CDZ Why is the Traditional/Nuclear family so Vilified these days?

[koshergrl]

The nuclear family provided support and protection for women in this country. Women are a lot more likely to be abused now, and the rate of abuse is much, much higher, now.

As is the crime rate, the rate of out of wedlock pregnancy, the incidence of single parent homes, and relative prison populations. And STDs as well.

How do you know women are more likely to be abused now? Back then men could rape their wives and get away with it. If a man rapes a woman now he goes to prison and/or she can leave him and she has job skills and no stigma of being a divorcee.

You will undoubtedly be surprised, XXXXXXXXXXXX when I tell you that rape sentences today are much, much lighter than they were back when our society actually valued women.

Mod Edit - this is the CDZ Zone - no flaming, putting down or insulting other posters please.

I'm not surprised you are wrong....once again. It was legal for men to rape their wives in the 1950s. incest and physical abuse were not taken seriously either. It was swept under the rug by white males and society at large as too shameful to reveal. Most workers worked 10 hours a day for six days a week. Romanticizing that time period is amusing but it would be horribly wrong.

Marital rape United States law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"The legal history of marital rape laws in the United States is a long and complex one, that spans over several decades. The criminalization of marital rape in the United States started in the mid-1970s and by 1993 marital rape became a crime in all 50 states,"

So your argument is that the traditional family has been vilified because of marital rape?

Nobody has said it never happened. I'm arguing to the actual OP here, and the truth is, despite the fact that you say marital rape had this huge (but apparently undocumented) incidence prior to the decimation of the nuclear family, the left has waged an all out war on the nuclear family.

As you are here. Your argument is that the nuclear family causes marital rape. Well, okay. But the rate of women being raped is STILL higher now. Violence against women is higher..the rate of DEATH is higher. And it's NOT because "gosh people just never reported it back then". It really is higher. There are more criminals, there's more poverty. Everybody knows the source of this...every study that has ever been conducted shows us that single parent household and non-traditional households are more likely to be poverty stricken, wracked by substance and other abuse issues, undereducated, criminal, and uneducated.

I mean, that's the long and short of it. Kids in non traditional households don't do as well.

The question here isn't whether or not women occasionally suffered in silence in the 50s...it's why are we attacking the nuclear family? Why are you attacking the nuclear family? Why are you trying to pretend that women in marriages are *more likely* to be raped than they are if they bounce from one man to another? And where's the data that supports that, if that's your claim?

Wrong......again. Where did I say the traditional family was vilified at all? You claimed women were protected during the 50's when the facts show it was legal to rape your wife. Why dont you sit this one out? You cant seem to get your facts straight.

BTW how can the stats for marital rape be higher now if marital rape was legal then?

The OP is about the vilification of the nuclear family. If you don't want to discuss that, maybe this isn't where you belong?

 

[Asclepias]

Morals and values aren't dependent on a certain type of life style.

In addition, the so-called "Nuclear Family" lifestyle was fraught with problems for women including often a lack of respect for the stay-at home woman and the works she had to do if she had children was often valued as "less then". Add to that, if things go south in the relationship a man could divorce her, she would have few resources, no job skills because "homemaker" doesn't work well in the outside job market. The so-called "traditional family" hid a lot of abuses - alcohalism, domestic violence, dependancy. It has it's good points, but the bad points shouldn't be ignored in the yearning for some non-existant golden age.

The nuclear family provided support and protection for women in this country. Women are a lot more likely to be abused now, and the rate of abuse is much, much higher, now.

As is the crime rate, the rate of out of wedlock pregnancy, the incidence of single parent homes, and relative prison populations. And STDs as well.

I disagree.

Is the rate of abuse truly much higher or - have the laws about it changed and the reporting of it become more open? Abuse used to be hidden and shameful and usually considered the woman's fault - if only she were a better wife, a better mother, hadn't pissed him off.... Today there are many more avenues of help that did not exist in the 50's and 60's. Today, a woman has more means to escape the situation then she ever did before.

What specific protection and support did the nuclear family provide women?

Prison populations have more to do with our laws and mandatory sentancing for minor offenses then it does with the "nuclear family". Consider the relative prison populations in European countries which have also seen similar increases in one-parent families and unmarried partners.

Wrong. On all counts.

More women are abused, and killed, today than have ever been killed in the past. Your claim that women in traditional marriages are at higher risk for abuse is patently untrue. Women are MUCH more likely to be killed by boyfriends and ex boyfriends than they are likely to be killed/attacked by their husbands. What's more, their children are more likely to be killed if they are raising them outside the protection of a traditional marriage, as well.

"The number of American troops killed in Afghanistan and Iraq between 2001 and 2012 was 6,488. The number of American women who were murdered by current or ex male partners during that time was 11,766. That's nearly double the amount of casualties lost during war."

" 1,509
"The number of women murdered by men they knew in 2011. Of the 1,509 women, 926 were killed by an intimate parter and 264 of those were killed by an intimate partner during an argument."

30 Shocking Domestic Violence Statistics That Remind Us It s An Epidemic

How many of those women were murdered because of men that couldnt legally oppress them anymore and decided no one would have them if they couldnt?

How many of those domestic abuse cases went unreported during the 50s due to social stigma and the cops ignoring them?

