A defense of the natural family

In the same article I responded to earlier today, Chris Kenny made the further claim,

To argue children do best within a marriage with a mother and a father is not fair or accurate. It insults widows and widowers, divorced parents, de facto couples, those who are remarried, single parents and step parents, as well as gay parents.

Before addressing the substance of the claim, let me just state that it does not ‘insult’ these other family types/ living arrangements if it is actually the case that children raised by their married natural parents actually do better. That would simply be a fact. And it is certainly not an insult if the arrangement was beyond the control of the parent/s, as it is in the case of widows and widowers, or where a parent is abandoned or was the victim of serious abuse/ neglect. I’m not surprised, though, that Kenny felt it necessary to emotively wave away any necessity of substantiating his claim that “children do best within a marriage with a mother and a father is not fair or accurate” because the social science simply does not support it in the slightest. And that he made such a baseless claim a week after feminist, Merav Michaeli, on Q&A made the preposterous claim that married natural parents provide the “least safe place for children” to the idiotic cheers of the audience is breathtaking and instructive. This is from the latest National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-4), 2004-2009, collected in the US, arguably the best study of its kind in the world. Here, in Figure 5-9, we see the incidence of all Maltreatment, All Abuse, and All Neglect across family type/ living arrangement.

In Figure 5-10, we see the incidence of physical, sexual and emotional abuse across family type/ living arrangement.

And in Figure 5-11, we see the rate of physical, emotional and educational neglect across different family types:

I recommend that you all look at Chapter 5, including section 5.3, of the full report to Congress, and continue scrolling down. The tables tell an incredible story. Children being raised by their married natural parents is so far and ahead of every other family type that it is criminal to pretend otherwise. There are a number of reasons why these data are largely ignored by the MSM, and why nothing like this, I believe, is actually collected across Australia, and it is because the data runs contrary to the agenda promoted regarding the family, in the post-WWII period, by governments, and the cultural elite as reflected in the arts, universities, and media. No-fault divorce, cohabitation, single parenthood, and more unconventional family situations, like same-sex parents, or polyamorous family situations, have all been and are still championed as being either better for children – yes, no-fault divorce was championed in the 1960s as being better for children – or at the very least presenting ‘no differences’ when compared with incidence of maltreatment, abuse, or neglect found on average where children are raised by their married natural parents. And I haven’t even touched on the different socio-economic outcomes/ educational attainment that these different family types establish for children as children or in adulthood, evidence which, again, establishes that married natural parents provide the best and most supportive environment for their children. Anyway, hopefully this is enough to dispel the errors that are being propagated at the moment so as to maintain a bankrupt ideology and assuage hurt feelings.

12 comments for “A defense of the natural family

  1. September 19, 2017 at 4:46 pm

    no-fault divorce was a 70s issue and made possible by the deplorable Lionel Murphy

    • dover_beach
      September 19, 2017 at 5:06 pm

      The legislation simply was passed in the 1970s, both in Australia and in most of the United States. But the rhetorical and intellectual preparation was done during the 1960s, and in California.

  2. classical_hero
    September 19, 2017 at 6:14 pm

    It’s all part of the big lie. The reason such stats are not collected in Australia because the truth of the matter is the enemy. We must suppress the truth.

    As Stalin said, to destroy America you need to destroy the family.

    • dover_beach
      September 19, 2017 at 6:40 pm

      Yes, indeed, it is very suspicious why sociologists, etc. seem to be very uninterested in collecting data at so fine a grain. You will find, however, that they conflate ‘married biological parents’ with ‘other married parents’, and even ‘cohabiting parents’, and then compare them together against a a very small, self-selecting, sample of same-sex parents, and then pretend there are ‘no differences’. This is exactly what they do, and the media dutifully report this rubbish to the public.

  3. September 19, 2017 at 7:07 pm

    Only know about Australia and we didn’t have a debate about it in the 60s. Nor even in the 70s. Murphy got his bill through and that was it.

  4. September 19, 2017 at 7:08 pm

    the admirable Katie Faust had a lot of papers on this issue

  5. Christine
    September 19, 2017 at 10:09 pm

    It seems there are very few people prepared to speak out on this frantic push for same-sex “marriage” – unless you’re an activist or a ‘dead thing’ going with the stream. The rest of us appreciate those who are speaking up. A number of our priests and ministers of religion have let us down publicly.
    Thank you

    • dover_beach
      September 20, 2017 at 11:09 am

      My pleasure, Christine. Yes, I’m am quite disappointed myself with those priests that have made vows to defend the truth yet they meekly condescend to the mob.

  6. Bruce
    September 23, 2017 at 12:52 am

    I agree with what was said about the conflation of categories but the same can be said for the study quoted here and elsewhere in support of the notion that Same Sex couples are bad for kids. Putting aside the mistake that you can’t draw causal conclusions from association data, these studies define “normal” ( ill use that as abbreviation) marriages as stable and place failed normal marriage into one of the other categories (even in one often quoted study as a SS relationship if that’s what it results in!). So the studies end up being able to show that stable normal relationships are associated with better outcomes for kids than other sorts of relationships which include various mixtures of stable and unstable types. Something that sounds pretty reasonable to me, but can’t be used to justify what is being said in the main article.

    • dover_beach
      September 28, 2017 at 1:17 pm

      Firstly, the study is not saying that these other relationship are in all individual cases worse than those headed by married natural parents, but only that they are on average much more abusive, much more neglectful than families headed by married natural parents. Obviously there would be a distribution. Secondly, although this is certainly correlative, there is no reason to think that the fact that the parents are both the natural parents, and married, are not causative factors in the results. It certainly appears so given the difference in the results when these factors are absent in whole or part. Thirdly, how does the study’s finding re the least abuse and neglect being found in families headed by married natural parents not justify the claim of the post, that “married natural parents provide the best and most supportive environment for their children”?

      • Bruce
        September 28, 2017 at 2:51 pm

        This and other studies like it confound stable families and natural parents – so it could be just stable families that are associated with better outcomes irrespective of the parents – which is my point about not making causal statements from correlations. When you say “when these factors are absent ” you only refer to marriage and natural parents – why not the stable part of a host of oth r factors that pull be correlated with stable families. I’m not sure about this study but others I have seen show that more stable families tend to be associated with better finances – I would guess they might also be associated with less criminal convictions, less domestic violence, better education and a whole lot of other things – as you say we are talking about averages. To labour the point I’d say all these things are bad for kids but also cause marriages to be less stable. So I certainly don’t agree the casual factors are onbvious – I’d expect something as complicated as familiies to be related to lots of things not just one factor like natural parents.

        • dover_beach
          September 28, 2017 at 8:23 pm

          Firstly, where does this study confound stable families and natural parents? It distinguishes married natural parents from cohabiting natural parents. The stability of the former is much better than those of the latter. This feature is even more likely to be the case in respect of the other family situations because they involve types that involved separation and/ or divorce at some stage. Secondly, I’m not relating everything to married natural parents, because these other factors, like better finances, etc. are likely to have a role in explaining the normal distribution of this family type regarding abuse and neglect.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *