> This is a very uncharitable interpretation. If anything, parent is saying that staying engaged and not giving up just because an issue came up, is a positive, valuable and, most importantly, not passive at all. In other words, if you can't even deal with the problem you received, how are you even begin to 'improve things' overall?
It is not uncharitable interpretation. It is exactly what it means. What the cultures that internalized "can’t know happiness without sadness, light without darkness" have in common is that they are not trying to improve those things. Often for good reasons - the political system or powers to be prevents improvement. But, what cultures that improve things have in common is that they are not happy about stuff they want to improve.
> Is it maybe because it seems to have better outcomes?
They did not. Societies with "father is the disciplinarian mother is not" thing had larger social issues then us - juvenile criminality, alcoholism, smoking, you name it. Fun fact: it was prevalent in Weimar Republic and they were as disordered as it gets.
> Is having a dad and a mom so bad that you cannot accept those positive outcomes ( and I can easily grant there are bad ones as well )?
This is beyond uncharitable interpretation and in the realm of "completely twisting what I said". Having both parents does not imply what you wrote at all.
>> And we are back to gender essentialism, where moms are not empowered to provide structure making them dependent on father in work for it. And dad has a role of threat that comes home after being absent whole day just to punish you for mistakes during the day.
Response:
> Is having a dad and a mom so bad that you cannot accept those positive outcomes ( and I can easily grant there are bad ones as well )?
Statement:
<< This is beyond uncharitable interpretation and in the realm of "completely twisting what I said". Having both parents does not imply what you wrote at all.
Response:
Is it uncharitable though? I maintain it is a valid interpretation.
You explicitly said gender essentialism[1] explains why mothers can't seem to get the same results ( "they are not empowered enough" without actually explaining what would that entail I might add so you may want to expand on it a little ) and I simply followed that thread out of sheer curiosity of your frame of mind and responded with a clear counter which suggests that positive outcomes seem to be common to family units that are not, lets call them 'unstructured'.
<< "completely twisting what I said"
It is possible I am misreading you. What are you saying, exactly?
<< Having both parents does not imply what you wrote at all.
How so? It seems the few studies that were done support that notion[2]. Granted, it is not enough to simply have two parents. They need to be engaged, stable, have decent income so there are other factors at play, but I will boil it down to something really simple. Raising valuable members of society is hard work ; having kids is not that hard in abstract. It is doubly as hard for one person, because there is no one to share that burden with.
There is also some empirical data suggesting otherwise including amount of parents, who stay in otherwise 'bad' unions for the sake of the children suggesting rather instinctive understanding that it is not exactly a 'one man job'. Now, that is being countered by individualistic nature of US, but that is a separate conversation in itself.
In either case, you may want to expand on your thought process to convince me. Right now I don't really see an argument.
Um. First, I would like you to consider the possibility that you are not accurate and maybe a little too hasty in your judgment.
When you look at the post history, you will note that it is GP that used that quote so accusing me of lying is a little much. If that is the case, It is possible that you may be a little too emotional about this issue to see the argument clearly.
<< This is not even closely "having two parents" situation. It is prescribing specific roles to the two parents.
I am willing to agree, but I am not certain I can continue this conversation in good faith when you ascribe quotes to me that are not mine.
I never hid that I have opinions; some of those are strong and maybe even controversial in some ways, but I like clear statements. I would like to point out that you chose to respond to neither of my questions and instead attempted to derail this conversation by attempting to point to inconsistency that.. well.. does not exist.
<< It is prescribing specific roles to the two parents.
But even assuming all of the above did not happen. The question becomes: so?
It is not uncharitable interpretation. It is exactly what it means. What the cultures that internalized "can’t know happiness without sadness, light without darkness" have in common is that they are not trying to improve those things. Often for good reasons - the political system or powers to be prevents improvement. But, what cultures that improve things have in common is that they are not happy about stuff they want to improve.
> Is it maybe because it seems to have better outcomes?
They did not. Societies with "father is the disciplinarian mother is not" thing had larger social issues then us - juvenile criminality, alcoholism, smoking, you name it. Fun fact: it was prevalent in Weimar Republic and they were as disordered as it gets.
> Is having a dad and a mom so bad that you cannot accept those positive outcomes ( and I can easily grant there are bad ones as well )?
This is beyond uncharitable interpretation and in the realm of "completely twisting what I said". Having both parents does not imply what you wrote at all.