Single mothers: Neither "bastards" nor happy-talk, just honesty and perspective

[Roxanne Appleby]

Single mothers: Neither "bastards" nor happy-talk, just honesty and perspective

Single Mothers, Many Problems

OpinionJournal.com, December 1, 2006

The latest data on unwed motherhood -- from a tabulation of official birth records throughout the U.S. by the National Center for Health Statistics -- are mostly grim. In 2005, births to teenage girls continued a decline under way since the early 1990s, (although half of all first babies born out of wedlock still are borne by teens.) Yet after a few years of leveling off, the birthrate among unmarried mothers 20 and older has begun climbing again, especially among Hispanics.

Looking for a silver lining in a country where about 37% of children are born outside marriage, some commentators have chosen to speculate that many of today's single moms are in fact hip, prosperous women, perhaps in their 30s or older, who have decided that they don't need a husband to fulfill their dreams. We've even seen the suggestion that the unwed trend reflects America's evolution as a more tolerant, diverse country when it comes to "lifestyle choices."

Yet experts who have looked closely at the phenomenon have hardly anything positive to say. Past research indicates that the bulk of unwed births are to young women, typically in their 20s, who are not college-educated and are not prospering. There's also a mountain of evidence to suggest that children raised by such single mothers are at an increased risk for virtually every social problem you can think of -- poverty, crime, drug-use, etc. -- including single parenthood.

Princeton Prof. Sara McLanahan directs the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, which was begun to track 5,000 single mothers who gave birth between 1998 and 2000. Many were romantically involved when the study began, and many spoke approvingly of marriage. Several years on, however, few are wed, and their children often have experienced the stress of churning relationships. More and more, Ms. McLanahan says, "you're beginning to see these households composed of a mother and three children and three different ex-partners...and this is turning into a situation where children are being raised in very unstable families."

As social scientists and others look for solutions, some begin with the premise that single motherhood is a reality, so we must adjust to it with various services, such as programs designed to help mothers get better jobs. Government-funded initiatives also include couples counseling for unmarrieds, so that these parents at least function better as a team.

Missing in almost all these approaches is what the Manhattan's Institute's Kay Hymowitz refers to as "the M-word." She told us that while high-school girls may accept advice to finish their education before having children, the "wait until" message doesn't include marriage.

Perhaps that's because no one wants to sound judgmental or stigmatize single women who choose to have children. But to be truly fair -- and caring -- would first require telling the truth. In her new book, "Marriage and Caste in America: Separate and Unequal Families in a Post-Marital Age," Ms. Hymowitz documents how, by refusing to emphasize the link between marriage and successful child raising, "we have created a new demographic, which is the poor, working, single mother."

Ms. Hymowitz doesn't advocate trying to revive stigma. There's a better, more positive way. "We haven't appealed to people's rational self-interest," she says. "They don't know that they're . . . limiting the prosperity of their children's future." To withhold information from young women and men about the benefits of raising children in a marriage, she says, amounts to writing the young adults off: "To me, what you are doing is saying to those people that they cannot reach their potential. It's cynical."

Americans born into poverty have a long history of moving themselves, or their children, out of it. But the cycle of unwed motherhood typically leads nowhere. As a result, Ms. Hymowitz worries, ours will become a "society that is no longer mobile, where opportunities are going to be denied generation after generation."

 

[cloudy]

I still don't see part of the burden put where it belongs: on the heads of the men that leave their "families" (for lack of a better word), and leave the support, raising, etc., of their children up to their mothers.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I still don't see part of the burden put where it belongs: on the heads of the men that leave their "families" (for lack of a better word), and leave the support, raising, etc., of their children up to their mothers.

Here here! Shame on them. Shame! (By george, you've identified the real bastards in this story.)

 

[S-Des]

The financial burden is just a small part of it. I had to live with seeing my daughter grow up in daycare (my ex preferred it over me spending time with her). Even though we could afford something nice, it was 8-9 hours a day, 5 days a week, since she was a baby. Children shouldn't grow up like that.

Additionally, the instability of a child seeing his parent(s) go through failed relationships (or worse, being alone) are not good for them. Whether it's the mother or the father raising them, they learn from watching more than listening to what we tell them. So not seeing how loving parents interact is making it more likely that they'll make bad choices in their future, limiting their happiness.

