Yeah...I've stood up for my daughter when she couldn't do it for herself. You could see the staff's eyes get big when I'd come through the door, walk up and say it like it was. The conversations were short, to the point, and effective - often resulting in a good outcome for everybody. Without a dad like me, they'd be drawn-out, drama-filled, destructive endeavors...haha....

" the truth is that it takes two adults to bring up children... despite all the howling of the counter-culture."
I might be part of the counter-culture, although I hope I don't howl. It's up to parents to figure out how to bring up children. If one parent, dies or leaves, the other parent certainly shouldn't resign himself/herself to the child not getting the mom-mode or dad-more parenting. The mom/dad-mode is just shorthand, anyway, because the traits described are present in may 90% of the gender associated with them. If a man is "mom-mode" or vice versa on one or more traits, it doesn't matter. People's (and parents') individuality is important;

I do think those traits are important. If both parents are operating in mom-mode or dad-mode on most issues, I think it's good to have other people in their life who can demonstrate the other role.

I agree with the article, and the mom/dad anecdotes ring so true to me. But I don't want to shoehorn people into the traits of their group.

We are at an impasse here on how to use the word “truth.” I hope we can agree to disagree

Quite simply, no, I don't agree with you. From my perspective, your argument is an attempt to twist my words beyond the context of the article and the comment I replied to.

This topic has obviously struck an unseen nerve. Please believe me when I tell you that I do not judge people on the basis of their parents. I simply advocate on behalf of solid principles. I have worked a great deal with children and youth as a volunteer and I have seen first-hand the differences of children coming from two-parent vs one-parent homes. I do not envy those who bear the additional struggles inherent in a single-parent home whether parent or child.

“Truth” is a word that should never be misused, but often is. I just pointed out you misused that one word.
Do you agree?

Note: If you had said above, “it takes two adults to bring up children: a father and a mother” I would have had no problem, because you would never have claimed it as “the truth.“

The State is the father in such cases. Not a very good father, huh?

Words have meaning when taken in context. You're stretching it far beyond the intended context and implying an absolute when none was contextually intended.

No offense was intended.
I only wanted to point out that If you claim a statement to be truth, then there should be no exceptions.

Words have meaning.

If we're going to pick nits, then I will maintain what I said before. If you want to raise children, you can do it with anyone. If you want to raise functioning adults you need two parents. There are obviously notable exceptions such as Ben Carson, but these are exceptions rather than the rule. The rule is emphasized in the article.

Your truth is not true because children can be brought up without an adult mother or father.
Your statement literally claims that this is not possible.
Many may not be brought up well but they can be brought up.

I do agree with what you said after that.

Why do you say it isn't true? The psychological studies are pretty clear about the results of being raised by two committed, biological parents vs not. That's what "negative consequences" are.

I'm not saying that it is always possible, but it should be the standard. The United States used to uphold that cardinal value and our entire society was better off in every way. We started attacking that value in the 60's and now we wonder why our society is so messed up... It isn't just the Progressives who want to ignore the real problem.

“ the truth is that it takes two adults to bring up children: a father and a mother”
Not true. But we are starting to experience the negative consequences in a growing number of children that didn’t have have a mother and father while growing up. Progressives do utterly ignore this.

Well said. Despite all the angst of the progressives, the truth is that it takes two adults to bring up children: a father and a mother. Psychological studies continue to demonstrate this despite all the howling of the counter-culture.

This is an important and powerful article that describes something that may be responsible for mental health issues in young adults.

I call the phenomenon described in the article "momism". My guess is widespread TV-like devices with unlimited games and kids' programming led to it. Until around 1990, kids got on their parents' (moms' and dads') nerves and they would send them out to play. 24-hour kids programming made it possible for the kids to stay under their parents' supervision for longer. This made them grow up slower. Traditionally women were responsible for infants and men were responsible for more of teaching kids to go out into the world. This "momist" trend resulted in kids staying in the "mom" domain longer.

In the 90s, for reasons I don't really understand, this idea appears that kids must be in "structured activities", never just out playing learning to solve their own problems. La Leche League around the same time gets their classes and literature overstating the benefits of breastfeeding into mainstream hospitals. This makes it harder for women who accept this to stay in the workforce. They don't feel comfortable saying they'll be housewives, as their grandmothers would have, so they invented more complicated structured activities. Everyday sporting events commonly require parents to bring a snack, usually made by mothers not father.

So, as the article says, the "fatherly" attitudes have less influence. I'm not sure exactly what causes what, among video screens, structured activities, breastfeeding, and general anxiety, but the end result is kids not growing up, people age 18 thinking of themselves as children rather than women and men. They have experimented with sex, drugs, and other risky behaviors much less than my generation. They call doing basic adult activities without their parents "adulting". When some adult problem arises that their parents can't solve, they're thrown into severe anxiety or depression. They never experienced simple playground disputes as children or even dating issues as teens.

