Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The New York Times"
channel.
-
119
-
104
-
76
-
44
-
44
-
30
-
25
-
23
-
20
-
15
-
13
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@PeopleHealthTru Mothers do NOT "need" to respecet nor love the father. feelings change and no human is entitled to "respect". Respect is something a partner (or anyone else) EARNS. Never mind that divorces happen even between partners that respect each other, the partners are or can return to a state of friendship and reasonable cooperation. But they have developed apart and do not want to be stuck with the other person till death do us part. Which meant a much shorter time when that phrase was created and it was another time and economy.
It is not as if the marriages were happy (and beneficial for the emotional wellbeing of the children) a few generations back just because it was unusual to have a divorce and the parents were stuck in the marriages. It does not do any good to the children to watch their parents suffer through an unhappy, unsatisfying marriage.
What is important for society: that the children are raised well - and that should NOT depend on the emontional relationship between ONE man and wife - or the economic fate of that family (or the ability of the man to make a high enough income).
Other wealthy nations have out of wedlock births as well and a rate of divorces almost as high as the U.S. The losses of WW2 left plenty of widows who raised children without a man in the home - at least not the father of the children - so no wailing about the woes of the absent fathers. A committed father is certainly better than having none - but the children will survive and in these days one cannot force men or women to stay in a relationship.
There are plenty of children born outside of marriage in Germany, Austria, France Netherlands for instance - the majority ! - except for the more conservative part of society - Muslim, devoted Catholics, maybe some farmers (who tend to be more conservative). The other folks thave their children FIRST. If they are still together when the child starts school (or kindergarden with 4 or 5) - that is often the time the parents feel compelled to "make it legal".
Parents of children are more hesistant to break up - it does not matter if they are married or not. Seems like the children make them more committed to the relationship.
There is NO reason THAT must undermine the web of society. But in these societies they have an automatic child allowance (everyone gets it, that is not welfare). And then programs for low income persons and families. Which in many cases will be single parents.
Sure a divorce is not fun for But they DO not selfrighteously try to determine HOW other people have to live. The children need to be well taken care of - or they will not become productive and reliable members of society.
Supporting them cannot be left to the mothers alone nor can it be left to the fathers. Nor is it desireable that a mother would have to work plus 40 hours, is not able to afford the rent in a safe area.
She will be exhausted instead of taking care of the children and in a bad neighbourhoods there are many dangers for unsupervised children and teenagers.
It takes a village to raise a child - that is a law of evolution, the little ones and their mothers were precious for the tribe.
When did that principle become obsolete ?
They didn't do core family, everyone is on their own during human evolution. They females did the work together and the whole bunch of children was with them while the men often hunten in groups as well. So it was shared work and shared "income".
We do not live as hunter gatheres anymore, we live in anonymous settings often a long way from relatives. So a more anonymous community must step up to compensate for the "village".
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The jihadists did not ALLOW the population to flee (was the same in Eastern Aleppo, and in many other regions, only when the rebels are about to lose, they negotiate and the population is their bargaining chip. Often the UN negoatiated an amnesty and then the jihadists allowed a corriodor so that the the residents could be transported out (also often with the help of international organizations).
I guess when the militants occupied a region, those who could (Sunni Muslim) stayed (no Christians, Shia Muslim, Jewish, Alawites, ...) they submitted to the rule of Sharia law and the rule of the jihadists.
They tried to hold on to their houses, apartments, companies, jobs and farms. When the government army advances they are - as a matter of routine - used as human shields.
Then they are not allowed to flee - by the jihadists who want to drive up the costs of military action for the government. In that stage the civilians are useful as bargaining chip (for an amnesty). Before they let the men work for them (to build tunnels for protection for instance).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1