The data shows that all women are safer with fewer boyfriends around them and their kids. That means marriage.

" Married women are notably safer than their unmarried peers, and girls raised in a home with their married father are markedly less likely to be abused or assaulted than children living without their own father."

"..children are more likely to be abused when they do not live in a home with their married father."

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/nis4_report_congress_full_pdf_jan2010.pdf

One way to end violence against women Married dads. - The Washington Post

Thats present day stats. Men dont rape their wives, daughters, and beat their kids now without some expectation of going to jail. Back during the 50's they did that with impunity.

 

[koshergrl]

So again..now that we've established that marriage does protect women and children, can we address the OP?

Why does the left hate the nuclear family?

It's because the nuclear family will teach values to children and rely less upon the public school system to teach their kids..which means the kids will not accept progressive brainwashing without question.

 

[Asclepias]

How do you know women are more likely to be abused now? Back then men could rape their wives and get away with it. If a man rapes a woman now he goes to prison and/or she can leave him and she has job skills and no stigma of being a divorcee.

You will undoubtedly be surprised, XXXXXXXXXXXX when I tell you that rape sentences today are much, much lighter than they were back when our society actually valued women.

Mod Edit - this is the CDZ Zone - no flaming, putting down or insulting other posters please.

I'm not surprised you are wrong....once again. It was legal for men to rape their wives in the 1950s. incest and physical abuse were not taken seriously either. It was swept under the rug by white males and society at large as too shameful to reveal. Most workers worked 10 hours a day for six days a week. Romanticizing that time period is amusing but it would be horribly wrong.

Marital rape United States law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"The legal history of marital rape laws in the United States is a long and complex one, that spans over several decades. The criminalization of marital rape in the United States started in the mid-1970s and by 1993 marital rape became a crime in all 50 states,"

So your argument is that the traditional family has been vilified because of marital rape?

Nobody has said it never happened. I'm arguing to the actual OP here, and the truth is, despite the fact that you say marital rape had this huge (but apparently undocumented) incidence prior to the decimation of the nuclear family, the left has waged an all out war on the nuclear family.

As you are here. Your argument is that the nuclear family causes marital rape. Well, okay. But the rate of women being raped is STILL higher now. Violence against women is higher..the rate of DEATH is higher. And it's NOT because "gosh people just never reported it back then". It really is higher. There are more criminals, there's more poverty. Everybody knows the source of this...every study that has ever been conducted shows us that single parent household and non-traditional households are more likely to be poverty stricken, wracked by substance and other abuse issues, undereducated, criminal, and uneducated.

I mean, that's the long and short of it. Kids in non traditional households don't do as well.

The question here isn't whether or not women occasionally suffered in silence in the 50s...it's why are we attacking the nuclear family? Why are you attacking the nuclear family? Why are you trying to pretend that women in marriages are *more likely* to be raped than they are if they bounce from one man to another? And where's the data that supports that, if that's your claim?

Wrong......again. Where did I say the traditional family was vilified at all? You claimed women were protected during the 50's when the facts show it was legal to rape your wife. Why dont you sit this one out? You cant seem to get your facts straight.

BTW how can the stats for marital rape be higher now if marital rape was legal then?

The OP is about the vilification of the nuclear family. If you don't want to discuss that, maybe this isn't where you belong?

There is no vilification of the nuclear family. We already pointed that out. How can the stats for marital rape be higher now (as you claimed) if marital rape was legal then?

 

[koshergrl]

The nuclear family provided support and protection for women in this country. Women are a lot more likely to be abused now, and the rate of abuse is much, much higher, now.

As is the crime rate, the rate of out of wedlock pregnancy, the incidence of single parent homes, and relative prison populations. And STDs as well.

I disagree.

Is the rate of abuse truly much higher or - have the laws about it changed and the reporting of it become more open? Abuse used to be hidden and shameful and usually considered the woman's fault - if only she were a better wife, a better mother, hadn't pissed him off.... Today there are many more avenues of help that did not exist in the 50's and 60's. Today, a woman has more means to escape the situation then she ever did before.

What specific protection and support did the nuclear family provide women?

Prison populations have more to do with our laws and mandatory sentancing for minor offenses then it does with the "nuclear family". Consider the relative prison populations in European countries which have also seen similar increases in one-parent families and unmarried partners.

Wrong. On all counts.

More women are abused, and killed, today than have ever been killed in the past. Your claim that women in traditional marriages are at higher risk for abuse is patently untrue. Women are MUCH more likely to be killed by boyfriends and ex boyfriends than they are likely to be killed/attacked by their husbands. What's more, their children are more likely to be killed if they are raising them outside the protection of a traditional marriage, as well.

"The number of American troops killed in Afghanistan and Iraq between 2001 and 2012 was 6,488. The number of American women who were murdered by current or ex male partners during that time was 11,766. That's nearly double the amount of casualties lost during war."

" 1,509
"The number of women murdered by men they knew in 2011. Of the 1,509 women, 926 were killed by an intimate parter and 264 of those were killed by an intimate partner during an argument."

30 Shocking Domestic Violence Statistics That Remind Us It s An Epidemic

How many of those women were murdered because of men that couldnt legally oppress them anymore and decided no one would have them if they couldnt?

How many of those domestic abuse cases went unreported during the 50s due to social stigma and the cops ignoring them?

