Evidence is clear that families with two married parents are the most beneficial for young children.

In before Crid starts foaming and gnashing that they must be two opposite sex parentsssssss.

All the beautiful, luxurious "woke." None of the costs.

Like Angelina Jolie calling Islam a "beautiful religion," knowing full well that no Muslim refugees are going to be moving into her neighborhood. Where, I am certain, they would tell her in no uncertain terms of what they think of the way she dresses.

Just pointing out that espousing beliefs that would have someone less privileged paying the price if put into practice is nothing new.

In the '80s, we have a word for these types of people: "poseur". Civil rights movements reduced to fashion statements. What you actually believe no longer matters; the important thing is to be in the right clique. And then they wonder why we point at them and laugh.

The premise is flawed.

The truly upper class — old money, old family —isn't going to want Vuitton luggage or anything that splashy, on the premise that quality and durability should be obvious without a label. Nor are they concerned with being fashionable in the sense of a la mode; if they're concerned at all about fashion, it's timeless.

Henderson seems like a very young fellow who hasn't seen much of how the world works.

The truly upper class — old money, old family —isn't going to want Vuitton luggage or anything that splashy, on the premise that quality and durability should be obvious without a label. Nor are they concerned with being fashionable in the sense of a la mode; if they're concerned at all about fashion, it's timeless. ~ Kevin at August 21, 2019 9:05 AM

I think Henderson is confusing the upper middle class with the upper class, a class Paul Fussell dubbed the "out of sights" due to their aversion to publicity and public displays of wealth, affection, etc. - their aversion to the public in general.

Louis Vuitton was the preferred luggage of the upper class and upper middle class, until quality issues and ubiquity destroyed the brand. The '80s rush for "luxury" brands pushed sales past what the regular production channels could handle, so the brand declined in quality as production was farmed out. The same thing happened to Izod's Lacoste line. Then, the proletariat got their hands on cheap Hong Kong knock-offs and the brand lost its cache.

During the 1988 election, a fashion magazine compared the candidates' watches. Bill Clinton, a nouveau riche arriviste, wore an expensive Rolex divers watch. Ross Perot, firmly ensconced in the middle of the middle class, wore a Seiko. George Herbert Walker Bush, scion of an old, established family, but still mostly upper middle class, wore a Timex with a grosgrain band. Clinton's watch needed to announce to the world that he had arrived, whereas Bush's watch merely needed to tell him the time.

What's best for a child is a loving mother with a loving father.

Patrick, we've been covering this for fifteen years. I've said this in large sentences and small sentences, and in as many words dozens of times.

I fear you're just not very bright… Or too emotionally sketchy to concentrate, which has the same practical result.

Murray was the first one to reflect on this bluntly, so he quotes his handy aphorism here.

Conan has it exactly right.

I'll add that our most recent first lady from an upper-class family wore fake pearls and sensible shoes, while a quick Google of "Melania Trump Louis Vuitton luggage" is revealing, down to the superfluous "FLOTUS" luggage tag — as if Melania Trump's bags are going to be coming down a chute at baggage claim.

Understand that the watch comparison was mostly about Clinton, and I like and appreciate that. But Perot was a billionaire, and Bush the first a multimillionaire? A million doesn't stretch as far as it used to, I've heard.

...down to the superfluous "FLOTUS" luggage tag — as if Melania Trump's bags are going to be coming down a chute at baggage claim. ~ Kevin at August 21, 2019 10:51 AM

That's probably not a Melania affectation as much as it is a Secret Service or White House staff convenience. The bags won't be coming down a chute at baggage claim, but they will need to be quickly sorted and gotten to wherever she is staying on a trip. Notice the tags are bright red, probably for quick ID.

And I don't doubt that many in the presidential (or FLOTUS) retinue also carry LV bags. What does that say about our government that functionaries can afford luggage that costs more than a used car?

Fifteen years!!!!

I can't believe how much time has gone by.

When I first started reading I was in my 20s and now I'm in my 40s. It feels like a big change.

Amy I found you when I ran out of Prudence and Amy to read one day, and googled advice columnists.

In Victorian England, certain clothing (suits, top hat) were restricted by law to the upper class. This upper class was more or less the aristocracy from the ancient "lords and ladies" system (dukes, earls, etc). Then up through the 1960s or so, it was easy to show off with expensive stuff that other people could not afford. Now the rich just go for the weekend to Monaco--which normal people can't do. It is not surprising that such rich or nearly rich think they see "white priv" because people are sensitive to signs of status. I guarantee you that the crew that came and installed carpet in my house do not get special treatment by society.

Crid:

Patrick, we've been covering this for fifteen years. I've said this in large sentences and small sentences, and in as many words dozens of times.

Narcissistic personality disorder generally goes untreated. Narcissists don't usually present for therapy because they don't think there's anything wrong with them.

It is useless to attempt to explain this to Crid, but for everyone else: Crid claiming something is true does not make it true.

My favorite moment was one when Crid foamed and raged that saying a child with two fathers was tantamount to saying that a mother's love means nothing! Such a drama queen, that Crid.

