The Attack On The Family

[CV75]

OK, but he did not say what you said.

To me, he did!

[CASteinman]

To me, he did!

Well, which is it? You think that educating women is a problem? Or you think that he was saying that the way education is done is bad -- for both men and women?

Edited April 14, 2013 by CASteinman

[slamarwi]

I am saying that the lack of of women education is an attack on families.

You should probably check your statistics. The trend has been and continues to go in the opposite direction.

This following is a quote from the Population Reference Bureau. The full article can be bound at the link beneath the quote.

"A deeper look at these statistics, however, reveals another phenomenon—the "feminization" of higher education. Simply put, young women are now more likely to enroll in, and graduate from, college than young men. Where historically men have been more likely to finish college, since 1991 the share of women ages 25 to 29 with a bachelor's degree or higher has exceeded the share of young men with the same credentials (see figure). And the gap has widened in recent years due to stagnation in the rate of young men earning degrees. Moreover, this phenomenon is present among all major race and ethnic groups. Women not only represent a majority of young adults enrolled as college undergraduates, but they also are now nearly three-fifths of graduate students."

http://www.prb.org/Articles/2011/gender-gap-in-education.aspx

[slamarwi]

There are so many things that attack the family and and its ability to thrive. Not all are blatantly evil but ultimately lessen our ability to interact appropriately and maintain a health family unit. These things include:

• The ease, accessibility and callousness of constant violence and sexuality (movies, 24-hour news, sexting etc)
  
• The digitization (audio, video, smartphones etc.) of our daily lives reducing our ability to communicate face to face
  
• Relaxed values in language, clothing and attitudes
  
• Progressive/ socialistic views espoused and propagated by civic and government leaders that take responsibilities away from parents
  
• The removal of religion in society
  
• The loss of respect and objectifying human life
  

As King Benjamin stated at the end of the 4th chapter of Mosiah

29 And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them.

watch yourselves, and your ^bthoughts, and your ^cwords, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and ^dcontinue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not.

This thread has become political. It will be closed if it continues.

[CV75]

Well, which is it? You think that educating women is a problem? Or you think that he was saying that the way education is done is bad -- for both men and women?

Neither--I think he was saying that once women had the opportunity for education and then leveraged it (and especially anti-God eduction) to disregard the counsels of God, that compounded the existing problem of putting human knowledge above God's, which can only strengthen the attack on the family. The connection between education and material advancement unfortunately also distracts people from God, also stregthening the attack on the family. Of course the root of all this is pride and enmity against or hate of) God, the opposite of humility and unity with (or love of) God -- there is another thread discussing that very thing.

[CASteinman]

Neither--I think he was saying that once women had the opportunity for education and then leveraged it (and especially anti-God eduction) to disregard the counsels of God, that compounded the existing problem of putting human knowledge above God's, which can only strengthen the attack on the family. The connection between education and material advancement unfortunately also distracts people from God, also stregthening the attack on the family. Of course the root of all this is pride and enmity against or hate of) God, the opposite of humility and unity with (or love of) God -- there is another thread discussing that very thing.

Actually that is more like the second option. The manner in which education is conveyed is the attack.

Yet, here is what he actually said:

"The biggest threats to the family have always been the education of women..."

Not "once they had the opportunity". Always. And not once they "leveraged it". Always. And not "especially anti-God" education. Just "the education of women". Always.

And he has not really clarified this further except to sort of deny it:

"I am saying that the lack of of women education is an attack on families."

Which is actually the opposite of what was found in his first statement. But neither statement matches your "agreement", although your interpretation at least makes sense.

Edited April 14, 2013 by CASteinman

[thesometimesaint]

I doubt very seriously that few if anyone alive today would want to live according to the Old Testament.

[thesometimesaint]

You should probably check your statistics. The trend has been and continues to go in the opposite direction.

This following is a quote from the Population Reference Bureau. The full article can be bound at the link beneath the quote.

"A deeper look at these statistics, however, reveals another phenomenon—the "feminization" of higher education. Simply put, young women are now more likely to enroll in, and graduate from, college than young men. Where historically men have been more likely to finish college, since 1991 the share of women ages 25 to 29 with a bachelor's degree or higher has exceeded the share of young men with the same credentials (see figure). And the gap has widened in recent years due to stagnation in the rate of young men earning degrees. Moreover, this phenomenon is present among all major race and ethnic groups. Women not only represent a majority of young adults enrolled as college undergraduates, but they also are now nearly three-fifths of graduate students."

http://www.prb.org/A...-education.aspx

That just means that men need to get more education. In the US the wages of men has largely stagnated for the last 30+ years. While at the same time that men have steadily lost ground in education, percentage wise.

