Does science support mothers who leave their young children to go to work?

Dina is very concerned about the UK’s leftist coalition government’s attempt to punish women who stay at home with their young children. (H/T Dina)

Excerpt:

Under plans unveiled in the Budget on Wednesday, families will only benefit from the generous new deal, which will come into force in 2015, if ‘all parents’ have a job. If one parent works but the other stays at home looking after their young children, they will get nothing.

It is the second time in just a few months that the Government has triggered controversy with its changes to the tax and benefit systems, which appear to penalise stay-at-home mothers.

As a result of the recent child benefit changes, a couple can both earn £50,000 and keep their child benefit, worth £1,752 a year for two children.

But a couple where one parent earns £60,000 and the other earns nothing – but have a far lower joint income – do not get a penny.

Again, this week’s initiative favours those couples where both parents go out to work. It will even benefit parents who each earn a salary of £149,999.

Note that this plan is being put forward by socialist Liberal Democrat Party, as well as the “Conservative” Party.

Dina thinks that the science is pretty clear that children suffer if their mothers leave them at a young age. Take a look at the video above, and then the brain scan below.

Brain scans of 3-year old children: normal vs neglected

Here’s the article that goes with the brain scan from the UK Daily Mail.

Excerpt:

Both of these images are brain scans of a two three-year-old children, but the brain on the left is considerably larger, has fewer spots and less dark areas, compared to the one on the right.

According to neurologists this sizeable difference has one primary cause - the way each child was treated by their mothers.

The child with the larger and more fully developed brain was looked after by its mother – she was constantly responsive to her baby, reported The Sunday Telegraph.

But the child with the shrunken brain was the victim of severe neglect and abuse.

According to research reported by the newspaper, the brain on the right worryingly lacks some of the most fundamental areas present in the image on the left.

The consequences of these deficits are pronounced – the child on the left with the larger brain will be more intelligent and more likely to develop the social ability to empathise with others.

But in contrast, the child with the shrunken brain will be more likely to become addicted to drugs and involved in violent crimes, much more likely to be unemployed and to be dependent on state benefits.

The child is also more likely to develop mental and other serious health problems.

Professor Allan Schore, of UCLA, told The Sunday Telegraph that if a baby is not treated properly in the first two years of life, it can have a fundamental impact on development.

He pointed out that the genes for several aspects of brain function, including intelligence, cannot function.

[...]The study correlates with research released earlier this year that found that children who are given love and affection from their mothers early in life are smarter with a better ability to learn.

The study by child psychiatrists and neuroscientists at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, found school-aged children whose mothers nurtured them early in life have brains with a larger hippocampus, a key structure important to learning, memory and response to stress.

The research was the first to show that changes in this critical region of children’s brain anatomy are linked to a mother’s nurturing, Neurosciencenews.com reports.

The research is published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Early Edition.

Lead author Joan L. Luby, MD, professor of child psychiatry, said the study reinforces how important nurturing parents are to a child’s development.

This is why I argue that feminism, which is the ideology that demands that women work outside the home in order to be “equal” to men, is harmful to children. If we really cared about children, then we need to not be subsidizing the child abuse schemes of Liberal Democrats like Nick Clegg. We need to be clear that gender feminism (third-wave feminism) is an anti-child ideology and it should be opposed. The science is settled on this issue. Feminism harms innocent young children. And feminism isn’t just opposed to the rights of born children. They oppose the right to life of unborn children, too.

Filed under: News, Abuse, Baby, Brain, Child, Child Abuse, Child Care, Child Development, Child Neglect, Coalition, Conservative Party, David Cameron, Empathy, Equal, Equality, Family, Feminism, Health, Home, Intelligence, Leftism, Liberal Democrat, LIberal Democrat Party, Marriage, Mental Health, Mother, Neglect, Newborn, Nick Clegg, Parenting, Radical Feminism, Social Ability, UK

Childless single adults “co-parenting” children in loveless partnerships

Dina sent me this depressing article from the UK Daily Mail.

Excerpt:

An increasing number of childless men and women, who are finding themselves single at 40, are now pairing up to build families, minus any romance.

Instead of becoming single parents by choice, these middle-age professional are turning to co-parenting, a growing trend where singles meet online with the sole objective to become
equal partners in raising a child.

Here’s one case:

Dawn Pieke, 43, is one woman who turned to co-parenting after her live-in boyfriend, who she was was ready to have children with, cheated on her.

‘I’ve met so many women in this same situation, who aren’t married and feel like they missed the boat,’ she said.

