[–] Beta_Ray_Bill 0 points 47 points (+47|-0) ago 

Life says otherwise

[–] okhosting 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

Nature says otherwise

[–] African_Jew 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 


At least the singular comment on the webpage is calling out the bullshit.

[–] Food_Stamp 0 points 26 points (+26|-0) ago 

They always say the opposite of whats true and this is one of the easiest to disprove.

[–] Kr1ll1nX 0 points 17 points (+17|-0) ago 

[–] combatveteran 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

It is easy to disprove, but the study you link is about kids with non-biological parents as their care takers.

Here is one of many studies that addresses the issue of single parenthood: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4240051/

[–] voatusernamevoat 0 points 24 points (+24|-0) ago 

A lie.

[–] Bigdeal 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Just another study that starts off with a goal. Then you take said goal and build your study around it. They ask kids if they think their life’s suck. The kids don’t know any better. Their life’s have always sucked but they don’t have the good end to compare it to so of course they answer their life’s are great. They don’t know any better. The researchers do know better and that is why they build their questions around the outcome they want.

[–] GoyimNose 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

"are you a happy boy?" "kinda but i wish i had a dad" "oh so you are saying you hate mommie?" "no no i love mommy!"

[–] neogag 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Sumi Rabindrakumar, report author, added: "By taking a more dynamic view of family life, these findings challenge common political and public narratives around single parents and their families."

Sounds like a pajeet fudging the definition of good.

Professor Crook said: "I am delighted to see how the Crook Fellowships have achieved what I wanted to see when we set these up. They are helping to build strong collaborations between academic colleagues and Crook Fellows working in the policy and practice communities.

"The fundamental aim is to help make the world a better place through rigorous research on difficult policy challenges. These reports show what we can do through building strong links between academics and policy makers."

Seems legit.

[–] Gorillion 1 points 13 points (+14|-1) ago 

Insane levels of weasel wording.

[–] combatveteran 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

By taking a more dynamic view of family life,

In other words, by changing definitions and ignoring evidence . . .

[–] BlackGrapeDrank 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

"dynamic view"

fucking liberals.

[–] satisfyinghump 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Crook? I think they mean CrookED.

[–] ThisIsMyRealName 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

[–] Intrixina 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

What sort of word salad bullshit is this?

[–] eronburr 1 points 10 points (+11|-1) ago 

The only thing I learned from being raised by my single mother was women are superficial and arrogant but being emotional gets them coddled by society rather than victims of their own undoing. My mom blamed everything for why her life didn't turn out great. I literally spent my first 8 adult years on my own making diagrams and timelines of cause and effect to disprove all her bullshit lies and presented it to her when she lost everything. She's been a quiet humble dependent ever since.

That's all women want, to be a dependent and to be nice live a good life. That's be nice and live a good life, not be good and live a nice life. Nice isn't good because it's dishonest and cowardly. Neither fit the description of good. They're stupid and think being nice can survive without good men.

[–] yellowthread 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Can you show a sample of these diagrams? I can't even imagine tangible proof, much less a diagram, changing a woman's mind.

[–] eronburr 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago  (edited ago)

I'll take a picture next time I visit her home. I didn't think I changed her mind, that would require she study it for a period of time and it was just more or less a cohesive project that clearly took time and effort to illustrate she can't differentiate fact from fiction. That's why I said she's now a quiet humble dependent rather than an productive independent member of society.

Tangible proof is out there but it requires facts that a womans entitlement is the only fuel needed to justify leaving a providing father and how it's ultimately based on their inability to survive leaving the kid with the father. In my case I proved that she left my father because of an employee agreeing with her synopsis of my dad being bad but the reason she became a single parent rather than just single was because if she left us my grandparents wouldn't have supported her and she wasn't capable of supporting herself. All that she called a sacrifice was more her budgeting us into a sacrifice my dad made for her to support us.

If child support wasn't legally enforceable women would swallow their pride and tough it out.

[–] Cooking_with_Alf 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Sons emulate their fathers and love their mothers. If the father is absent, then they both love and emulate the singular person and it has mixed results depending on the mother's ability to be a parent. Girls are the opposite, loving daddy and emulating the mother. If she only has her mother, from observing all known cases I have knowledge of, there is a lot of resentment between the two.

[–] Gorillion 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

Yeah...it's not.

load more comments ▼ (41 remaining)