SEE

Edited April 14, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

I'm not convinced that this applies to the U.S. or first-world countries where Hispanics have less educational achievements than Whites yet their fertility rate is higher and their infant mortality rate is lower than that of Whites. Population growth rates and education are inversely correlated. If what you want is bigger families, with an increasing population, there seems to be a limit after which people reproduce less and population decreases.

First world countries have largely either stagnated of have a declining native population base. It is immigration that has made up for the shortfall. I didn't say I wanted either increasing or decreasing populations. My personal preference is for a steady population

[Alvino]

First world countries have largely either stagnated of have a declining native population base. It is immigration that has made up for the shortfall. I didn't say I wanted either increasing or decreasing populations. My personal preference is for a steady population

And I wasn't talking about what you wanted. You offered a possible counter-argument. That was the following: "But I would argue that a well educated woman ensures that her children are healthier, and more likely to survive childhood. So there is a lesser need for a large unsustainable family. IE: It is better to have 2-3 children that survive to adulthood than to have 10 children where only 1-2 survive."

My point was that education isn't that big a factor to whether you have more children get to adulthood or not, probably because of the progress in medicine and hygiene.

[thesometimesaint]

And I wasn't talking about what you wanted. You offered a possible counter-argument. That was the following: "But I would argue that a well educated woman ensures that her children are healthier, and more likely to survive childhood. So there is a lesser need for a large unsustainable family. IE: It is better to have 2-3 children that survive to adulthood than to have 10 children where only 1-2 survive."

My point was that education isn't that big a factor to whether you have more children get to adulthood or not, probably because of the progress in medicine and hygiene.

You have to have at least a certain amount of education to take advantage of the progress in medicine and hygiene.

[Calm]

My point was that education isn't that big a factor to whether you have more children get to adulthood or not, probably because of the progress in medicine and hygiene.

The leading causes of infant mortality are dehydration, disease, congenital malformation, infection, drugs and alcohol, sudden infant death syndrome. Other causes and factors that contribute to infant mortality are prenatal care, mother’s marital status, social and income status, poverty, race, smoking and substance abuse, air pollution and environmental factors.

Since education level of the mother is tied into her marital, social and income status as well as smoking IIRC, it would seem to be a significant factor to me.

[Calm]

The result has been a historic reversal of what the economist Elaina Rose calls the “success” penalty for educated women. By 2008, the percentage of college-educated white women ages 55 to 59 who had never been married was down to 9 percent, just 3 points higher than their counterparts without college degrees. And among women 35 to 39, there was no longer any difference in the percentage who were married.

African-American women are less likely to marry than white women overall, but educated black women are considerably more likely to marry than their less-educated counterparts. As of 2008, 70 percent of African-American female college graduates had married, compared with 60 percent of high school graduates and just 53 percent of high school dropouts.

One reason educated heterosexual women may worry about their marriage prospects today is that overall marriage rates have been slipping since 1980. But they have slipped less for educated women than for anyone else. Furthermore, college-educated women, once they do marry, are much less likely to divorce. As a result, by age 30, and especially at ages 35 and 40, college-educated women are significantly more likely to be married than any other group. And according to calculations by the economist Betsey Stevenson, an educated woman still single at age 40 is much more likely to marry in the next decade than her less educated counterparts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/opinion/sunday/marriage-suits-educated-women.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[Alvino]

Since education level of the mother is tied into her marital, social and income status as well as smoking IIRC, it would seem to be a significant factor to me.

Well, I mentioned that those factors are not all that important as far as the first-world is concerned. Secondly, you aren't even addressing the evidence I presented. Do you dispute that Hispanics, despite their lower socioeconomic status and lower levels of education, have a slightly lower infant mortality than Whites and end up producing more adults? That goes against what TSS said.

[Calm]

You have to have at least a certain amount of education to take advantage of the progress in medicine and hygiene.

Individuals who were married, more educated, and Caucasian were more willing to seek mental health treatment,

http://muwww-new.marshall.edu/jrcp//Jones_Hazledine%20et%20al.pdf

I am pretty sure that I have read past studies that demonstrate this in other areas besides mental health...that the more educated are more likely to seek medical help as well as more likely to eat more nutritiously and in my experience, are more likely to be involved in more hygienic practices like preventative care...going to the dentist, yearly physicals, tests such as mammograms and colonoscopies, etc.

