Melissa Harris-Perry Promo About Raising Children ‘Collectively’ Becomes News

[the mechanic]

Which one? There's been a lot of studies that lead to the same conclusion. Parenting is not as important as most people make it out to be.

werent you the same one posting how your moms was strict about your education being a factor in your going to college
What if she was like these independent women who dont even know or care if the kid actually even gets to school..you still think you would have graduated...

I think were speaking of different things..youre looking at academic success and im looking at overall wellbeing..but either way parents are the most powerful influence on a child..and if they arent then they failed

I know you're a parent, and most parents don't like to hear this because they like to think they're in control of how their kids turn out, and you are in a lot of respects, but surrounding environmental conditions and culture are extremely pivotal in shaping peoples' identity and behavior. That's why you see the children of immigrants who raise them with vastly different cultural norms act no different than Americans for the most part.

I do see it all the time..i think its unrealistic not to expect to be influenced by your enviroment and yes i see the kids of FOTB immigrants suffer culture shock and wild out

Honestly i think its retarded to imagine that anyone can shape a kids identity..thats an urealistic expectation..Shaping their behaviour however is a parents job

Nah, that's a simplistic conclusion. If someone's parents are drug addicts or abusive or something that creates a traumatic maladaptive environment, their kids will probably be more fukked up than the average person.

Of course

But any studies or statistical indicators about whether someone ends up being a "productive civilized successful human being" will ultimately show that socioeconomic status as the most important predictor.

Correlation=Causation?

Better socioeconomic status=better behaved more successful kids ...YOU KNOW WHY

Because logically two parent households had better incomes ,more stability so their socio economic status was always improving..

the single mom household takes a hit economically for just one income and a welfare system that destroys class mobility so these families must move backward socioeconomically

It wasnt the money or the social class making the kids succeed.........it was the stability of their family

Not sure what this would have to do with anything. Chicago had higher murder rates in the 70's and most people there were raised in two parent families then.

Is it possible that violence can be caused by other factors...the 70s had racism,Drugs,Vietnam and a whole host of other problems.

Chalking up violence in Chicago and similar places suffering from poverty and urban to single parenthood is flawed reductionism in the first place because there are a myriad of factors: poverty, bad education, deindustrialization, poor nutrition and health, bad culture, lead and other contaminants, structural racism, etc. that lead not just to violence, but the very single parenthood you're decrying in the first place.

Of course those other factors matter but the most important one is parenting its no coincidence that every hotspot in the news has the same kind of family structure as the norm
The Real, Complex Connection Between Single-Parent Families and Crime - Kay Hymowitz - The Atlantic

 

[the mechanic]

Your talking about a global recession here. This has absolutely nothing to do with the "out of wedlock rate" check before that. Check what the BLACK poverty rate has been historicaly.

^^^^^this entire time the "out of wedlock" rate has been going up. Shouldn't the poverty rate have been going up as well?

You fukked up for posting that..that graph is liberal kryptonite

but lets start with this

Every year since the end of WW2 poverty was dropping by 10% (15-20% for black people) with no welfare or no war on poverty

then comes liberals hero Great Society LBJ and the war on poverty starts in the early 70s and if you look at your chart when LBJ left in EDIT 1968 the black poverty rate was 30% or 6.5 MILLION people

In 2012 the rate was 27.5% 12 MILLION

the "war" on poverty has dropped the rate 2.5%...... what an amazingly successful program and all it cost us to achieve this whopping 3% reduction was our families

such liberal genius

 

[MeachTheMonster]

You fukked up for posting that..that graph is liberal kryptonite

but lets start with this

Every year since the end of WW2 poverty was dropping by 10% (15-20% for black people) with no welfare or no war on poverty

then comes liberals hero Great Society LBJ and the war on poverty starts in the early 70s and if you look at your chart when LBJ left in 1974 the black poverty rate was 30% or 6.5 MILLION people

In 2012 the rate was 27.5% 12 MILLION

the "war" on poverty has dropped the rate 2.5%...... what an amazingly successful program and all it cost us to achieve this whopping 3% reduction was our families

such liberal genius

Again you are comparing the rate in 2012 during a WORLD recession. Poverty rates are up all over the world. If you look before the recession, poverty rates were on a constant decline. Black poverty rates have historicaly fluctuated with the overall health of the economy.