Ms Pieke said she found a Facebook group devoted to co-parenting, and soon found Australian resident Fabian Blue, 41, who wanted to be an equal partner in raising a child as much as she did.

She wanted a baby, but feared doing it alone because it was important for her to have a child who knew their father. She said, ‘I didn’t grow up with my dad.’

So rather than focusing on a love match, she decided to find someone to share both the financial and emotional stresses of child rearing.

Mr Blue had considered adoption, but ‘figured no one would let a single gay male adopt a child, and I didn’t have the kind of income for a surrogate,’ he said.

Here’s another one:

Rachel Hope, a 41-year-old real estate developer and freelance writer in Los Angeles, is usingModamily to seek a man who lives near her, is healthy, and ‘has his financial stuff together,’ she toldthe New York Times.

She met the athletic Parker Williams, a gay 42-year-old founder of QTheory, a charity auction company also in Los Angeles, and since October, the pair have been in serious discussions about having, and raising, a child together.

Ms Hope, who has a 22-year-old son and a 3-year-old daughter, both from co-parenting partnerships, and believes she may have found a third co-parent in Mr Parker, revealed that her first co-parent was a close friend – they decided to become non-romantic partners because of their belief that the institution of marriage was broken.

While they both had romantic relationships with others, they were first and foremost committed to their son, she said.

‘I get all the benefits of being married but I didn’t have all the weather patterns of sexual-romantic destabilization,’ she explained to Buzzfeed. ‘He was late twice in 20 years. And my son is extraordinary.

I’m not surprised by this. This is the next step up from single motherhood by choice, IVF and gay marriage. Children have become commodities, like an iPhone or a hand bag. They have no rights, and their needs are being neglected by selfish, narcissistic adults. These adults can’t be bothered to make wise decisions that will lead to a stable environment in which to raise a child. They don’t care that the child will never see the love between his or her mother and father. They only care about themselves.

Filed under: News, Child Abuse, Child Neglect, Co-Parenting, Feminism, Gay Rights, Narcissism, Parenting, Selfishness

Single mothers are better off with a $29,000 job and welfare than with a $69,000 job

Socialism subsidizes single motherhood by choice

(click for larger image)

James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute explains how the welfare state discourages women from getting married before they have children.

Excerpt:

The U.S. welfare system sure creates some crazy disincentives to working your way up the ladder. Benefits stacked upon benefits can mean it is financially better, at least in the short term, to stay at a lower-paying jobs rather than taking a higher paying job and losing those benefits. This is called the “welfare cliff.”

Let’s take the example of a single mom with two kids, 1 and 4. She has a $29,000 a year job, putting the kids in daycare during the day while she works.

As the above chart  – via Gary Alexander, Pennsylvania’s secretary of Public Welfare — shows, the single mom is better off earning gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income and benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income & benefits of $57,045.

It would sure be tempting for that mom to keep the status quo rather than take the new job, even though the new position might lead to further career advancement and a higher standard of living. I guess this is something the Obama White House forgot to mention in its “Life of Julia” cartoons extolling government assistance.

Fatherlessness is absolutely horrible for children across the board. Not just in terms of their development, but also their material well-being and their physical safety. Fatherlessness is a loss in three ways for children. The federal government should NOT be taking money from good married households and transferring it to women who decline to marry before choosing to have reckless, irresponsible recreational sex.

Filed under: Polemics, Assistance, Benefits, Child, Child Abuse, Child Neglect, Children, Day Care, Daycare, Dependence, Dependency, Family, Father, Fatherless, Fatherlessness, Fathers, Feminism, Government, Income, Kids, Life of Julia, Marriage, Mother, Recreational Sex, Redistribution, Salary, Single Mom, Single-Mother, Single-Motherhood, Socialism, Subsidies, Subsidize, Unmarried Mom, Unmarried Mother, Welfare

67% of single / unmarried / divorced women vote for pro-abortion, pro-gay-marriage Obama

Did you know that most single / unmarried  / divorced women are pro-abortion and pro-gay-marriage?

Excerpt:

Two-thirds of single women voted for President Barack Obama on Tuesday – showing that unattached women are a powerful Democratic voting bloc.

These women were galvanized not only by traditional “women’s” issues such as birth control and abortion rights, but also by Obama’s jobs message and health reform, analysts say.

NBC News national exit polling shows that 67 percent of unmarried women said they voted for Obama. That’s in line with the 2008 election, when 70 percent of single women helped usher the president into office. This proves it wasn’t a single-election phenomenon: unmarried women have solidified into a powerful voting force, experts say.