The data shows that all women are safer with fewer boyfriends around them and their kids. That means marriage.

" Married women are notably safer than their unmarried peers, and girls raised in a home with their married father are markedly less likely to be abused or assaulted than children living without their own father."

"..children are more likely to be abused when they do not live in a home with their married father."

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/nis4_report_congress_full_pdf_jan2010.pdf

One way to end violence against women Married dads. - The Washington Post

Thats present day stats. Men dont rape their wives, daughters, and beat their kids now without some expectation of going to jail. Back during the 50's they did that with impunity.

Again..even if you're going to pretend that despite the fact that there is no supporting evidence, almost all married women were raped and abused and it was the nuclear family's fault...TODAY we have stats that show unequivocally that women (and children) are much, much more likely to be abused OUTSIDE of a nuclear family, than in it.

So why do you want women to eschew marriage NOW?

Children living with their married biological parents are 10 times less to suffer abuse and neglect than their counterparts.

So..again..why are you vilifying the nuclear family? When is it ever a good thing to promote a lifestyle that leads to the abuse of children?

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/nis4_report_congress_full_pdf_jan2010.pdf

 

[Asclepias]

So again..now that we've established that marriage does protect women and children, can we address the OP?

Why does the left hate the nuclear family?

It's because the nuclear family will teach values to children and rely less upon the public school system to teach their kids..which means the kids will not accept progressive brainwashing without question.

I already addressed the OP. You made some wild claims and were shown you were not just a little off the mark, you didnt even know what you were talking about. How can we address the OP until you get a realistic view of the subject? How can the stats for marital rape be higher now if marital rape was legal in the 50's?

 

[koshergrl]

You will undoubtedly be surprised, XXXXXXXXXXXX when I tell you that rape sentences today are much, much lighter than they were back when our society actually valued women.

Mod Edit - this is the CDZ Zone - no flaming, putting down or insulting other posters please.

I'm not surprised you are wrong....once again. It was legal for men to rape their wives in the 1950s. incest and physical abuse were not taken seriously either. It was swept under the rug by white males and society at large as too shameful to reveal. Most workers worked 10 hours a day for six days a week. Romanticizing that time period is amusing but it would be horribly wrong.

Marital rape United States law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"The legal history of marital rape laws in the United States is a long and complex one, that spans over several decades. The criminalization of marital rape in the United States started in the mid-1970s and by 1993 marital rape became a crime in all 50 states,"

So your argument is that the traditional family has been vilified because of marital rape?

Nobody has said it never happened. I'm arguing to the actual OP here, and the truth is, despite the fact that you say marital rape had this huge (but apparently undocumented) incidence prior to the decimation of the nuclear family, the left has waged an all out war on the nuclear family.

As you are here. Your argument is that the nuclear family causes marital rape. Well, okay. But the rate of women being raped is STILL higher now. Violence against women is higher..the rate of DEATH is higher. And it's NOT because "gosh people just never reported it back then". It really is higher. There are more criminals, there's more poverty. Everybody knows the source of this...every study that has ever been conducted shows us that single parent household and non-traditional households are more likely to be poverty stricken, wracked by substance and other abuse issues, undereducated, criminal, and uneducated.

I mean, that's the long and short of it. Kids in non traditional households don't do as well.

The question here isn't whether or not women occasionally suffered in silence in the 50s...it's why are we attacking the nuclear family? Why are you attacking the nuclear family? Why are you trying to pretend that women in marriages are *more likely* to be raped than they are if they bounce from one man to another? And where's the data that supports that, if that's your claim?

Wrong......again. Where did I say the traditional family was vilified at all? You claimed women were protected during the 50's when the facts show it was legal to rape your wife. Why dont you sit this one out? You cant seem to get your facts straight.

BTW how can the stats for marital rape be higher now if marital rape was legal then?

The OP is about the vilification of the nuclear family. If you don't want to discuss that, maybe this isn't where you belong?

There is no vilification of the nuclear family. We already pointed that out. How can the stats for marital rape be higher now (as you claimed) if marital rape was legal then?

Actually, coyote is vilifying the nuclear family right now. And marital rape was not the huge issue you two seem to think it is. But regardless, that isn't the topic of the thread. Can we stick to the topic please?

 

[Asclepias]

I disagree.

Is the rate of abuse truly much higher or - have the laws about it changed and the reporting of it become more open? Abuse used to be hidden and shameful and usually considered the woman's fault - if only she were a better wife, a better mother, hadn't pissed him off.... Today there are many more avenues of help that did not exist in the 50's and 60's. Today, a woman has more means to escape the situation then she ever did before.

What specific protection and support did the nuclear family provide women?

Prison populations have more to do with our laws and mandatory sentancing for minor offenses then it does with the "nuclear family". Consider the relative prison populations in European countries which have also seen similar increases in one-parent families and unmarried partners.

Wrong. On all counts.

More women are abused, and killed, today than have ever been killed in the past. Your claim that women in traditional marriages are at higher risk for abuse is patently untrue. Women are MUCH more likely to be killed by boyfriends and ex boyfriends than they are likely to be killed/attacked by their husbands. What's more, their children are more likely to be killed if they are raising them outside the protection of a traditional marriage, as well.

