How? Where have you ever seen anything suggesting BLM wants to end the 2 parent family? That's your whole position and it's complete garbage.
Thomas Sowell quote
- Thread starter Metuo Accipiter
- Start date
The thinking behind this goal needs to be disrupted because your goal, as stated, stigmatizes kids raised in homes that don’t fit your stated goal criteria. If the goal is reframed—due to the disruption in thinking—is to raise successful kids independent of home structure, then we move towards equipping ourselves with the tools to reach that goal. And maybe, just maybe, the gap narrows.
Sorry, bro, you're the one claiming a proven fact. So prove it.
Hint: You're wrong. Easy enough to know you're wrong because there are a multiplicity of different family types and child rearing approaches. If someone had compared them all in a scientific way and proved what you say, it would be common knowledge. Which isn't the case.
We can't get rid of the optimal home structure, that is key, we should not strive to have children raised in a single parent household. How kids are raised in the home structure is a crucial component of how they will turn out. Why would you want to alter that in anyway. If you want to say lets keep the two parent structure because that is optimal but help those who are raised in a single parent household be better that I am fine with that, but nowhere in that first sentence does it even come close to suggesting that no matter how you try to spin it.
The mission statement is based on Lewis Morgan's Ancient Society and Friedrich Engels' The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State: in Light of the Research of Lewis H. Morgan which argue the traditional western family unit enslaves women and furthers the evils of capitalism and private property ownership. It's a bedrock Marxist/feminist principle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_the_Family,_Private_Property_and_the_State
And here I thought it was just bad grammar.
Again, the goal isn't to create two parent families. The goal is to broaden the success of all family structures. How you can continue to argue against that is troubling.
It has taken 5 pages on HROT to try and explain a mission statement. It SHOULD NOT be this hard, why can't you guys just admit what they said was wrong and they need to fix it. But again that would mean you are wrong, and God forbid a liberal admits he was wrong about something. Instead lets go to our main defense of calling the person stupid, a moron, idiot, etc. If it wasn't so predictable it might be laughable
and I am arguing it SHOULD be the goal to create two parent families. How you can continue to argue against a two parent structure for a child is troubling
I'm sure you guys aren't the only misguided people on this matter.
Do you believe more should be done to support single parent families so those children can be happy, healthy and successful? If not, what should be done with/for those families?
It was explained very early. You have simply failed/refused to understand the explanation. That's on you.
Dont be too hard on yourself I'm still trying to figure out how BLM will destroy America.
That support does disrupt the western family structure that's built on only supporting traditional, 2 parent families. That's the point.
Then you support disrupting the traditional western, 2 parent family structure as the only worthy avenue to raise children. See, it's not that hard. You've come full circle.
“We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.“
There is beauty and hope in this. This is inclusive and collaborative. It says they are committed to building each other up, and blurring the lines of family and community. When Doc Rivers says “ubuntu” everybody nods in admiration of his leadership. For fùck sakes this is defining ownership of each other’s nurturing and success. And it draws from their heritage.
Good god I think some of you are truly threatened by the idea of black and brown people overcoming and rising as one.
Fücking white people. Lol.
There is beauty and hope in this. This is inclusive and collaborative. It says they are committed to building each other up, and blurring the lines of family and community. When Doc Rivers says “ubuntu” everybody nods in admiration of his leadership. For fùck sakes this is defining ownership of each other’s nurturing and success. And it draws from their heritage.
Good god I think some of you are truly threatened by the idea of black and brown people overcoming and rising as one.
Fücking white people. Lol.
Never mind that the preceding statement is:
“We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.”
“We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.”
How about I settle this. I am going out with a good friend tonight for his wife's birthday. He is a college professor in English and is currently writing his paper for his doctorate through ASU. I will ask him what the mission statement means and will report back, I will report back either way even if I am wrong. Deal?
Lol. No deal. Ask the people who wrote it. All your friend can do is offer his interpretation. Bottom line is you have ignored damn near every argument I’ve made and are stuck on a word. Now, his interpretation might be interesting, but it settles nothing other than you can’t accept mine. I’m in the arena, jackass, and I write mission statements, I know these people, I have read the statement several times in its context, and it is beautiful and it is self-determining and it is choosing to build from strength.
So I said I would post what my buddy said. He agrees with me and there is no other way you can interpret the mission statement. I specifically asked him if disrupt would mean anything that has been suggested in this thread and he said absolutely not
Lol. It's funny, and sad, that you believe this to be the only interpretation because "your buddy" said so when you've been inundated with others already. Talk about head in the sand.
Some common sense on police shootings.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/police-shootings-race-excessive-force/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/police-shootings-race-excessive-force/