And beyond any of this. You said the poverty rate was directly related to the "out of wedlock" rate. If anything we have proven your assertion wrong.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

werent you the same one posting how your moms was strict about your education being a factor in your going to college
What if she was like these independent women who dont even know or care if the kid actually even gets to school..you still think you would have graduated...

It's funny you mention that because what I said was my mom was strict about education, but I will still a mediocre student who didn't give a fukk. I had to take summer school to not fail 7th and 8th grade and I had a lukewarm GPA upon finishing high school. I didn't start to buckle down until about my junior year in college.

And I got into trouble with the law and did all types of stupid shyt which completely flew in the face of all the values my mother preached.

The biggest thing I had going for me was my middle class economic background and not having to worry about bare necessities, and my parents being able to pay for my college. If I grew up poor, I would've probably been a bum.

I think were speaking of different things..youre looking at academic success and im looking at overall wellbeing..but either way parents are the most powerful influence on a child..and if they arent then they failed

No I'm not. I'm looking at every possible characteristic that makes up someone's personality and behavior. Parenting is just one factor.

I do see it all the time..i think its unrealistic not to expect to be influenced by your enviroment and yes i see the kids of FOTB immigrants suffer culture shock and wild out

And environment and culture is very crucial to molding a child. People often overemphasize the impact of parenting. That's all I'm saying.

Honestly i think its retarded to imagine that anyone can shape a kids identity..thats an urealistic expectation..Shaping their behaviour however is

I don't know what's retarded about that. Honestly one's identity is in large part a product of all their external influences.

Correlation=Causation

Better socioeconomic status=better behaved more successful kids ...YOU KNOW WHY

Because logically two parent households had better incomes ,more stability so their socio economic status was always improving..

the single mom household takes a hit economically for just one income and a welfare system that destroys class mobility so these families must move backward socioeconomically

It wasnt the money or the social class making the kids succeed.........it was the stability of their family

It's not a correlation=causation fallacy. I don't know why you're attributing structural poverty primarily to single parent households. People weren't poor before the decline of the nuclear household?

Nobody's saying a single parent home is ideal. I agree having two parents is better because of the obvious reasons of having two incomes and not having the sole burden of raising a child on one parent.

If you come from low SES, most likely you will stay that way regardless of whether you have one parent, two parent, or no parents.

Also, I'm not sure why you're acting like single parenthood is some extrinsic phenomena. The loss of good wages and gainful steady employment by men over the last 3 or 4 decades hasn't been a contributing factor to single motherhood and breakdowns of family bonds? The drug trade hasn't broken up families fukked up social relations?

Is it possible that violence can be caused by other factors...the 70s had racism,Drugs,Vietnam and a whole host of other problems.

Exactly my point. Single mothers are not the bane of existence. Chicago had over 970 murders in 1974 when most households had two parents. They only 532 last year despite all the headline grabs. That pretty much dispells your whole argument.

This is very simplistic and reductionist claim because if you're poor, you're more likely to have a single mother. If you're born to a single mother who makes $120,000 a year, you'll probably be alright. The issue is poverty, not simply single parent homes.

Of course those other factors matter but the most important one is parenting its no coincidence that every hotspot in the news has the same kind of family structure as the norm
The Real, Complex Connection Between Single-Parent Families and Crime - Kay Hymowitz - The Atlantic

No it is not. If you control for socioeconomic status, you find that parenting isn't as impact as culture and environment.

 

[Rapmastermind]

I get her point about education and community but her wording was off by saying, "Your kids don't belong to you". Bullsh!t. At the end of the day "The Community" can't be the Parent. A Parent is #1 in a Kids life. Sure the community can help if there are problems but the bottom line the Parents are the #1 responsibility for kids. I'm sorry she gave conservatives the red meat with that ad. The fact she tried to drop another ad to clean it up is proof that her words haven't going over well. To say to parents, "you kids don't belong to you" makes no sense. I understand "It takes a village" by Hillary but even then she wasn't taking responsibility from the parents. The community should be a safety net for families but again at the end of the day. Parents are #1 in the development of a child's life.