I'm not saying you have to be married. This is assuming when you say single mothers, you're referring to women (or men) raising a child (or several) without a SO in the household. Two loving parents in the household are far better for them, if it's possible.

 

[3113]

Missing in almost all these approaches is what the Manhattan's Institute's Kay Hymowitz refers to as "the M-word." She told us that while high-school girls may accept advice to finish their education before having children, the "wait until" message doesn't include marriage.

*sigh* Objective, huh? According to who? This is the same old conservative shit, Roxanne, and I'll tell you why: because marriage guarantees nothing. Marriage doesn't mean the guy is going to stick around and be a father.

I absolutely agree that these women shouldn't be having kids, especially not kids they can't support or raise right. And it would be *GREAT* if these kids had more than one parent in their lives...I don't care if it's grandparents or a second lesbian mom. Kids do better in homes where they are not being raised by one stressed out, over worked, underpaid mother.

What I really object to is this tunnel vision by conservatives that there is one and only one model that is going to work to solve this problem. And that model is getting women to marry before kids. So, okay. Women start insisting that men marry them before they have kids, guys give in to get some, and now the woman is married. She gives birth a couple of times, and then, like Brittany, she gets divorced--or he divorces her. Or she gets married, stays married, and the guy comes home to give her kid after kid, but doesn't support her and isn't there for the kids.

What has "marriage" changed? For all intents and purposes, she's still a single mother.

Once, just once what I'd like to see is a conservative say, "We need to teach young men to not impregnate girls unless they are willing to be a father to those kids. We need to make boys MORE DOMESTIC, and give them a feeling of responsiblity and pride in their kids."

JUST ONCE, I would like to read those words, instead of it always coming down to the unmarried woman, and gosh, if she would just marry all these problems would magically vanish.

The real problem is that we can't stop stupid people from reproducing. We can't stop stupid women from believing guys who say, "of course we'll marry baby...." And then when they learn she's preggers, they bails. And we can't stop that stupid woman from believing it again on the next man, or the next. Nor can we stop stupid men from beliving that woman who says, "Of course, I'm on the pill..." Just watch any tabloid talk show and you'll see how stupid they are.

And here's a hint: they've always been stupid like that, even when the pressure was on to get married. So we either make it illegal for stupid people to have kids (my vote!), or we change the culture so that being able to father kids isn't a sign of being a "Man"--being a husband and responsible father is how you become "a man."

That would be 100X more valuable than going back to stigmatizing unmarried women. Stigmatize unmarried men...THAT is how you change the situation.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I am a libertarian not a conservative, but to make 3113 happy I will say the following anyway: We need to teach young men to not impregnate girls unless they are willing to be a father to those kids. We need to make boys MORE DOMESTIC, and give them a feeling of responsiblity and pride in their kids.

I'll go a step further and suggest that the way to do this is make not doing these things something to be ashamed of.

I would agree that in a perfect world, the particular institution of marriage itself as currently constituted in law and custom would become obsolete, because parents would make their own arrangements to cooperate in raising children. However, we do not live in a perfect world, and it is well demonstrated that in the aggregate the outcomes are much better for women who are married when they have a child, even if they do not stay married. I don't know the details of why this is case, I'm guessing that it gives the woman a much more effective claim on a portion of the guy's income. Whatever the case, it's a reality that any young woman ignores at her peril.

Now, can we get past the politics, and acknowledge that in the world we inhabit today, in the aggregate, unmarried women having babies is a social catastrophe, and that the prescriptions this article offers to young women in particular and to society in general are consistent with that diagnosis?

 

[R. Richard]

*sigh* Objective, huh? According to who? This is the same old conservative shit, Roxanne, and I'll tell you why: because marriage guarantees nothing. Marriage doesn't mean the guy is going to stick around and be a father.

I absolutely agree that these women shouldn't be having kids, especially not kids they can't support or raise right. And it would be *GREAT* if these kids had more than one parent in their lives...I don't care if it's grandparents or a second lesbian mom. Kids do better in homes where they are not being raised by one stressed out, over worked, underpaid mother.

What I really object to is this tunnel vision by conservatives that there is one and only one model that is going to work to solve this problem. And that model is getting women to marry before kids. So, okay. Women start insisting that men marry them before they have kids, guys give in to get some, and now the woman is married. She gives birth a couple of times, and then, like Brittany, she gets divorced--or he divorces her. Or she gets married, stays married, and the guy comes home to give her kid after kid, but doesn't support her and isn't there for the kids.

What has "marriage" changed? For all intents and purposes, she's still a single mother.

Once, just once what I'd like to see is a conservative say, "We need to teach young men to not impregnate girls unless they are willing to be a father to those kids. We need to make boys MORE DOMESTIC, and give them a feeling of responsiblity and pride in their kids."

JUST ONCE, I would like to read those words, instead of it always coming down to the unmarried woman, and gosh, if she would just marry all these problems would magically vanish.

3113:
You want to teach young men not to impregnate girls unless they are willing to be a father to those kids? YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME! A hard dick has no conscience. It aint gonna' happen.

Now, you might have some success with teaching young girls not to let some ass hole knock them up before they find a real man, who wants a wife and kids. [Don't ask me how, I have never understood women.]

I don't know how many girls I dated until some ass hole convinced the girl I was a crude motherfucker. The girl then told me to go away. I went away. Ass hole boy impregnated the girl and then either left or couldn't make enough to support the girl and baby. [The solution is simple, the kind of guy who calls another guy a CM needs to start off each day with the kind of kick in the balls that will lift him off the ground a foot or so. Works every time!] Then the girls wanted me to come back and be sugar daddy.

The boy and the girl may be equally responsible, but only the girl has to raise the baby by herself. [I can collect all the money the ass hole has, but it is not enough, in most cases, to support the mother and baby. Why a girl would sleep with an ass hole like that, I don't know. By the way, I am a conservative.]

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

. . . That would be 100X more valuable than going back to stigmatizing unmarried women. Stigmatize unmarried men...THAT is how you change the situation.

I have only a minor quibble with this. To be effective I think the stigma must go on both parties, unfortunately, although like you I'd rather whack young dick-face upside the head than young bubble-brain. But she needs to be whacked too, for being such a dolt. Absent rape, there could be no children of unmarried parents if she either took birth control seriously, or kept her pants on.

Some guy or another is going to try as hard as he can to get into every woman's pants. Ultimately, the responsibility is on her to say, "No! - Wedding first!" It may not be fair, but that's reality.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I have only a minor quibble with this. To be effective I think the stigma must go on both parties, unfortunately, although like you I'd rather whack young dick-face upside the head than young bubble-brain. But she needs to be whacked too, for being such a dolt. Absent rape, there could be no children of unmarried parents if she either took birth control seriously, or kept her pants on.

Some guy or another is going to try as hard as he can to get into every woman's pants. Ultimately, the responsibility is on her to say, "No! - Wedding first!" It may not be fair, but that's reality.

*singing George Satellites*

"That's when she told me a story, 'bout free milk and a cow
And said no hugg-ee no kiss-ee until I get a weddin' vow
My honey my baby, don't put my love upon no shelf
She said don't hand me no lines and keep your hands to yourself..."

 

[S-Des]

*singing George Satellites*

"That's when she told me a story, 'bout free milk and a cow
And said no hugg-ee no kiss-ee until I get a weddin' vow
My honey my baby, don't put my love upon no shelf
She said don't hand me no lines and keep your hands to yourself..."

The mantra of the modern feminist? I you!

 

[Selena_Kitt]

The mantra of the modern feminist? I you!

 

[3113]

3113:
You want to teach young men not to impregnate girls unless they are willing to be a father to those kids? YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME! A hard dick has no conscience. It aint gonna' happen.

Oh, I agree. My problem with what the article eventually says, about stimatizing women into marrying before kids, is that it reeks of (1) misogynisism (fix the women, but no need to bother with the men) and (2) cause/effect fallacy.

Cause/effect fallacy is evident in the fact that unwed moms who are wealthy and educated don't seem to be raising kids who are drug dealers and criminals. This would suggest that to assume that unwed mom = drug dealers and criminals is a flawed cause/effect argument. Having an overworked, underpaid, angry mom who can't offer love or dicipline to her kids (etc.), is undoubtedly contributing to kids becoming drug dealers, etc., but the article, far from being honest and objective, seems to be searching for a simple cause and a simple cure.

"If these women would just marry before having kids, all crime and misery would vanish!"

I'm sorry, but nuclear family isn't the be-all and end-all solution--not to anything. If dad is a gangbanger and mom is a crack addict/dealer and they live in a shitty neighborhood, than married or no, the kids aren't likely to turn out well. If by some miracle they do, then, I guarantee you, when asked how they managed to become upstanding citizens they will not say, "Mom and dad were married and ours was a nuclear family, thank God!"

 

[neonlyte]

I am a libertarian not a conservative, but to make 3113 happy I will say the following anyway: We need to teach young men to not impregnate girls unless they are willing to be a father to those kids. We need to make boys MORE DOMESTIC, and give them a feeling of responsiblity and pride in their kids.

I'll go a step further and suggest that the way to do this is make not doing these things something to be ashamed of.

I would agree that in a perfect world, the particular institution of marriage itself as currently constituted in law and custom would become obsolete, because parents would make their own arrangements to cooperate in raising children. However, we do not live in a perfect world, and it is well demonstrated that in the aggregate the outcomes are much better for women who are married when they have a child, even if they do not stay married. I don't know the details of why this is case, I'm guessing that it gives the woman a much more effective claim on a portion of the guy's income. Whatever the case, it's a reality that any young woman ignores at her peril.

Now, can we get past the politics, and acknowledge that in the world we inhabit today, in the aggregate, unmarried women having babies is a social catastrophe, and that the prescriptions this article offers to young women in particular and to society in general are consistent with that diagnosis?

I understand your point, and veer toward 3113's views on this subject.

First point: the is a current trend in developed countries for cohabitation rather than marriage. Latest UNESCO figures indicate a 30% swing across developed countries to cohabitation in preference to marriage. Births under cohabitation ought be stripped for 'unmarried mother stats' to obtain fair comparisum with 2 and 3 decades earlier. Single mother births in the US have gone from 18.3% - 1980 to 33.2% - 2000 and now indicate at 37%. I don't know if these figures have been corrected for cohabiting births, I somehow think not since marriage rates in US dropped some 20% over the same time frame. Given there were always a significant number of cohabiting arrangements, the figures given in the first post could be overstated by 30%, or more.

Second point: even at an uncorrected 37%, France, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, UK, Finland and a clutch of Baltic states have higher %'s of children born outside marriage.

So what is the problem with the 'high' number of unmarried births in the US?

I expect it is cultural - but I don't want to get into that until I finally get around to visiting the US next year.

 

[Liar]

The financial burden is just a small part of it. I had to live with seeing my daughter grow up in daycare (my ex preferred it over me spending time with her). Even though we could afford something nice, it was 8-9 hours a day, 5 days a week, since she was a baby. Children shouldn't grow up like that.

I'd like to voice an objection. I grew up like that, as did most of my best friends. (Some of them who I in fact met in kindergarten, and have known ever since.) And I can definitely say that it was a happy, nurturing, safe and stimulating childhood, and that I always had a solid, close connection to mum and dad. Still do.

 

[neonlyte]

I'd like to voice an objection. I grew up like that, as did most of my best friends. (Some of them who I in fact met in kindergarten, and have known ever since.) And I can definitely say that it was a happy, nurturing, safe and stimulating childhood, and that I always had a solid, close connection to mum and dad. Still do.

It's the norm in Portugal too, most do pretty well from the system... until they are old enough to drive

 

[cloudy]

It's the norm in Portugal too, most do pretty well from the system... until they are old enough to drive

I agree. I never fails to piss me off when I hear that putting a child in daycare=a child that isn't raised "right."

It all depends on the daycare, and who is providing the care for a child. In a lot of cases, it's absolutely no different than granny watching them while the parents work.

 

[JamesSD]

We need real sex education, not the abstinence only bull that social conservatives favor. Give parents the options of opting their own kids out of it; usually the parents who are involved enough with their kids to care enough to opt them out aren't the ones who are most at risk anyways.

We also need continued and increased state and federal support for affordable birth control.

 

[Weird Harold]

It all depends on the daycare, and who is providing the care for a child. In a lot of cases, it's absolutely no different than granny watching them while the parents work.

Except for the bill, I consider a well-chosen day-care better than Granny watching them. There is however, that pesky bill -- and the waiting lists for really good daycare when the bill isn't a prohibitive factor in choosing a "good" day-care.

