about how marriage is better for all concerned, despite whatever anyone else has to say on the subject. You gloss over any valid points made, and if you had bothered to read my post, you would have read that I am not in favour of advocating single parenthood or divorce, but you ignored that point because you didn't like that I had caught you out yet again with more lies.

That's exactly Harry's approach. When he's lost for an anwer, he accuses his interlocutor of lying. Convenient but silly!

I don't give a toss whatever anyone else's approach is. I am able to think for myself and read relevant data. When I found the relevant data, I noted that what you had posted was lies. Would you like to post your link then to disprove this?

I also have no idea what answer I am lost for?

No Polly, research shows that's not the case.

'Parental alcohol problems are associated with negative outcomes in children, e.g. poorer physical and psychological health (and therefore higher hospital admission rates), poor educational achievement, eating disorders and addiction problems (West & Prinz, 1987; Girling et al., 2006), many of which persist into adulthood (Balsa et al., 2009)'.

A Danish study (Christofffersen & Soothill 2003) studied a group of 85,000 children of alcoholics following them from the age of 13-27. The study concluded that such children were at greater risk from factors such as premature death, suicide attempts, drug addiction, mental illness and teenage motherhood. They are also more likely to be subjected to parental violence.

The most extensive study to date in the UK was carried out in 1992 and found that over one-third of children who experience problems with alcoholic parents carry these problems into their adult life.

So, no, being raised in a household with an alcoholic parent is not less harmful to a child than being raised with one stable, caring and loving parent.

No-one made a comparison between an alcoholic and non-alcoholic family.
The only valid comaprison when disucssing dysfunctionality would be between an alcoholic parent in a two-parent family v an alcoholic parent in a single-parent household.

As you will have noted, I pointed out that in extreme cases involving violence the equation could balance out, ie no significant difference between compelte and incomplete family. But other negative factors include poverty, disability of a family member, bad neighbourhood and more.

Of course it does Pol.
This all started with Socialists welfare give away programs.
Done with a big heart yet destroyed the culture.
Check the charts and you will see the comparison.
Before all the welfare programs for example in the Black Communities the marriage rate was 75% plus with a father present.
Since the welfare programs started and the government encouraged and made the father obsolete in the family that percentage is now down to less then 25% being married or fathers present in the family.

The Socialists heart is in the right place but has destroyed the family structure which in return causes crime, failure and misery.
Europeans are even worse.
Since they have been the Recipients of the "Largess" of the United States for at least "one hundred years", that would be two ("Hot") World Wars... and one ("Cold") War, they are pretty much "SCREWED" when the idea of "Self Gov't." comes into the discussion.

Eve now they are part of the "European Union" merely an extension of the Socialism that's been breeding since the days of the FRENCH REVOLUTION ! (1789)

And the Frogs just continue to get "more comfortable" with every Generation !
They're screwed.
Hell the French get #6 WEEKS OF PAID Vacation every summer !
NICE but it reflects their "Work ethic" alright !
With that being said: Germany & Poland are probably the ONLY nations with any "Ethic" at all for working.
The rest wait for the State to step in and "Comfort" them !
Can't shoot 'em all....................... like they used to, it's "INSENSITIVE" !)