[Alvino]

http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0

Are you trying to address anything I said with this? Because I never even mentioned marriage. I mentioned what was relevant to TSS's post: infant mortality, population growth, and educational attainments.

[Calm]

Well, I mentioned that those factors are not all that important as far as the first-world is concerned. Secondly, you aren't even addressing the evidence I presented. Do you dispute that Hispanics, despite their lower socioeconomic status and lower levels of education, have a slightly lower infant mortality than Whites and end up producing more adults? That goes against what TSS said.

I think what you would need to demonstrate is that among Hispanics, there is no difference between levels of education and infant mortality rate first.

[Shanky82]

To be clear, I meant "voluntary single-parent homes", where a person chooses to have or adopt a child knowing in advance they are doing so without a spouse.

Like Nadya Suleman who also did an adult film. The horror, the horror...

[Alvino]

You have to have at least a certain amount of education to take advantage of the progress in medicine and hygiene.

This can be true and the counter-argument to which I responded false. If you look at the average educational attainment of Hispanics, though, it is rather low compared to that of Whites yet Hispanics manage to produce more adults.

[Alvino]

I think what you would need to demonstrate is that among Hispanics, there is no difference between levels of education and infant mortality rate first.

*facepalm* Do you know what an average is?

[Calm]

While Hispanic infant mortality is less than nonHispanic among low educational levels, it evens out with higher education. Within the Hispanic group, the mortality rate drops form 5.2 to 4.6...definitely not as significant as it is for nonHispanics which is more than half the rate with higher education, but still significant (almost 20%). Education does contribute to decreasing infant mortality rates.

http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/templates/content.aspx?ID=3329

Also there are areas where Hispanic infant mortality rates are higher than nonHispanic, such as in Colorado: http://www.dailycamera.com/state-west-news/ci_22428612/losing-ground-hispanic-infant-mortality-rate-rise-colorado

A Hispanic baby born in this state is 63 percent more likely than a white baby to die in the first year of life.

My guess is that the traditional family structure among some Hispanic groups (not all, for example Puerto Rico has high im rates) has added protection that is lacking among nonHispanic groups...protection that is now failing as Hispanics alter traditional family structure due to immigration, etc. Edited April 14, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

*facepalm* Do you know what an average is?

Yes, I do. Do you know how to determine what variables are significant?

[Alvino]

While Hispanic infant mortality is less than nonHispanic among low educational levels, it evens out with higher education.

http://www.stateheal...=48&rgn=1&cat=2

It is slightly lower than infant mortality among Whites.

Within the Hispanic group, the mortality rate drops form 5.2 to 4.6...definitely not as significant as it is for nonHispanics which is more than half the rate with higher education, but still significant. Education does contribute to decreasing infant mortality rates.

http://minorityhealt...nt.aspx?ID=3329

But I don't claim education doesn't make any difference.

Also there are areas where Hispanic infant mortality rates are higher than nonHispanic, such as in Colorado: http://www.dailycamera.com/state-west-news/ci_22428612/losing-ground-hispanic-infant-mortality-rate-rise-colorado

My guess is that the traditional family structure among some Hispanic groups (not all, for example Puerto Rico has high im rates) has added protection that is lacking among nonHispanic groups...protection that is now failing as Hispanics alter traditional family structure due to immigration, etc.

No one said here that all Hispanics groups had the same infant mortality rate, calmoriah

Edited April 14, 2013 by Alvino

[Calm]

I believe tss' point (and he can correct me if I am wrong) was that for any given woman, on average having more education adds to her ability to provide stability and resources for her family, including increased health benefits.

The data support him.

[Alvino]

I believe tss' point (and he can correct me if I am wrong) was that for any given woman, on average having more education adds to her ability to provide stability and resources for her family, including increased health benefits.

The data support him.

I agree with that, too.

If you read his argument, though, he seemed to have said something rather different:

As the more education a woman has the smaller her family tends to become. But I would argue that a well educated woman ensures that her children are healthier, and more likely to survive childhood. So there is a lesser need for a large unsustainable family. IE: It is better to have 2-3 children that survive to adulthood than to have 10 children where only 1-2 survive.

To which I answered that, "If what you want is bigger families, with an increasing population, there seems to be a limit after which people reproduce less and population decreases." Do you find this problematic, calmoriah? Wouldn't you agree that a very educated population will reproduce below replacement rate, yet a less educated population (which would tend to have a higher infant mortality rate than they would if they were more educated) will produce more adults?

Edited April 14, 2013 by Alvino