"The number of American troops killed in Afghanistan and Iraq between 2001 and 2012 was 6,488. The number of American women who were murdered by current or ex male partners during that time was 11,766. That's nearly double the amount of casualties lost during war."

" 1,509
"The number of women murdered by men they knew in 2011. Of the 1,509 women, 926 were killed by an intimate parter and 264 of those were killed by an intimate partner during an argument."

30 Shocking Domestic Violence Statistics That Remind Us It s An Epidemic

How many of those women were murdered because of men that couldnt legally oppress them anymore and decided no one would have them if they couldnt?

How many of those domestic abuse cases went unreported during the 50s due to social stigma and the cops ignoring them?

The data shows that all women are safer with fewer boyfriends around them and their kids. That means marriage.

" Married women are notably safer than their unmarried peers, and girls raised in a home with their married father are markedly less likely to be abused or assaulted than children living without their own father."

"..children are more likely to be abused when they do not live in a home with their married father."

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/nis4_report_congress_full_pdf_jan2010.pdf

One way to end violence against women Married dads. - The Washington Post

Thats present day stats. Men dont rape their wives, daughters, and beat their kids now without some expectation of going to jail. Back during the 50's they did that with impunity.

Again..even if you're going to pretend that despite the fact that there is no supporting evidence, almost all married women were raped and abused and it was the nuclear family's fault...TODAY we have stats that show unequivocally that women (and children) are much, much more likely to be abused OUTSIDE of a nuclear family, than in it.

So why do you want women to eschew marriage NOW?

Children living with their married biological parents are 10 times less to suffer abuse and neglect than their counterparts.

So..again..why are you vilifying the nuclear family? When is it ever a good thing to promote a lifestyle that leads to the abuse of children?

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/nis4_report_congress_full_pdf_jan2010.pdf

Thats what I am asking you. If there is no statistic for marital rape in the 50's how do you know the rate is higher now?

 

[koshergrl]

So again..now that we've established that marriage does protect women and children, can we address the OP?

Why does the left hate the nuclear family?

It's because the nuclear family will teach values to children and rely less upon the public school system to teach their kids..which means the kids will not accept progressive brainwashing without question.

I already addressed the OP. You made some wild claims and were shown you were not just a little off the mark, you didnt even know what you were talking about. How can we address the OP until you get a realistic view of the subject? How can the stats for marital rape be higher now if marital rape was legal in the 50's?

No, I made and backed up my claims. You refuse to address the OP and you're trying to change the subject. But I'm not interested in that. I want to stick to the topic...which is why is the left vilifying the nuclear family? What's the motivation? Coyote claims it's because sometimes women were raped in the 1950s by their husbands and didn't report it.

But I maintain that makes no sense. So why REALLY do you think we shouldn't advocate for strong nuclear families, with a married mom and dad?

 

[koshergrl]

Wrong. On all counts.

More women are abused, and killed, today than have ever been killed in the past. Your claim that women in traditional marriages are at higher risk for abuse is patently untrue. Women are MUCH more likely to be killed by boyfriends and ex boyfriends than they are likely to be killed/attacked by their husbands. What's more, their children are more likely to be killed if they are raising them outside the protection of a traditional marriage, as well.

"The number of American troops killed in Afghanistan and Iraq between 2001 and 2012 was 6,488. The number of American women who were murdered by current or ex male partners during that time was 11,766. That's nearly double the amount of casualties lost during war."

" 1,509
"The number of women murdered by men they knew in 2011. Of the 1,509 women, 926 were killed by an intimate parter and 264 of those were killed by an intimate partner during an argument."

30 Shocking Domestic Violence Statistics That Remind Us It s An Epidemic

How many of those women were murdered because of men that couldnt legally oppress them anymore and decided no one would have them if they couldnt?

How many of those domestic abuse cases went unreported during the 50s due to social stigma and the cops ignoring them?

The data shows that all women are safer with fewer boyfriends around them and their kids. That means marriage.

" Married women are notably safer than their unmarried peers, and girls raised in a home with their married father are markedly less likely to be abused or assaulted than children living without their own father."

"..children are more likely to be abused when they do not live in a home with their married father."

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/nis4_report_congress_full_pdf_jan2010.pdf

One way to end violence against women Married dads. - The Washington Post

Thats present day stats. Men dont rape their wives, daughters, and beat their kids now without some expectation of going to jail. Back during the 50's they did that with impunity.

Again..even if you're going to pretend that despite the fact that there is no supporting evidence, almost all married women were raped and abused and it was the nuclear family's fault...TODAY we have stats that show unequivocally that women (and children) are much, much more likely to be abused OUTSIDE of a nuclear family, than in it.

So why do you want women to eschew marriage NOW?

Children living with their married biological parents are 10 times less to suffer abuse and neglect than their counterparts.

So..again..why are you vilifying the nuclear family? When is it ever a good thing to promote a lifestyle that leads to the abuse of children?

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/nis4_report_congress_full_pdf_jan2010.pdf

Thats what I am asking you. If there is no statistic for marital rape in the 50's how do you know the rate is higher now?

I never said the rate of marital rape is higher now. I said women were much, much more likely to be abused outside, than inside, a nuclear family now. That's based on modern statistics, since you all maintain there are no reliable stats from back then.