I think all this amounts to an international crisis. We're blessed to have cheap yet amazing tablet video devices and video games, but we've got to send the kids out to play. We've got to be therefor them if they come to us but not hover.

I have seen parents of 8 year old kids make the "eyes" gesture with two fingers to indicate that their kid should not run behind a large tree the park. "I need to be able to see you." This is at a park that all of us road our bikes to at age 6 with no supervision besides the older kids who may be at the park. "Times have changed," they say, but we need to think about if we want them to change in the direction of paranoia and holding our kids back at each stage of development.

The "mom" and "dad" scenarios in the article ring true. I think we've gotten more "mom"-mode, for lack of a better word, than the typical mom in the 70s.

If Dad's had been moe present, schools would not have been able to take over the children's minds as they have.As the daugher of a very present dad, I learned to stand up to authority for right, but I found many moms did not want to rock the boat, even for their kids.
great article. It is the opposite of what the lib women in Congress are calling for, to get rid of men. Cortez, the one from Hawaii, Omar, they all want men out of Congress even. Just minority women is teir goal. Teir actions and inappropriate calls fro violence, never even consider how the young shhoters became so messed up. It i time this comes into the light.

Negotiation is not the answer against an aggressor who is determined to subjugate you. Read the Declaration of Independence (memory quote) "When a long train of abuses evinces a desire to reduce us under absolute despotism..."

I can't go along with the "faith-based" stuff. I also don't think divorce is necessarily Immoral.(Though it's better to be careful to make the right choice in the first place.) But a lot of what he says makes sense. A good father in the home is important. (I think maybe, in a way, more for a girl than a boy. Though my parents didn't divorce until I was 34.)
When I was about 4 and a half, my father got a job in an electrical plant, and he worked there about 25 years. Living on the blacktop, I got a (mistaken) impression that my neighbors' father was mean and brutal. Later, I saw a big guy on the front porch holding the youngest boy in a bear hug. That made me afraid of men in general. For a long time. (Maybe about 3 weeks.) One evening, I was with my father in the yard, and, as I recall, he was cutting grass. And I realized that, even though I was scared of men, Daddy was a man, and I wasn't scared of him. And I may have said, "You're a man, aren't you?" Or maybe I only thought of saying it. But I realized then that he was a man, and I wasn't scared of him, so there was no need to be scared of all men. (Later I found that that neighbor wasn't all that bad, either.) If my father had been rarely around, I might not have been afraid of him, but he might have just been a non-entity who wouldn't have offset that impression. (Oh, he slapped me sometimes, and made me afraid to undergo specific punishments, but that was different from being afraid of him as a person or a man.)

93% are male! That’s not fair! What about equality of outcome? Such obvious discrimination! The left must be fuming over this. Social justice can correct this social imbalance. /s

Dennis Prager did a great Fireside Chat on reasons for rise in shootings. He included absent dads in his top reasons, but several other incontrovertible causes. Very logical, very common sensical. I recommend it to anyone ...

My father was my role model. He was scrupulously honest, gentle, and strong willed at the same time. He never tested above average IQ, but he was incredibly ingenious. The lessons he taught me about life, problem solving, and setting goals I could not have learned any other way without great difficulty.

My mother was a strong woman, and intelligent, but I realize that without my father I would not have learned patience or willingness to compromise. Without a demonstration of a strong male figure displaying a peaceful way to end a conflict, it's not surprising that so many young fatherless males are unthinkingly impulsive and somewhat irrational.

Not if it was Madeleine Albright types.
Madeleine Albright is a co-investor with Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild, and George Soros in a $350 million investment vehicle called Helios Towers Africa, which intends to buy or build thousands of mobile phone towers in Africa.
But if it was Ivanka Trump hell yes.

More from Albright . Albright considerably influenced American foreign policy in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Middle East. According to Albright's memoirs, she once argued with Colin Powell for the use of military force by asking, "What's the point of you saving this superb military for, Colin, if we can't use it?"

Of course, negotiation is the answer. I have served on tons of committees (City Council stuff), Health care, children's issues, military wives problems, etc. Solutions were found, ideas enacted, but you must have people who are willing to listen and learn. I think our politicians would rather posture and point.

"Negotiation is the answer."

Depends on if you have someone willing to entertain the idea that they can still win even if someone else does. There are a lot of mindsets which inherently preclude the win-win mentality. I can point to several nations and ideologies which have a long history of being unwilling to negotiate...

Can't you envision an all girl Peace Negotiations group? Invade my country, I'll show you retaliation!

Negotiations can certainly bear fruit 🍎