Single parents statistics and a new model of family law

Gingerbread has a handy list of statistics about single parents.

Nearly a quarter (23 per cent) of  households with dependent children are single parent families, and there are 1.9 million single parents in Britain today.

There are 3 million children living in a single parent household, 24 per cent of all dependent children

Single parents are predominantly women, although 8 per cent of single parents are fathers. Single fathers are more likely to be widowed than single mothers (12 per cent of single fathers are widowed, compared with 5 per cent of single mothers), and their children tend to be older.

Whilst they think that safety lies in numbers and use the proliferation of brokenness as a reasoning why we should give failures equal rights, I just see that any single parent family is an awful hack that brings all sorts of problems, not only does the adult get a horrible life full of very hard work, but the kids (especially if they are singletons) have a very lonely childhood and are not socialised fully.

Most of these people have life-long bonding issues and lack the social tools to experience a traditional marriage -- like stone age settlers, they stay with someone for a while and when too much garbage accumulates, they move on, leaving their mess behind.  At the same time, they expect to move into a perfect relationship, they don't want to invest into building something (and don't know how to either).  Culturally, they are completely different people to family folk.

Result:  Most of those people will end up being single parents, since this is all they know -- a marriage also teaches kids how to be married by observation, over nearly 2 decades.  Without this long training and the benefit of a tradition that sets out a proven framework, people have to go back to first principles to make things work, and the result is aall too often failure.

And that is before one adds the high amount of sociopaths into the equation, whose kids have an even harder time, because there is no second family adult to temper the behaviour of the first one.

Anyway, there are at least 3 million kids out there who have a broken, incomplete childhood -- no child chooses to be fatherless or have their mom at work all day, and many kids end up with crazy adults in charge and without family to protect or advise them. Charities like Gingerbread never point this out(nor does anyone else), because doing so would admit that single parent families are a total catastrophe for children. 

So, to the point of this post, in essence, the problem we have is not enough children, and of the few we have, we have too many that are set up to fail before they even are born, and we have too many people who have no idea how to conduct a relationship or how to parent.  How long will such a self-sabotaging society produce enough excellent people to keep the show running for everyone else?

Can it be fixed?  Maybe, but we would need a different model, one that preserves the concept of romance but also changes marriage from a contract between two adults (which is no longer is, more like a license to annoy, pester and impoverish) into something completely different -- a contract between two adults and the children they have created, with the adults being on one side and the kids being on the other, having claim onto the adults.

How would such a contract look? I'll write this up for my next post. 

Yeehaw!

This weekends' must hear: The Log of a Cowboy.  

"The Log of a Cowboy is an account of a five-month drive of 3,000 cattle from Brownsville, Texas, to Montana in 1882 along the Great Western Cattle Trail. Although the book is fiction, it is firmly based on Adams's own experiences on the trail, and it is considered by many to be the best account of cowboy life in literature. Adams was disgusted by the unrealistic cowboy fiction being published in his day; The Log of a Cowboy was his response. It is still in print, and even modern reviewers consider it a compelling classic. The Chicago Herald said: "As a narrative of cowboy life, Andy Adams' book is clearly the real thing. It carries its own certificate of authentic first-hand experience on every page." (Introduction by wikipedia)" 

If that is too realistic and you desire a pukka cowboy swashbuckler,  there is always The Bear Creek Collection and if that is not enough, The Bear Creek Collection 2.  From the blurb: 


"Breckinridge Elkins is the roughest, toughest, fastest-shootin’, hardest-fightin’ feller in the Bear Creek settlement, and probably in the entire Humbolt Mountains. As he travels further from home, he single-handedly takes on outlaws, settles (and starts) feuds and tries his hand at romancing the girls. He also discovers a lot of strange customs among other folks, such as building houses out of boards and wearing clothes that ain’t buckskins. Set in Nevada during the late 1800’s, this collection of stories is a great rollicking romp through the American frontier as seen through the eyes of one of the most enjoyable characters created in the history of tall tales." (Summary by RK Wilcox)

And for something inbetween the two offerings, there is of course Buffalo Bill's memoirs:  "The Life of Honorable William F. Cody ".

What has been seen, cannot be unseen

From: http://accidentalpenis.com/post/708221085/autograph-penis

Cracking open my Raspberry beer....

This was a belgian kit called 'Brewferm Framboise' and... it's delicious. I could brew this from scratch, but messing around with fruit in beer has never been lucky for me, besides, this is ever so easy and quick to make, mix, ferment, transfer, prime, bottle, beer done.   And to be honest, the fruit flavour masks any tin taste (if there is some at all) anyway.  Of course, it goes best with a proper drinking song:

Toddler attacks fox (extra extra!)