 

[The Real]

To say to parents, "you kids don't belong to you" makes no sense. I understand "It takes a village" by Hillary but even then she wasn't taking responsibility from the parents. The community should be a safety net for families but again at the end of the day. Parents are #1 in the development of a child's life.

When did she tell parents their kids don't belong to them? All I got from this ad was the "it takes a village" message in different words. Besides, it was specifically about investing in public eduation. It never said anything about forcing kids to go to public school or taking responsibility from parents.

 

[Rapmastermind]

When did she tell parents their kids don't belong to them? All I got from this ad was the "it takes a village" message in different words. Besides, it was specifically about investing in public eduation. It never said anything about forcing kids to go to public school or taking responsibility from parents.

Her exact words were "Your Kids don't belong to you". She or anyone really shouldn't be shocked someone would take that the wrong way. She could of talked about education without going the extra mile talking about "The Community" raising kids. Yes Conservatives can be crazy but so can Liberals and to me she brought this controversy on herself. If she really stood by her words there wouldn't of been a 2nd ad trying to clean it up.

 

[Field Marshall Bradley]

Who told you that..that number has just hit a record high of 46 million 15%
Record U.S. Poverty Rate Holds As Inequality Grows - Businessweek

That war on poverty is going about as well as the war on drugs







Now try again to answer his post with some truth

Don't think this is necessarily true

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/23/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-poverty-us-all-time-high/

 

[the mechanic]

Don't think this is necessarily true

PolitiFact | Bernie Sanders says poverty in U.S. is at an all-time high

You got me on that ..i didnt qualify my statement..i meant record high since the war on poverty began..obviously the great depression and dustbowl years were outrageous

2010: 15.1 percent
1993: 15.1 percent
1983: 15.2 percent
1982: 15.0 percent
1964: 19.0 percent
1963: 19.5 percent
1962: 21.0 percent
1961: 21.9 percent
1960: 22.2 percent
1959: 22.4 percent

 

[The Real]

Her exact words were "Your Kids don't belong to you".

No, that sentence was not in the video. That's what the Republicans are saying to try and twist the message. The closest line to that in the footage is "So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that 'kids belong to their parents,' or 'kids belong to their families,' and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. Once it's everybody's responsibility, and not just the household's..."

The way you're describing it now puts a totally different spin on it. If you wanted to sum it up by paraphrasing the way you/the Republicans are trying to, but properly, it would be "your kids don't belong only/just to you," as in, obviously they are primarily your responsibility in a direct sense, but they're not just your responsibility in the sense that no one else has any responsibility towards them. It's about expanding the sphere of responsibility, not subtracting it from the parents.

 

[Rapmastermind]

No, that sentence was not in the video. That's what the Republicans are saying to try and twist the message. The closest line to that in the footage is "So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that 'kids belong to their parents,' or 'kids belong to their families,' and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. Once it's everybody's responsibility, and not just the household's..."

The way you're describing it now puts a totally different spin on it. If you wanted to sum it up by paraphrasing the way you/the Republicans are trying to, but properly, it would be "your kids don't belong only/just to you," as in, obviously they are primarily your responsibility in a direct sense, but they're not just your responsibility in the sense that no one else has any responsibility towards them. It's about expanding the sphere of responsibility, not subtracting it from the parents.

"We have to break away from the private idea that Kids belong to parents or that Kids belong to their families"

Come on bro, that just doesn't sound right man. Look I saw the ad and it didn't come off right to me. The 2nd ad only highlights that she trying to clean it up. To me she gave the conservatives the red meat. She did not articulate her points as well as you just did in that ad. She could of easily said what you said without the whole "You kids don't only belong to you" talk.