 

[Asclepias]

I'm not surprised you are wrong....once again. It was legal for men to rape their wives in the 1950s. incest and physical abuse were not taken seriously either. It was swept under the rug by white males and society at large as too shameful to reveal. Most workers worked 10 hours a day for six days a week. Romanticizing that time period is amusing but it would be horribly wrong.

Marital rape United States law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"The legal history of marital rape laws in the United States is a long and complex one, that spans over several decades. The criminalization of marital rape in the United States started in the mid-1970s and by 1993 marital rape became a crime in all 50 states,"

So your argument is that the traditional family has been vilified because of marital rape?

Nobody has said it never happened. I'm arguing to the actual OP here, and the truth is, despite the fact that you say marital rape had this huge (but apparently undocumented) incidence prior to the decimation of the nuclear family, the left has waged an all out war on the nuclear family.

As you are here. Your argument is that the nuclear family causes marital rape. Well, okay. But the rate of women being raped is STILL higher now. Violence against women is higher..the rate of DEATH is higher. And it's NOT because "gosh people just never reported it back then". It really is higher. There are more criminals, there's more poverty. Everybody knows the source of this...every study that has ever been conducted shows us that single parent household and non-traditional households are more likely to be poverty stricken, wracked by substance and other abuse issues, undereducated, criminal, and uneducated.

I mean, that's the long and short of it. Kids in non traditional households don't do as well.

The question here isn't whether or not women occasionally suffered in silence in the 50s...it's why are we attacking the nuclear family? Why are you attacking the nuclear family? Why are you trying to pretend that women in marriages are *more likely* to be raped than they are if they bounce from one man to another? And where's the data that supports that, if that's your claim?

Wrong......again. Where did I say the traditional family was vilified at all? You claimed women were protected during the 50's when the facts show it was legal to rape your wife. Why dont you sit this one out? You cant seem to get your facts straight.

BTW how can the stats for marital rape be higher now if marital rape was legal then?

The OP is about the vilification of the nuclear family. If you don't want to discuss that, maybe this isn't where you belong?

There is no vilification of the nuclear family. We already pointed that out. How can the stats for marital rape be higher now (as you claimed) if marital rape was legal then?

Actually, coyote is vilifying the nuclear family right now. And marital rape was not the huge issue you two seem to think it is. But regardless, that isn't the topic of the thread. Can we stick to the topic please?

It is part of the topic. You also discussed it yourself when you made the claim that marital rape was higher now. Since you made that claim I'm going to hold you to it.

 

[Asclepias]

So again..now that we've established that marriage does protect women and children, can we address the OP?

Why does the left hate the nuclear family?

It's because the nuclear family will teach values to children and rely less upon the public school system to teach their kids..which means the kids will not accept progressive brainwashing without question.

I already addressed the OP. You made some wild claims and were shown you were not just a little off the mark, you didnt even know what you were talking about. How can we address the OP until you get a realistic view of the subject? How can the stats for marital rape be higher now if marital rape was legal in the 50's?

No, I made and backed up my claims. You refuse to address the OP and you're trying to change the subject. But I'm not interested in that. I want to stick to the topic...which is why is the left vilifying the nuclear family? What's the motivation? Coyote claims it's because sometimes women were raped in the 1950s by their husbands and didn't report it.

But I maintain that makes no sense. So why REALLY do you think we shouldn't advocate for strong nuclear families, with a married mom and dad?

You didnt back up anything. Your claim was false. How can you say marital rape was lower in the 50s when the facts show it was actually legal then?

 

[koshergrl]

So again..now that we've established that marriage does protect women and children, can we address the OP?

Why does the left hate the nuclear family?

It's because the nuclear family will teach values to children and rely less upon the public school system to teach their kids..which means the kids will not accept progressive brainwashing without question.

I already addressed the OP. You made some wild claims and were shown you were not just a little off the mark, you didnt even know what you were talking about. How can we address the OP until you get a realistic view of the subject? How can the stats for marital rape be higher now if marital rape was legal in the 50's?

No, I made and backed up my claims. You refuse to address the OP and you're trying to change the subject. But I'm not interested in that. I want to stick to the topic...which is why is the left vilifying the nuclear family? What's the motivation? Coyote claims it's because sometimes women were raped in the 1950s by their husbands and didn't report it.

But I maintain that makes no sense. So why REALLY do you think we shouldn't advocate for strong nuclear families, with a married mom and dad?

You didnt back up anything. Your claim was false. How can you say marital rape was lower in the 50s when the facts show it was actually legal then?

Wrong. I never said marital rape was lower in the 50s. Not that it matters, it's totally irrelevant to the topic. You need to move past this, because it never happened.

 

[Disir]

Through the 1950's and even into the 1960's the Traditional/Nuclear family lifestyle was very common here in the United States. This would be defined as a Single-Income family with or without children where the woman was the homemaker and the man was the breadwinner. These families based their lifestyle on the morals and values that they were taught by their parents and passed on to their children.

This type of lifestyle has slowly eroded over the last half century. Not only has this type of lifestyle become less common, but those people who still engage in it are often Villified. The men are seen as tyranical mysoginists who hate women while the women are presented as brainless twits, automatons, Stepford Wives, and traitors to the great Feminist sisterhood.

Why do you think it is that this lifestyle, which was once the core of American society has now become so hated and villified by such large segments of our society?

