Posted by cccp1014 on 5/30/2018 8:25:00 AM (view original):
Posted by wylie715 on 5/29/2018 6:46:00 PM (view original):
Posted by cccp1014 on 5/29/2018 2:48:00 PM (view original):
Posted by laramiebob on 5/29/2018 2:47:00 PM (view original):
Boris, your premise is flawed........ you don't DECIDE to become a single Mom........... You decide to fornicate unwisely and end up alone and without a male partner. THAT occurs for a whole shitload of reasons..... from deadbeat maledom to crazy females who can't "nest",-------- among others..........
You have made my point. We need to address this first and foremost not race relations. Single parenthood is slowly killing this country.
you may be right, but I don't see how that can be fixed? Do e make it illegal to have sex if you are not married? Who has to enforce that law....and how would they know? You keep bringing up single parent households as being the major part of the problem. I'm not sure I agree with that. That's neither here nor there. I don't see any way to fix it. Sex education in schools doesn't do it. I think we both agree there's no way you're going to stop people from having sex, whether they are married or not. So, how do we do it? How about a suggestion for fixing it instead of just saying it needs to be fixed.
I'd spend $10bn on education starting in middle school. Maybe provide incentives to kids who graduate HS and don't have a kid by giving them $5k per year for college. Now it won't pay for a lot but it will pay for some state schooling community college. Again my kids are in middle school and NO ONE is talking to them about the dangers of single parenthood.
That is how I would attack it. Similar to the "Just Say No" campaign vs. drugs in the 80s. I'd do the same thing for single motherhood now. I would also make welfare programs a lot less attractive. Rather than giving welfare stamps, that they sell for other sh*t, I'd deliver actual food. This way they have to eat what I provide vs. what they want to eat. So they won't go hungry but they won't get to choose necessarily what they like.
This is what I would do wylie.
I'm quoting this because it's a reasonable start to an approach to the problem. And I do agree with Boris about the impact of (particularly) Fatherless children, any single Parent home has it tougher economically in today's world. No doubt about it.
Gov't (however) can/should only articulate for social behavior changes, NOT legislate for social engineering, as some think is OK to try.
The Just Say No campaign is a good example. Gov't $$$, yes, but only on an ad campaign/slogan/social influence attempt, not thru Law.
The problem with the Just Say No campaign was wasted dollars caused by ridiculously out-dated and inappropriate messaging for the parties intended.
At the middle school age level IMO Boris, it should be the Parent(s) province ONLY. The children are too varied and (some) emotionally "perplexed" at that age to let Gov't mess with them. BUT, their should/could be a campaign waged towards the appropriate age group (teen-agers) about wise sexual practices. Use humour. Have Joe Camel (or some modern-day appropriate popular icon) to look into the camera, deliver a safe sex AND family planning message with some cute/funny slogan to tie it all in like/say/for example:
Wrap that rascal, cowboy" or "Wrap that Rascal, bro" or "wrap that rascal, homey"
whatever the proper slang is for the region.
Somebody should start one of those hashmark thingies............. "Wrap that rascal #/life control"
something like that...............??