The problems of single-parent families almost always boils down to economics and/or parental involvement. Those two factors determine the quality of day-care and whether day-care is a good or bad influence; being able to afford day-care that is more than minimal feeding and diaper changing and not using day-care just as a way to avoid feeding and diaper changing make huge differences in the effects of day-care on the child.

In many ways, day-care is no different than sending the kids off to school; the same economic and prental involvement issues apply, they just apply about six years sooner.

 

[Guest]

The financial burden is just a small part of it. I had to live with seeing my daughter grow up in daycare (my ex preferred it over me spending time with her). Even though we could afford something nice, it was 8-9 hours a day, 5 days a week, since she was a baby. Children shouldn't grow up like that.

Children who attend daycare grow up with healthier immune systems, as they are generally exposed to many different sets of "bugs."

Children in a daycare situation are generally more stimulated and develop greater social and coping skills.

Children in daycare are generally more prepared to begin public or private school than their counterparts.

And basically, some parents do a better job at being a parent if they work outside the home. Not everyone is cut out to be a babysitter 24/7. I found I appreciated my kids more and looked forward to spending time with them at the end of the day.

My kids developed friends in daycare that they still have now in public school. It made for an easier transition.

Putting your child in daycare isn't a sin and it doesn't mean you're a bad parent.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I understand your point, and veer toward 3113's views on this subject.

First point: the is a current trend in developed countries for cohabitation rather than marriage. Latest UNESCO figures indicate a 30% swing across developed countries to cohabitation in preference to marriage. Births under cohabitation ought be stripped for 'unmarried mother stats' to obtain fair comparisum with 2 and 3 decades earlier. Single mother births in the US have gone from 18.3% - 1980 to 33.2% - 2000 and now indicate at 37%. I don't know if these figures have been corrected for cohabiting births, I somehow think not since marriage rates in US dropped some 20% over the same time frame. Given there were always a significant number of cohabiting arrangements, the figures given in the first post could be overstated by 30%, or more.

Second point: even at an uncorrected 37%, France, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, UK, Finland and a clutch of Baltic states have higher %'s of children born outside marriage.

So what is the problem with the 'high' number of unmarried births in the US?

I expect it is cultural - but I don't want to get into that until I finally get around to visiting the US next year.

Yes, it is cultural. The SES of most women doing this and many other cultural influences all but guarantee that for the vast majority the outcome is a hard life filled with problems, and these get passed directly on to the children. That last part makes this an immoral choice.

 

[Weird Harold]

Children who attend daycare grow up with healthier immune systems, as they are generally exposed to many different sets of "bugs."

Children in a daycare situation are generally more stimulated and develop greater social and coping skills.

Children in daycare are generally more prepared to begin public or private school than their counterparts.

The first two of your three points are phenomenon that are only relevant because of the decline of large families -- kids who associate with other kids get those benefits whether the others are siblings/cousins or playmates in a day-care center.

That is NOT an argument for a return to large "nuclear" families, BTW, just an observation of why some people DO argue in favor of "large nuclear families."

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

If you've been here long enough, you already know my views on this subject. I also hold no illusions on being able to change the minds of hideous ideologues who seem to want to promote the illusion that the only reason someone would be a single mother is because they're some black honkey slut who can't remember which of her baby dadies knocked her up.



So, I'll just say a few things. One, the chief number one cause of single mother households is the willful absence of the father. Willful absence of the father is commonplace and ranges from abandoning the family late into a marriage to run after some young thing to walking away from a sex act without any thought to the consequences. It also extends into rapists and women who for one reason or another do not get an abortion for the rapist's child.

The truly independent no-conclusion-at-beginning studies all corroborate this. Before income or race or any other indicator comes the key lack of a father. Very few of these is because the father is truly unknown because of sexual promiscuity reasons or others.

I know this as well as anybody. I was the child of a single mother for years. I am dating the child of a single mother. In my years I have known many products of the single mother. Every single time, the reason for their singularity hasn't been a failure to marry or other such bullshit but the man skipping out. Often this has been after marriage, but when the child is still young and therefore "annoying".

Extending beyond that, the picture keeps getting clearer and one can see that the main issue is the lack of a man. Is it because of marriage? No, many leave right after marriage and even those wherein the man doesn't flee his responsibilities, other issues can threaten to dissolve the bonds of love that lead to an accurate and healthy raising of a child (my SO's grandparents hated each other and stayed with each other to raise the kids, two generations later, she is still recovering from some of the scars they left their children).