Morals and values aren't dependent on a certain type of life style.

In addition, the so-called "Nuclear Family" lifestyle was fraught with problems for women including often a lack of respect for the stay-at home woman and the works she had to do if she had children was often valued as "less then". Add to that, if things go south in the relationship a man could divorce her, she would have few resources, no job skills because "homemaker" doesn't work well in the outside job market. The so-called "traditional family" hid a lot of abuses - alcohalism, domestic violence, dependancy. It has it's good points, but the bad points shouldn't be ignored in the yearning for some non-existant golden age.

The nuclear family provided support and protection for women in this country. Women are a lot more likely to be abused now, and the rate of abuse is much, much higher, now.

As is the crime rate, the rate of out of wedlock pregnancy, the incidence of single parent homes, and relative prison populations. And STDs as well.

I disagree.

Is the rate of abuse truly much higher or - have the laws about it changed and the reporting of it become more open? Abuse used to be hidden and shameful and usually considered the woman's fault - if only she were a better wife, a better mother, hadn't pissed him off.... Today there are many more avenues of help that did not exist in the 50's and 60's. Today, a woman has more means to escape the situation then she ever did before.

What specific protection and support did the nuclear family provide women?

Prison populations have more to do with our laws and mandatory sentancing for minor offenses then it does with the "nuclear family". Consider the relative prison populations in European countries which have also seen similar increases in one-parent families and unmarried partners.

Wrong. On all counts.

More women are abused, and killed, today than have ever been killed in the past. Your claim that women in traditional marriages are at higher risk for abuse is patently untrue. Women are MUCH more likely to be killed by boyfriends and ex boyfriends than they are likely to be killed/attacked by their husbands. What's more, their children are more likely to be killed if they are raising them outside the protection of a traditional marriage, as well.

"The number of American troops killed in Afghanistan and Iraq between 2001 and 2012 was 6,488. The number of American women who were murdered by current or ex male partners during that time was 11,766. That's nearly double the amount of casualties lost during war."

" 1,509
"The number of women murdered by men they knew in 2011. Of the 1,509 women, 926 were killed by an intimate parter and 264 of those were killed by an intimate partner during an argument."

30 Shocking Domestic Violence Statistics That Remind Us It s An Epidemic

Prevalence of Domestic Violence

• In a 1995-1996 study conducted in the 50 States and the District of Columbia, nearly 25% of women and 7.6% of men were raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or dating partner/acquaintance at some time in their lifetime (based on survey of 16,000 participants, equally male and female).Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 181867, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence, at iii (2000), available at Publications NIJ Publication Detail

• Approximately 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States.Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 183781, Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, at iv (2000), available at Publications NIJ Publication Detail

• Intimate partner violence made up 20% of all nonfatal violent crime experienced by women in 2001.Callie Marie Rennison, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 197838, Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief: Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, at 1 (2003), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ipv01.pdf

• Intimate partners committed 3% of the nonfatal violence against men.Callie Marie Rennison, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 197838, Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief: Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, at 1 (2003), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ipv01.pdf

• In 2000, 1,247 women and 440 men were killed by an intimate partner. In recent years, an intimate partner killed approximately 33% of female murder victims and 4% of male murder victims.Callie Marie Rennison, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 197838, Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief: Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, at 1 (2003), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ipv01.pdf

• Access to firearms yields a more than five-fold increase in risk of intimate partner homicide when considering other factors of abuse, according to a recent study, suggesting that abusers who possess guns tend to inflict the most severe abuse on their partners.Jacquelyn C. Campbell et al., Risk Factors For Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results From A Multi-Site Case Control Study, 93 Am. J. of Public Health 1089, 1092 (2003), abstract available at An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

• Of females killed with a firearm, almost two-thirds were killed by their intimate partners. The number of females shot and killed by their husband or intimate partner was more than three times higher than the total number murdered by male strangers using all weapons combined in single victim/single offender incidents in 2002.The Violence Pol'y Ctr., When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 2002 Homicide Data: Females Murdered by Males in Single Victim/Single Offender Incidents, at 7 (2004), available at http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2004.pdf

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, between 1998 and 2002:

• Of the almost 3.5 million violent crimes committed against family members, 49% of these were crimes against spouses.
• 84% of spouse abuse victims were females, and 86% of victims of dating partner abuse at were female.
• Males were 83% of spouse murderers and 75% of dating partner murderers
• 50% of offenders in state prison for spousal abuse had killed their victims. Wives were more likely than husbands to be killed by their spouses: wives were about half of all spouses in the population in 2002, but 81% of all persons killed by their spouse.Matthew R. Durose et al., U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 207846, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Family Violence Statistics: Including Statistics on Strangers and Acquaintances, at 31-32 (2005), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fvs.pdf

Stalking According to the Stalking Resource Center:

• 1,006,970 women and 370,990 men are stalked annually in the United States.
• 1 in 12 women and 1 in 45 men will be stalked in their lifetime.
• 77% of female and 64% of male victims know their stalker.
• 87% of stalkers are men.
• 59% of female victims and 30% of male victims are stalked by an intimate partner.
• 81% of women stalked by a current or former intimate partner are also physically assaulted by that partner.
• 31% of women stalked by a current or former intimate partner are also sexually assaulted by that partner.
• The average duration of stalking is 1.8 years.
• If stalking involves intimate partners, the average duration of stalking increases to 2.2 years.
• 61% of stalkers made unwanted phone calls; 33% sent or left unwanted letters or items; 29% vandalized property; and 9% killed or threatened to kill a family pet.
• 28% of female victims and 10% of male victims obtained a protective order. 69% of female victims and 81% of male victims had the protection order violated.

