The Council of Biblical Manhood & Womanhood I guess felt it was a GREAT title for a report that basically didn't say what the titled claimed! Why use it then? I suppose because its one of the 'pet' evils they like to rally behind, because the report they speak about doesn't say it. How about website rating? Attention getter of other types?
They tell you that your title should have SOMETHING to do with your piece that you write overall, but it would seem to me it was more of a attention getter instead.
The actual report they speak about, but don't link to within their article is called 'The Good Childhood Inquiry'. That is another question I had! Why not link to the actual report instead of a newspaper article that they took their quotes from instead of the report? I mean they suggest quoting from the report, and then state in a around about way it was actually quoting from the newspaper article. Why not quote from the source itself? I would assume because the report doesn't agree with claims they love to put out there!
As mentioned towards the bottom of the article CBMW titled 'Feminism the Culprit for Family Breakup? A Controversial UK Study Says So' - no the Study doesn't say what they claim on the title. Enquiring minds do wish to know WHY they would use that title! I mean they claim FIRST the articles 'Says so', and then near the bottom it says 'does not establish a causal link between feminism and the destruction of the family' EVEN suggestively as they claim!
You know what it reminds me of? A politician double talk! A good SPIN to make it seem one way, and when you actually read the material or research the claim? You find its pretty much bogus. I was impressed that they did actually mention:
The blame for the breakup of the traditional family certainly cannot be laid solely-or perhaps even mostly-at the feet of feminism. Given the crucial role that the father is called to play in the life of the family (as set forth in Ephesians 5, for instance), AWOL fathers are equally-if not more (see God's dialogue with Adam in Genesis 3)-blameworthy for the meltdown of the family.Notice the bolded portion of the this part of their article. You have to wonder WHY they rail so much about feminism if the isn't even 'mostly at the feet of feminism' causing breakdowns of the family? Strange huh? Remember they state that the 'UK study claims SO!", and yet does it? Nope!
YET they also didn't even go far enough into the 'father's side' either. SURE it mentioned the stereotypical responses above, but it also mentioned SO many other things. It certainly didn't concentrate on the above claims for father's either. Why cherry pick? I guess it fills the claims they have been using for a while, and need a good pat on the back or something.
They didn't go into factors like the majority of father's felt they didn't spend enough quality time with their infants due to work, and that was especially true if their schedule was erratic! I mean that of course would make sense to almost everyone, and I think we can all understand why that would understandable true!
The study describes an increase in the number of mothers going back to work when their babies are less than a year old as a "massive" social change from generations past. This reality means that women are now less dependent on their husbands and this combination has greatly damaged the family, the study concludes. The study is based on responses from data gathered from 35,000 poll participants.The above is another example of a good TWIST!
The study actually goes further back to when women were entering the work force in larger numbers, and strangely it was before the period you hear most about from CBMW. It started to before the 1960's 'downfall' of the family they love to speak about!
It doesn't nail you with the 'selfish women that want it all', and think children are waste of energy and just go out and get abortions either. YES Strangely it speaks of the historical reasons for them entering the workforce. Imagine that?!
One of the reasons that most can relate to is man's job 'insecurity' due to the economic change in history. You notice that 'blame' wasn't on women or men there? The loss of job security was a big part of people's lifes, and also the cost of living going UP and yet wages NOT keeping up in alot of areas. The study also debunks their claims of how people are just not wishing to give up their numerous cars - expensive vacations, and other extras and would rather damage their children by allowing childcare workers to raise them instead. I think we realize there are those out there that do this, but strangely the study doesn't show that is the majority.
So for example, the level of family income has only a weak link with children’s self-esteem once the quality of parent-child relationships are take into account. Viewed in this way, the quality of relationships within the family is an important buffer that can either reduce or increase the impact of structural factors on children’s well-being.
This applied to family that had two incomes as well! WOW what a concept! The relationship quality between parent-child is a factor in the children's well-being. It makes sense to me, but yet you don't hear that drummed to often. The quality of the relationship - not quantity of time - effects the child's well being. So if you have been placed in a circumstance where you must have two wage earners, and you placed emphasis on the 'quality' of the relationship with your children that MAKES a huge impact on their lifes.
I honestly think that is something all parents need to hear! If you are separated from your children due to all kinds of circumstances that doesn't mean it will automatically - or 'most of the time' mean your child's well being is at risk. That also doesn't mean that if you spend ALL of your time with your children equals your child's well being having better success. Sounds to me like either way your cut it - quality of the relationship is KEY!
The report goes into factors such as quality child care, the quality of the family unit, etc. It of course goes into the harsh realities of life about how poverty, divorce and separation can effect lifes. It also gives hope that those factors don't mean permanent damage forever. It also goes into factors that we all know can create awful circumstances, and create dangerous living conditions. YES it speaks of how conflict, emotional abuse, verbal abuse, sexual abuse, and physical abuse can tear apart families intact or not. How separating from an abuser doesn't end the abuse in all circumstances, but that separation can bring healing and quality to life.
The report does go into some real crisis that we are dealing with today in terms of the family life, marriage, etc. It does into depth in alot of areas, and doesn't just use sweeping generalizations that fit a personal agenda. It speaks of things we have heard about the news for example poor areas with lack of resources, jobs and quality school and daycare as factors. NO it doesn't suggest that feminism is the culprit for families breaking up, and I guess that is why CBMW linked to the newspaper article instead of the study.
It took me a while to find the actual report that was cited, but when I found a follow up article to the one that CBMW linked to. They actually mentioned the article by name, and that is how I found the report in question. It certainly does mention the negative aspects of the breakdown of the family, but there were many causes, aspects and circumstances that truly fly in the face of claims you hear WAY to much about today.
I hope we learn to look at studies, and learn from the true factors of the breakdowns of families instead of spinning personal evils as truth. There are man haters and women haters in life, but the study doesn't back up the claim THEY are the true culprits!
Thanks For Making This Possible! Kindly Bookmark and Share it: