I know what it meant to me.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 12:14 pmWhat does “parents” mean to you in that statement above?get it to x wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 12:11 pmIt's one thing to be neutral, it's quite another to disrupt. Especially to a system that has proven to have tangible benefits. C'mon 76, nobody is looking at having anything like other societies with arranged marriages to "your kind only", which are prevalent in Islam, Greek Orthodox and most Asian cultures. Nobody is going to hold a gun to anybody's head. Do Black Father's Lives Matter to BLM?MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 12:01 pmI assume you mean this?get it to x wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 9:18 amI know you better than this. If by idiots you mean people just making stuff up, I'll give you the direct link to the page and please read the fourth paragraph from the bottom.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 9:08 am yup, the reason this thread is Racism in America is that we have idiots who actually think BLM is against the "nuclear family".
https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/
It's like the old joke about the husband caught with his mistress--"Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?".
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.
Do you actually think this is the same thing as 'against' men and women married with kids?
Heck, do you actually have an issue with this statement above?
I don't and I'm quite pleased with having been raised in and having the benefit of an intact "nuclear family" and have been very, very fortunate to have had that experience as a spouse and father as well.
But forcing that specific structure as the only way to raise children successfully?
Can't sign up for that.
I see why this is confusing, get it to x.
They are arguing that the "western-prescribed...requirement" deserves to be "disrupted", offering a more expansive definition of 'family' and responsibilities to same.
They are not suggesting that a family with mom and dad is to be 'disrupted', it's the notion that such structure is the only way to successfully raise children. What they ARE rejecting is the lack of responsibility too many in our society feel to those without such support system, as well as the forced aspects that put power differentially in the hands of men versus women.
I'm glad you don't subscribe to some other societies 'arranged marriages' etc, (and I didn't get the sense you did), but don't ignore the reality that we've long had a male dominated patriarchy determined to tilt the legal scales to enable men to dominate the women in this traditional-Western family unit structure.
I trust that you don't subscribe to such domination personally, but let's be clear that many in our American society still do.
BLM's members have perhaps had a clearer window into the reality of many moms without present dads because of the many generations of state-endorsed racism and then massive incarceration of black men. These women have in response been self-reliant, with greater emphasis upon extended family support and community support.
But our economic system continues to create a situation in which single mothers, and thus their children, are far likely to be living in poverty. This is true regardless of race, but when you add in both factors of sexism and race, and single earner status, the statistical difference is even larger for those children with single, black moms.
Is there another, better way than our current structure?
If so, what would that look like and how do we avoid unintended consequences?
There's a legit discussion to be had, IMO.