So why do men leave? Is it a failure of responsibility? Could be. There is an active culture in America which says a man is not a man unless he is single, promiscuous, and violent. These traits do not segue into "settling down" and becoming a family man. There is also among men a disdain for the condom for "not feeling as good". Lack of protection is dangerous and pushes for lack of protection among young men make sex a very dangerous game for the woman. There is also little real reason for a man to worry. There are paternity suits and STDs yes but female to male or female to female transmission of diseases are harder than male to female or male to male and as anyone who has been abandoned can tell you, avoiding a paternity suit and child support is as easy as moving to a new city. Unless the girl you left behind is wealthy enough to hire a private detective to hunt you down, you can avoid child support quite easily (this happened to me mum and me, eating or hiring a detective to get bounced checks? eating wins).

Overall since men can't get pregnant, they are not aware of the risks and since they're inolvement is not visible like pregnancy, society seems to let their role slip by. It is harder to hide a swelling belly and a child than a hard-on.

I think this is a shame that we propogate the fantasy. That we keep selling the lie that women are solely responsible for the children they bear. When contraceptive education is being eradicated, contraceptives hard to find even though they only have a 95% success rate and really should be used in tandem, abortion services getting more and more limited, morning-after pill fought against, along with men pushing for unprotected sex, promiscuous sex, as well as those couplings begot in rape, date-rape, undue presure (rape), or badgering (rape), it is wholly unfair to label the single mother as some sort of demon.

They are living a shit life, they are scraping on their hands and knees trying to raise a child, they are unable to put in the hours to raise and care for the child personally just so they can make enough money to keep it alive and in a shelter of some sort of squalid level. And on top of all this. On top of the sexism of their work, the indentured servitude that comes from truly not being able to afford being fired, plus shouldering all responsibilities of raising a child with no help, no one to comfort them, and the scars from being wronged, we are to condemn them? Tell them they are promiscuous whores and why didn't they get married or why the hell did they get divorced or a million bullshit sexist hate that stems from men dodging their responsibility?


I guess if you are so inclined that's all right. That's peachy keen, get on the soap box, and preach your hate. Falsify or interpret the data how you want to prove what you already believe. Go on then, eh? It's all good.








Yes, Roxanne, I already know. Blah blah blah, "I never said anything about the race involved", blah blah blah "I made no value judgements" blah blah blah "Why are you bringing emotional stories into this" blah blah blah "Liberals hate America".

This here ain't speakin' to you, yo. You are an ideologue to a diseased philosophy anchored by your contemporaries in your philosophy to a host of separate views which careful thought would reveal to be abhorrent. I understand. If my philosophies were at all tied to the current democrats perhaps I would be spinning away in my own private hell as well. Here and now though, I simply can't care enough.

Does it hurt? Sorry about that. My tact isn't what it once was and hurting people is not the main goal. I doubt it'll last though. I guarantee you'll wash it away with a quick "fucking liberals man" and all will be good.

I hope you find libertarianism again some day. A hint though. Libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Interesting that there was a thread about the iggy button yesterday. A most useful tool indeed, especially when an individual announces that he will not grant intellectual opponents the presumption of good will. How immature is that in a place where the only object is to exchange views, because there is no "power" to struggled for. "If you disagree with me you're a bad person." Ha!

 

[cloudy]

Interesting that there was a thread about the iggy button yesterday. A most useful tool indeed, especially when an individual announces that he will not grant intellectual opponents the presumption of good will. How immature is that in a place where the only object is to exchange views, because there is no "power" to struggled for. Ha!

I think that's kind of unfair, Roxanne.

Yes, he violently disagrees with what you've posted, but he has his reasons based on his own life experience....just like I give you credit for having your own reason for your beliefs.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I think that's kind of unfair, Roxanne.

Yes, he violently disagrees with what you've posted, but he has his reasons based on his own life experience....just like I give you credit for having your own reason for your beliefs.

Life's too short to put up with outright insults and contempt. Who needs it? I've got better things to do. There are lots of people I disagree with vehemently here, and in every case I believe that they think the things they do for the same reason I think what I do, because they want good things for all people. Once that presumption is gone, further discussion is completely pointless.