 

[No1]

"We have to break away from the private idea that Kids belong to parents or that Kids belong to their families"

Come on bro, that just doesn't sound right man. Look I saw the ad and it didn't come off right to me. The 2nd ad only highlights that she trying to clean it up. To me she gave the conservatives the red meat. She did not articulate her points as well as you just did in that ad. She could of easily said what you said without the whole "You kids don't only belong to you" talk.

I seriously can't believe there is outrage over this. I mean the courts have even gone so far as to say, "The state also has an unquestionable parens patriae obligation to protect its children and serve their best interests." The entire idea of removing children from the homes of abusive parents is based upon the notion that these are "our children" and that we serve a great social and community harm by allowing them to be denigrated, coerced or otherwise led astray. I don't see how it is a radical proposition for her to suggest that we owe a collective duty to provide the best possible environment, society and education possible for each child in the same manner as we have accepted collective duty to keep them safe.

She is saying that this individualist notion of children and the future partially led to the result we have in society. The countries that outperform us on an educational level more often than not have a greater sense of unity, whereas nations like Britain, which most resemble our thought process are achieving in many facets at a comparable level. Or underachieving I should say.

It's a shame that so few people still adhere to the notion that, "A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."

 

[Broke Wave]

You fukked up for posting that..that graph is liberal kryptonite

but lets start with this

Every year since the end of WW2 poverty was dropping by 10% (15-20% for black people) with no welfare or no war on poverty

then comes liberals hero Great Society LBJ and the war on poverty starts in the early 70s and if you look at your chart when LBJ left in 1974 the black poverty rate was 30% or 6.5 MILLION people

In 2012 the rate was 27.5% 12 MILLION

the "war" on poverty has dropped the rate 2.5%...... what an amazingly successful program and all it cost us to achieve this whopping 3% reduction was our families

such liberal genius

The poverty rate was falling because of the New Deal... an even more overarching and wide reaching Liberal policy than the Great Society. Also LBJ didn't leaving in 1974 and the war on poverty didn't start in the early 70's. You need to brush up on your historical facts, LBJ left office in 1968. The biggest part of the great society was Medicare, which makes sure old people don't go into abject poverty due to medical costs, which is probably the most popular program in American History. Also one of the most successful.

Sorry breh

 

[the mechanic]

The poverty rate was falling because of the New Deal... an even more overarching and wide reaching Liberal policy than the Great Society. Also LBJ didn't leaving in 1974 and the war on poverty didn't start in the early 70's. You need to brush up on your historical facts, LBJ left office in 1968. The biggest part of the great society was Medicare, which makes sure old people don't go into abject poverty due to medical costs, which is probably the most popular program in American History. Also one of the most successful.

Sorry breh

OK youre right he left in 68 not 74..the number for 68 is STILL 30% so it doesnt change my post..Was the poverty reduction because of the new deal.?

I dont think so..the new deal was a temporary reaction to the great depression..the economic boom came from the war and industry going into overdrive for the war...thats what brought the poverty rate down

Medicare didnt come along untill 1965..has it been successful?...:eeh: perhaps..does that mean that we couldnt have figured out another way to do the same thing..i dont think so

 

[Broke Wave]

OK youre right he left in 68 not 74..the number for 68 is STILL 30% so it doesnt change my post..Was the poverty reduction because of the new deal.?

I dont think so..the new deal was a temporary reaction to the great depression..the economic boom came from the war and industry going into overdrive for the war...thats what brought the poverty rate down

Medicare didnt come along untill 1965..has it been successful?...:eeh: perhaps..does that mean that we couldnt have figured out another way to do the same thing..i dont think so

Actually the new deal was not temporary... And unemployment fell rapidly from 1933-1937... there was a recession which caused FDR to scale back some of the new deal but ultimately by 1940 the depression was already largely over.

Furthermore you cant say "maybe we would have figured out another way to do the same thing" that is the definition of a cop out... we shouldn't have passed the civil rights act we would have found another way to do the same thing? We shouldn't have banned slavery we would have found another way to do the same thing? The fact is the same thing wasn't being done until it was done, so that is the weakest criticism of all.

You keep talking about the war on poverty, do you want to explain to me what provisions that period in policy that you don't like and led to economic failure?