Stalking Resource Ctr., The Nat'l Ctr. for Victims of Crime, Stalking Fact Sheet, http://www.ncvc.org/src/Main.aspx (citing Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep't of Justice, NCJ 169592, Stalking in America: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey (1998)

In a study done between 1994 and 1998 in ten U.S. cities (Baltimore, Houston, Texas, Kansas City (KS), Kansas City (MO), Los Angeles, New York, Portland, Oregon, Seattle, Washington, St. Petersburg/Tampa, and Wichita:

• 76% of femicide victims had been stalked by the person who killed them.
• 67% had been physically abused by their intimate partner.
• 89% of femicide victims who had been physically abused had also been stalked in the 12 months before the murder.
• 79% of abused femicide victims reported stalking during the same period that they reported abuse.
• 85% of attempted femicide cases involved at least one episode of stalking within 12 months prior to the attempted femicide.
• 54% of femicide victims reported stalking to police before they were killed by their stalkers.

Stalking Resource Ctr., The Nat'l Ctr. for Victims of Crime, Stalking Fact Sheet, http://www.ncvc.org/src/main.aspx?dbID=DB_Intimate_Partner_Femicide122 (citing Judith McFarlane et al., 3 Homicide Studies 300-316 (1999)

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/182369.pdf

• 17 percent of American Indian and Alaska Native women are stalked in their lifetime, compared to 8.2 percent of white women, 6.5 percent of African-American women, and 4.5 percent of Asian/Pacific Islander women.Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 169592, Stalking in America: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey (1998), available at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/169592.pdf See also Violence Against Women Office, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 186157, Stalking and Domestic Violence: A Report to Congress (2001), available at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojp/186157.pdf (discussing stalking behaviors, cyberstalking, impact on victims, law enforcement response, legislation and case law); Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 183781, Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, at iv (2000), available at Publications NIJ Publication Detail

Sexual Assault According to the National Violence Against Women Survey:

• Women are more likely to be victims of sexual violence than men: 78% of the victims of rape and sexual assault are women and 22% are men.
• Most perpetrators of sexual violence are men. Among acts of sexual violence committed against women since the age of 18, 100% of rapes, 92% of physical assaults, and 97% of stalking acts were perpetrated by men. Sexual violence against men is also mainly male violence: 70% of rapes, 86% of physical assaults, and 65% of stalking acts were perpetrated by men.
• In 8 out of 10 rape cases, the victim knows the perpetrator. Of people who report sexual violence, 64% of women and 16% of men were raped, physically assaulted, or stalked by an intimate partner. This includes a current or former spouse, cohabitating partner, boyfriend/girlfriend, or date.Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 183781, Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, at iv (2000), available at Publications NIJ Publication Detail

Domestic Violence Statistics Commission on Domestic Violence

 

[Asclepias]

How many of those women were murdered because of men that couldnt legally oppress them anymore and decided no one would have them if they couldnt?

How many of those domestic abuse cases went unreported during the 50s due to social stigma and the cops ignoring them?

The data shows that all women are safer with fewer boyfriends around them and their kids. That means marriage.

" Married women are notably safer than their unmarried peers, and girls raised in a home with their married father are markedly less likely to be abused or assaulted than children living without their own father."

"..children are more likely to be abused when they do not live in a home with their married father."

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/nis4_report_congress_full_pdf_jan2010.pdf

One way to end violence against women Married dads. - The Washington Post

Thats present day stats. Men dont rape their wives, daughters, and beat their kids now without some expectation of going to jail. Back during the 50's they did that with impunity.

Again..even if you're going to pretend that despite the fact that there is no supporting evidence, almost all married women were raped and abused and it was the nuclear family's fault...TODAY we have stats that show unequivocally that women (and children) are much, much more likely to be abused OUTSIDE of a nuclear family, than in it.

So why do you want women to eschew marriage NOW?

Children living with their married biological parents are 10 times less to suffer abuse and neglect than their counterparts.

So..again..why are you vilifying the nuclear family? When is it ever a good thing to promote a lifestyle that leads to the abuse of children?

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/nis4_report_congress_full_pdf_jan2010.pdf

Thats what I am asking you. If there is no statistic for marital rape in the 50's how do you know the rate is higher now?

I never said the rate of marital rape is higher now. I said women were much, much more likely to be abused outside, than inside, a nuclear family now. That's based on modern statistics, since you all maintain there are no reliable stats from back then.

Rape is a form of abuse as is incest.

The nuclear family provided support and protection for women in this country. Women are a lot more likely to be abused now, and the rate of abuse is much, much higher, now.

How is this statement true if there is no reliable data to support it?

 

[koshergrl]

I thought we weren't supposed to post reams of quoted material in here. I've been careful to parse mine down because of it.

