From: "J. S. B'ach" <jsb@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Impact of sixties culture
kslinkar@lionheart.berkeley.edu:
> On 06-14-97 Paula Friedman wrote: "...it's not clear to me that
> the extent of divorce, let alone of single parenting, of gay
> parenting, etc., is something negative!!!"
>
> Reply to Paula Friedman:
>
> A longitudinal study from Marin county was just published showing
> that on average children of divorced parents have significantly
> more emotional trauma and do less well that children of
> non-divorcing households. Now I suspect that the harm stems from
How did this study control for how well the parents got along with each
other? Since marital discord will obviously corrolate highly with
divorce, how can they claim it was the divorce rather than the discord
that caused the children's emotional trauma?
> the perceived lack of stability in the relationship of the
> children's primary caregivers rather than the nature of "single"
> parenting or "gay" parenting. But it is also apparent that there
> is a contradiction in the sixties "do your own thing" maxim and
> stable parenting.
As I remember it, the big "revelation" of the 60s is that the children
who grew up with parents who hated each other but were taught to stay
together "for the sake of the children" announced that it would have been
a relief if their parents separated rather than pretend a relationship
that was a lie. That such pretense was just bringing the hipocrisy of
the culture into the household. Stability may be a good thing but it
also is associated with dictatorships. All other things being eqaul,
it's better for the trains to run on time. But all other things are
rarely equal.
____________________________
[2]
From: Don Caswell <doncaswell@boilermakers.org>
Subject: Re: Impact of sixties culture
> A longitudinal study from Marin county was just published showing
> that on average children of divorced parents have significantly
> more emotional trauma and do less well that children of
> non-divorcing households. Now I suspect that the harm stems from
> the perceived lack of stability in the relationship of the
> children's primary caregivers rather than the nature of "single"
> parenting or "gay" parenting. =
Who is the perceiver in the phrase "perceived lack of stability" in your
second sentence? The child? I doubt many children have any perception of
what "stability" is, much less any belief that one form of family is
less or more stable than another. Either the home is unstable, in which
case all members experience more trauma, or it is stable. Merely being a
single parent home does not make the home unstable.
However, children in single parent homes are far more likely to live in
poverty, especially if the single parent is the mother. Poverty can be a
traumatizing influence, particularly if the single parent must work
outside the home and has no nearby extended family to care for the
child.
> But it is also apparent that there
> is a contradiction in the sixties "do your own thing" maxim and
> stable parenting.
Unless, of course, your "own thing" includes being a good parent, as it
was for many people from the sixties culture. Despite the slant
conservative critics tried to put on this phrase, for most people it
merely meant something very similar to the accepted chestnut, "To Thy
Own Self Be True." In other words, don't be a plastic person, don't
conform just to get along; instead, think for yourself and do what you
feel is right. The phrase did not assume a life of irresponsibility,
although certainly many people will take any excuse they can to be
irresponsible. =
=
> I also see the increase in breakdowns of primary relationships
> (families) as indicative of a breakdown in social norms and in fac=
t
> in society itself. In my view, stable families are the cornerston=
e
> of stable societies. =
Your is a widely held view, but it runs counter to evidence. I take from
your earlier remarks that you mean by "stable family" a mother, a
father, and children all living in the same house. This configuration is
most common in very primitive societies, which are, by nature, unstable,
changing drastically within only a few generations. More advanced
societies, such as the complex societies of Europe and the far East,
tend to be far more stable in that the governmental structure, way of
life, etc., don't change as rapidly. They also tend to have a wider
variety of family structures. =
> How this instability was engendered is
> another question, and although it was impacted by the ideology of
> the sixties, I don't see sixties' culture as bearing primary
> responsibility. In fact, I suspect that WWII, Korean War & Vietna=
m
> and subsequent changes in employment patterns had as much to do
> with both (sixties nonconformity and social instability) as
> anything else. Still, an accepted ideology that says an
> individual's personal happiness transcends family or society is
> bound to have a negative impact on social cohesion.
I certainly didn't come away from the sixties with the belief that my
happiness transcends family or society. Is that this group's consensus
of what "do your own thing" and the sixties generation were all about?
This sounds far more like the standards adopted by the Me Generation of
the late 1970s and into this decade (though now a shift is underway),
when everyone was Looking Out for Number One. =
A recurring theme from the sixties is social responsibility, in terms
of respecting civil rights, human rights, the environment, and other
people's lives. Those activities do not create "a negative impact on
social cohesion." Unless, of course, the society you're trying to hold
together is one that denies people their civil and human rights, is
willing to destroy the environment in order to make money for the rich,
and places a very low value on the lives of those humans who get in the
way of a corporation's (or a country's) desire to control the world's
oil, exploit children, and make more profits.
Whether society is undergoing a "breakdown in social norms" is open for
debate. But even assuming it is, single parent homes would seem to be a
symptom rather than a cause of this change.
Donald Caswell
If they get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry
about the answers. =96 T. Pynchon
___________________________
[3]
From: colewood@sfsu.edu (tom wood)
Subject: Re: Impact of sixties culture
> On 06-14-97 Paula Friedman wrote: "...it's not clear to me that
> the extent of divorce, let alone of single parenting, of gay
> parenting, etc., is something negative!!!"
>
> Reply to Paula Friedman:
>
> A longitudinal study from Marin county was just published showing
> that on average children of divorced parents have significantly
> more emotional trauma and do less well that children of
> non-divorcing households.
If you read the whole study, you will find that it was not divorce itself
that caused the problems these children experienced. It was the inability
of the fathers to maintain any kind of relationship, whether emotional or
financial, which left the mothers with twice the burden yet only half the
time resources and less than half the financial resources. So don't blame
divorce; blame the self-centered immaturity of the men and blame the
society that allows its men to become this kind of being.
tom wood