“One of the reasons for that is the birth control issue,” says American Association of University Women Policy Director Lisa Maatz. “Abortion — reasonable people can disagree on that and do. But the whole issue of access to birth control…is something that most women thought was a settled issue.”

By the way — this isn’t just young women, Maatz pointed out. Many of the single women voters were over 50 — divorced, widowed or never married.

In the rest of this post, when I say “women”, I mean “67% of single / unmarried / divorced women who voted for abortion and gay marriage”. Please keep that in mind.

So what is it that these single / unmarried / divorced women really want these days?

Here’s what they want:

• they want taxpayer-funded contraceptives, paid for by Christians and provided by Christians
• they want taxpayer-funded abortions, paid for by Christians and provided by Christians (no conscience protections)
• they want children to be raised by single mothers, supported with taxpayer money
• they want children to be raised by same-sex couples, and harsh laws preventing anyone from disagreeing with gay marriage
• they want no-fault divorce laws, so that they can easily get out of any marriages that don’t make them happy
• they want taxpayer-funded day care, so that they can get back to their careers as quickly as possible

In the UK, you can also get taxpayer-funded breast enlargements. And in some parts of Canada, you can get taxpayer-funded in-vitro fertilization. Both countries have single-payer health care, which is very popular with single women because women typically need more health care and men need less – but you pay into these systems based on income, so it is a redistributive system that punishes work and rewards those people who require more health care – sometimes as a result of their own poor choices.

So women basically want to be unchaste, to depend on government handouts, to dismiss the traditional roles of men in marriage (protector, provider, moral/spiritual leader) and to dismiss the needs of children for their mother and father (either through day care, single motherhood or divorce).  If their plan to have a ton of recreational sex results in a baby, then they want to kill that baby, so they won’t be burdened by the consequences of their own choices. Women don’t  want to stay home with very young children. They don’t want to care for their husbands’ needs. In fact, most of them would prefer to have money extracted from working men through taxation, and then distributed back to to women through government programs and handouts. What they really mean is that they want to marry the government, and escape from the authority of husbands and fathers, and the obligation to respect them, too.

Now, speaking as a chaste Christian man, marriage is my goal and so I read a lot of research about how marriage succeeds or fails, as well as research on what children need in order to succeed. The evidence that I’ve written about before shows that marriages are more stable and better quality if both the man and the woman have no previous sexual experience. The evidence also shows that children need a mother for at least the first two years of life, and preferably the first five years of life. The evidence shows that fatherlessness is tantamount to child abuse. And the evidence shows that divorce scars children for life. And the evidence shows that men feel better about themselves when they are recognized and respected by their family as the protector, provider and moral/spiritual leader of the home.

Therefore, we should be encouraging men and women to be chaste prior to marriage. Not only is this good for marital stability and quality, but fewer unborn children will be murdered by women. We should encourage women to stay home at least two years with new children, and five would be better. We should be encouraging people to be more careful about choosing the right man for the roles of husband and father, and not telling them to choose a man based on superficialities like appearance, emotions and cultural approval. We should be making it harder for women to divorce men by removing the financial incentives to divorce and requiring a demonstration of fault.

That’s what we would do if we wanted a marriage that is good for God, good for society, good for men and good for children. But let me be clear: that is not what women want. They say they want “marriage”, but they don’t want what marriage actually is: husbands caring for wives, wives submitting to husbands, and protecting and nurturing children. Marriage, to a woman, means that government will make sure that no one can obligate her to do anything that doesn’t make her feel happy. Not husbands. Not children. No one.

I think that Christian men like me need to be very careful about knitting our souls to a single woman today. Lots of women label themselves as “Christian” and even attend church. But if they haven’t taken the time to get informed about men and marriage, you shouldn’t be fooled by them. They are opposed to God, men, morality, marriage and children. They are pro-abortion. They will kill to make recreational sex consequence free. They are pro-gay-marriage. They don’t believe that children have a right to a mother and a father to whom they belong, and who are obligated to care for them.

Single men: be careful about marrying single women today – the odds are that you are going to get hurt. You can see the danger they pose to you and your children by looking at what they vote for. You might as well go to the zoo and marry an alligator and hope for love for you and your children from that. Don’t be stupid. Look how they vote and think about what it tells you about their priorities and sense of obligation. Marriage made sense when women were self-controlled and cared about the needs of men and children and their obligations to men and children. Now they don’t. If you want a traditional marriage, and the happiness of being a real man to a woman, and the joy of seeing your children cared for by someone you love and trust, then think carefully before you get married. Because that old definition of marriage is dead. The word remains, but the meaning is lost.