"Women are also safer in married homes. As the figure above (derived from a recent Department of Justice study) indicates, married women are the least likely to be victimized by an intimate partner. They are also less likely to be the victims of violent crime in general. Overall, another U.S. Department of Justice study found that never-married women are nearly four times more likely to be victims of violent crime, compared to married women. The bottom line is that married women are less likely to be raped, assaulted, or robbed than their unmarried peers."

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/nis4_report_congress_full_pdf_jan2010.pdf

 

[koshergrl]

The data shows that all women are safer with fewer boyfriends around them and their kids. That means marriage.

" Married women are notably safer than their unmarried peers, and girls raised in a home with their married father are markedly less likely to be abused or assaulted than children living without their own father."

"..children are more likely to be abused when they do not live in a home with their married father."

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/nis4_report_congress_full_pdf_jan2010.pdf

One way to end violence against women Married dads. - The Washington Post

Thats present day stats. Men dont rape their wives, daughters, and beat their kids now without some expectation of going to jail. Back during the 50's they did that with impunity.

Again..even if you're going to pretend that despite the fact that there is no supporting evidence, almost all married women were raped and abused and it was the nuclear family's fault...TODAY we have stats that show unequivocally that women (and children) are much, much more likely to be abused OUTSIDE of a nuclear family, than in it.

So why do you want women to eschew marriage NOW?

Children living with their married biological parents are 10 times less to suffer abuse and neglect than their counterparts.

So..again..why are you vilifying the nuclear family? When is it ever a good thing to promote a lifestyle that leads to the abuse of children?

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/nis4_report_congress_full_pdf_jan2010.pdf

Thats what I am asking you. If there is no statistic for marital rape in the 50's how do you know the rate is higher now?

I never said the rate of marital rape is higher now. I said women were much, much more likely to be abused outside, than inside, a nuclear family now. That's based on modern statistics, since you all maintain there are no reliable stats from back then.

Rape is a form of abuse as is incest.

The nuclear family provided support and protection for women in this country. Women are a lot more likely to be abused now, and the rate of abuse is much, much higher, now.

How is this statement true if there is no data to support it?

I've supported it repeatedly.

"Women are also safer in married homes. As the figure above (derived from a recent Department of Justice study) indicates, married women are the least likely to be victimized by an intimate partner. They are also less likely to be the victims of violent crime in general. Overall, another U.S. Department of Justice study found that never-married women are nearly four times more likely to be victims of violent crime, compared to married women. The bottom line is that married women are less likely to be raped, assaulted, or robbed than their unmarried peers."
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/nis4_report_congress_full_pdf_jan2010.pdf
One way to end violence against women Married dads. - The Washington Post

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/nis4_report_congress_full_pdf_jan2010.pdf

 

[Asclepias]

Thats present day stats. Men dont rape their wives, daughters, and beat their kids now without some expectation of going to jail. Back during the 50's they did that with impunity.

Again..even if you're going to pretend that despite the fact that there is no supporting evidence, almost all married women were raped and abused and it was the nuclear family's fault...TODAY we have stats that show unequivocally that women (and children) are much, much more likely to be abused OUTSIDE of a nuclear family, than in it.

So why do you want women to eschew marriage NOW?

Children living with their married biological parents are 10 times less to suffer abuse and neglect than their counterparts.

So..again..why are you vilifying the nuclear family? When is it ever a good thing to promote a lifestyle that leads to the abuse of children?

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/nis4_report_congress_full_pdf_jan2010.pdf

Thats what I am asking you. If there is no statistic for marital rape in the 50's how do you know the rate is higher now?

I never said the rate of marital rape is higher now. I said women were much, much more likely to be abused outside, than inside, a nuclear family now. That's based on modern statistics, since you all maintain there are no reliable stats from back then.

Rape is a form of abuse as is incest.

The nuclear family provided support and protection for women in this country. Women are a lot more likely to be abused now, and the rate of abuse is much, much higher, now.

How is this statement true if there is no data to support it?

I've supported it repeatedly.

"Women are also safer in married homes. As the figure above (derived from a recent Department of Justice study) indicates, married women are the least likely to be victimized by an intimate partner. They are also less likely to be the victims of violent crime in general. Overall, another U.S. Department of Justice study found that never-married women are nearly four times more likely to be victims of violent crime, compared to married women. The bottom line is that married women are less likely to be raped, assaulted, or robbed than their unmarried peers."
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/nis4_report_congress_full_pdf_jan2010.pdf
One way to end violence against women Married dads. - The Washington Post

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/nis4_report_congress_full_pdf_jan2010.pdf

Is that a comparison with the 50's or just your way of deflecting?

The nuclear family provided support and protection for women in this country. Women are a lot more likely to be abused now, and the rate of abuse is much, much higher, now.

 

[Syriusly]

The nuclear family came under attack from the depraved and immoral progressive left in the 60s. They adhere to an ideology that requires a large population of underfed, undereducated, brainwashed workers, and they can only achieve that if they eliminate religion and nuclear families...and substitute the state and depravity in their place.

Mod Edit - this is CDZ. No put downs, insults flaming other members.

My bad.

 

[Syriusly]

We essentially have turned over the raising of children to the state;r

No we haven't.

My family is a 'nuclear family' and we raise our child.

The State has established public schools and public libraries to promote education, but no one is raising our child but us.

Now the state has said that they will step in when parents are not raising their children- and I think that is a good thing.