...another Daily Wail classic(tm)

The self-hating comments are just sickening, one gets the feeling that even had the toddler been totally mullered, the crowd would've cheered for the fox here.

I guess the problem is that foxes are more than just predators --this is foremost  a political and class issue, and that the reality that foxes are not as nice as the cartoons suggest is causing a lot of people a serious pain in their dogma which they fought to establish so hard for over the years against their archenemy, the toffs and the country bumpkins and their hated foxhunt.

Even the parents of the unlucky toddler state they don't want the fox to die -- it's as if a dose of forgiveness could magically make the event unhappen, and the animal had not learnt that biting humans is OK -- totally oblivious to the fact that foxes learn most of their hunting behaviour.

My hunch is that fox bites are quite common, but people tend to view them as trivial.   So expect a lot more fox-bites-child news to come up as it's now on the news radar.


For those who like their math, here are some papers that should give you a good idea of the bad things that'll happen if rabies ever takes hold in London:

 MODELING CONTROL OF RABIES OUTBREAKS IN RED FOX POPULATIONS TO ... 
  http://www.diss.fu-berlin.de/diss/receiv/FUDISS_thesis_000000000061?lang=en

And if it ever does, DEFRA's contingency plan is simple: a cull of every warmblooded animal there is in the vicinity, no appeal, not even a current rabies vaccination or keeping it exclusively indoors will save your pet(s). 

Oh and it doesn't have to be an accidental release either, this basically is a huge biosecurity risk just waiting be be explored.  And as an aside, I hope that the bitten toddlers have been protectively vaccinated against Rabies as a precaution.  Because by the time they show symptoms (1-3 month) it'll be too late for them.

She brings the rain -- Can

Drugs -- How the Right lost the youth culture to the Left

The Right has long given up attracting young people, and instead relies on them growing up and coming round of their own accord, eventually, if they haven't totally internalised the leftard brainwash by then.  Even if they are not completely plugged into the lefty matrix, it often takes a long while and much intellectual effort to question every cherished belief one has held from first principles, and so, a lot of naturally conservative people end up as leftards out of a life-long habit.  [1]


This is a huge mistake tactically, as it also does nothing to challenge the many misconceptions about life that young folk have, and so all sorts of myth perpetuate themselves and well-meaning kids end up wearing Che t-shirts and supporting terrorists, not realising what kind of evil they deem to be cool. 


Go to any concert or similar event, and you find that ideologically, the entire scene is firmly in the hand of the Left, who get to spout their nonsense unchallenged and infest young people's mind with their slogans and persistent modus ponens abuse.

Why is that so? 

Well, young people love taking drugs.

What the left does, is that it uses drug culture to promote itself and left politicians forever promise our kids that they will legalise Marijunana.  Obama got many votes for this stunt, and it's very amusing to see my lefty friends (yes, I hang out with the enemy) realising they have been stiffed, in the same way that Labour stiffed the kids over here when they were in power. 


Would you as a young person go and hang out with oldies who bore you with silly horror stories about the evils of dope which you know to be lies?  Of course not, even though most of the other stuff they'd have to teach you is actually quite sane.  Kids hear the first lie, and from that they extrapolate that adults are mad liars, and that most of what they also have to say must be equally crazy.

Ironically, the Left doesn't accommodate the kids either and of course has no plans to legalise any drugs, but because they tolerate the drug culture and have embraced it in their propaganda and PR methods, they get to peddle their ideology much easier, because people who are sane on the drugs issues must of course be totally correct on everything else they say.  This is the one of the most epic salesman tricks ever!


So that is why the Right does not have a youth culture to speak of, and no easy way of connecting to the majority of young people.

The solution?  Lift the unconservative ban on drugs and spend the saved money on education instead(since drugs are quasi-legal anyway and free will is the only cure), and the Left will very quickly lose their monopoly on the young, at which point the Right can start to do proper youth work and begin to reach the parts that our currently loudly shrieking nutty nannies never will.

[1] Take for example Che's true history as a political mass murderer.  Ever educated a lefty peacenik of the grim reality here? If you can get them to listen at all, when they do, it's worse than telling a kid that Santa does not exist.  They go through embarrassment at being sold a lie, then anger at themselves for being gullible and getting their carefully guarded moral integrity tainted by sympathy for a killer, and so on. It's not a great experience at all, and a lot of people prefer not to think about reality because it's too painful to question one's entire integrity. As the Irish man would say: I wouldn't start from here... So, it really is better to catch them young!