Please also check out my previous post on why single women vote for higher taxes and bigger government, and my previous post about how single women view traditional marriage with traditional roles as a threat to their personal autonomy.

Related posts

• New study: staying a virgin longer enables more satisfying relationships
• Study explains why college women abandon courtship for hook-ups
• New study: relationship quality diminished by early sexual activity, especially for women
• New study: marriage drops probability of child poverty by 82%
• What do radical feminists want women to want?
• New study finds that Christians who regularly attend church divorce less
• How do prostitutes stay in business in an era of hook-up sex?
• Can recreational sex turn a selfish, irresponsible man into a marriage-minded provider?
• New study finds that cohabitation damages children
• New peer-reviewed paper highlights the benefits of pre-marital chastity/abstinence
• Does being a virgin before marriage affect marital stability?
• How important are biological fathers for healthy child development?
• What causes women to become single mothers, and how are children affected?
• New study shows that children of working mothers live unhealthier lives
• New Scientist article shows why fathers are necessary for children’s well-being
• New study finds that women choose mates based on appearance
• Men should prefer women who allow moral judging and spiritual leading
• Where have all the good men gone, and why aren’t men marrying?
• Do men have a responsibility not to marry feminists?
• Why do some women tolerate jerks as boyfriends?
• The dangers of sentimentality in relationships
• How feminism made women unsuitable for marriage and parenting
• Why Christian men should be chaste
• Study: 80% of single evangelicals aged 18-29 are no longer virigins
• For women under 30, most births occur outside of marriage
• How feminist pastors like Mark Driscoll and Kevin DeYoung undermine marriage
• In the UK welfare state, single motherhood is passed from mother to daughter
• New study finds that teens who lose their virginity are more likely to divorce
• How more compassion and less moral judgments increases teen pregnancy
• New survey finds women more sexually active than men in high school
• Why do feminist academics think that feminism has empowered women?
• Who is responsible for the abolition of marriage? Men or feminists?
• Who is to blame for the hook-up culture?
• How the feminist welfare state causes generations of fatherlessness
• Less than half of 7 to 21 year old women think marriage precedes child-bearing

Filed under: Commentary, Abortion, Barack Obama, Big Government, Blame Men, Boy, Child Abuse, Child Neglect, Child-Man, Divorced Women, Education, Exit Polls, Family, Feminism, Gay Marriage, Good Men, Immature, Immaturity, Man-Blaming, Man-Child, Manoshere, Marriage, Marriage Strike, Marry, Marrying, Men, Misandry, Recreational Sex, Single Women, Unmarried Women, Workplace

In UK schools, 90 children are sent home every day for attacks in class

Dina sent me this article from the UK Daily Mail.

Excerpt:

Official figures revealed that 90 children are sent home every day for attacking teachers or classmates.

And the worst deterioration in behaviour is being seen in the most affluent parts of the country. Teachers blamed parents for failing to equip children with the social skills they need to cope in the classroom.

Last year primary schools expelled nearly 300 pupils aged 11 and under for violence and handed out almost 17,000 suspensions. This means that on any given school day in 2010/11, 90 pupils were ordered out of school for attacking a member of staff or fellow pupil.

Primaries were forced to bar pupils more than 10,000 times for persistent disruption in lessons and 6,390 times for verbal abuse.

Hundreds more pupils were sent home for other serious breaches of school rules such as bullying, racist abuse, sexual misconduct, theft, drugs or alcohol offences and damage to property.

Figures issued by the Department for Education shows that while the number of secondary pupils being suspended or expelled is falling, there is a worsening picture at primary level – especially in the most affluent parts of the country.

The number of suspensions has increased most sharply in the country’s wealthiest areas.

The trend follows claims from teachers that spoilt middle-class children are just as likely to challenge authority at school.

Earlier this year, Dr Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, said: ‘A minority of children are very aware of their rights, have a total disregard of school rules and are rather less aware of their responsibility for their own learning and how to show respect to staff and other students.

‘This can apply as much to over-indulged middle class children as those from challenging families.’

Everyone seems to be puzzled about why children of wealthy families might be more likely to misbehave. But I think that children are influenced by their parents the most, and in wealthy families, both parents are probably working. Who is there to supervise and and interact with the children if both parents are working? A day care worker is not the same as a parent. Children definitely need a lot of attention and discipline – does anyone really believe that day care workers can substitute for a parent in that task?

Filed under: News, Child Abuse, Child Care, Child Neglect, Children, Day Care, Family, Latchkey Child, Marriage, Parent, School, UK, Working Mother