Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (9217)	10/13/1998 3:05:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<I doubt it, because the problem is the economic conditions are not excluded from the results. The Murphy Brown character that the right is so opposed to is wealthy. The question is, is a child better off in a wealthy single mother household vs a 2 parent household in lesser economic circumstance? The question is far more complicated than the right lets on. They were just looking for an issue in 1992, and they picked the wrong one, angered a lot of people with it.>> OK, that's a fair observation as long as you can prove Cinderella didn't live happily ever after...as long as we're only dealing with la la land.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (9217)	10/13/1998 3:37:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Well there you go again Michelle, you do have a knack for distorting the basic facts. Although, I think I'm starting to understand you better now since you seem to formulate much of your political views based on sitcoms and "legal shows" like Ally McBeal. In any event, the text of Quayles speech about "family values" and the Murphy Brown story line was essentially that "single parenthood" was being glorified by such programs. He went on to go through a laundry list of social problems that are attributable to the proliferation of single parent households (poverty, lack of education, lack of sufficient parental involvement due to the "caretaker" parent at work and the ensuing time pressure, etc) and made the point that Murphy Brown was wealthy, therefore, by definition wasn't an accurate representation of the average single parent household. Most single parent households are women who are either divorced and suffering financially or women who never married and are usually on government assistance. The overall point of his message was that the children suffer economic, social, physical, and psychological harm to a greater degree than children in a 2 parent family. Now, does this mean that by implication, a single parent cannot provide an excellent upbringing for a child? Of course not. I frankly would rather see a "good" devoted single parent raising a child than 2 impaired (for whatever reason) parents. But the empirical evidence is out there, children raised in single parent homes generally are more disadvantaged. Especially economically. So I guess a simple question for you would be if 1 "good" parent is to be considered sufficient for a child, then doesn't it follow that 2 "good" parents would be even better? bp