But what Crid didn't count on was that two can play that game. I pointed out that Crid was saying that a child raised by two same-sex parents could only be inferior to children raised by opposite sex parents.

With the din of a thousand banshees keening at once, Crid shrieked that the chilllllldren are not to be judged.

So, I asked, since we're talking about the effectiveness of parents, what other yardstick can we use to judge parents other than the children?

I never did get an answer to that.

Condensed version: Children do best with opposite sex parents. Because Crid said so. Anyone who would suggest that a child would fare just as well with two daddies is insisting that a mother's love means nothing! (I'm not sure why one gender has the monopoly on loving their children, but that's Crid.)

But if you dare suggest that we should test the effectiveness of same sex parents by measuring the happiness, success, and relationships of the children, the Wicked Bitch of the West (in the throes of PMS with a barbed-wire tampon) will snarl that the chilllllldren are not to be judged!

> Condensed version

No, little feller: There is no condensed version. It's short, sweet and conveniently Googlable, with no moving parts.

If you could handle the concise truth in front of you, in front of us all, you wouldn't need to translate.

"Googlable."

Crid reminds me of what life was like before the internet. When they insisted "theeeeey did studies!

Never telling you who they were or where you could find these studies.

No, child. Having outraged hissy fits doesn't make something true. Demagoguery does not make something true. Having a meltdown does not make something true. Saying something is on Google does not make it true. Any moron can put any sort of claim they want to and have it uncovered with a Google search. The fact that you're posting on a blog is a case in point.

You don't seem to grasp that you saying something, regardless of the amount of vehemence you use, does not make something true.

You think kids don't need Mommies. Or you think they don't need Daddies. After all, why would a gay guy believe that a child could need --or deserves-- to be intimately loved by both halves of the human species?

There's no reason anyone would think you were a wounded, congestively angry fuckstick lashing out at the bitterness in his own heart or anything....

It's disgusting how y'all flirt on here.

Crid, I didn't read Patrick's 1st as contradicting you. I can recall and demonstrate that you've claimed Amy said two gays were better parents, though, when she didn't.

The culture which provides two opposite-gender parents whose child is their own as the goal has provided us all with all sorts of prosperity, and others, not so much. That same culture tended to treat parents as the authority on how their kids were raised, set examples and provided pressure to do things correctly, too. This culture has been poisoned by the idea that the individual is supreme...

...this is called, "agreeing with your premise." Even as we both know that the ideal cannot be guaranteed.

What *can* be guaranteed?

…Beyond the mewling of infants, I mean.

> I can recall and demonstrate

Go

I think the problem lies in the word "privilege" which suggests, "exceptionally good perk".

The guys laying down your carpet probably don't get exceptionally good perks for being white. BUT they don't get negative attention for it.

It isn't that white skin gets you advantages, it is that black skin often gets you disadvantages in daily life, such as people being more likely to view you suspiciously.

Now in some situations, it is reversed, with people specifically wanting black people in certain roles so they can show how woke they are. (Pretty much every group I've ever belonged to in America has had the "how can we get more black people" conversation... professional groups, student groups, religious groups, hiking groups, everything, apparently all my pastimes are white). But in general, yes, there is a disadvantage to having black skin, all other factors being equal.

Of course all other factors are rarely equal, and peoples' life experiences are very varied.

"It isn't that white skin gets you advantages, it is that black skin often gets you disadvantages in daily life, such as people being more likely to view you suspiciously."

There are way too many confounding factors. The white guys might be viewed suspiciously because they are visibly working class, or they talk with a funny accent. Who's at more of a disadvantage, the son of a middle-class black family, or the son of a white meth-head single mom in the sticks?

"But in general, yes, there is a disadvantage to having black skin, all other factors being equal."

Let me ask you a question (and yes, it's a trap): In a majority-black nation, do you think that being black would still be an inherent disadvantage?

NicoleK, at least here in Houston I can say you are probably wrong. One of my employers was what you would call an employer of last resort. He wanted skilled people but didn't want to pay for them. I ended up there because I didn't understand how to get a job in my field. So I ended up getting ~50% of what I would have been paid elsewhere. But at least I had a job and could learn and build the contacts I needed. So I don't feel this was a bad experience. But given such a workplace I can tell you exactly who is discriminated against and who isn't. ~30% of the shop was gay/lesbian. ~30% of the shop was Vietnamese boat people. I.e. people who fled the fall of Saigon. The rest were Anglos who mainly had some issue on their record. Two drug dealers, at least four arsonists, one guy who didn't pay taxes, a drunk. So on and so forth. All of it stuff that would show up on a public records check. On the more positive side we had a bored housewife who was also a nationally renowned baker. Another fellow was an idiot savant.

It is pretty clear who was getting discriminated against for employment purposes. Gays and people with poor English skills.

To tickle Crid's fancy, there is something special about having a boss who openly admits 'I don't hire attractive people.' I never considered myself a looker but having my employer openly confirm it was an odd experience.

In a majority-black nation, do you think that being black would still be an inherent disadvantage?
_____________________________________

One example:

South Africa.

(I'll be surprised if black citizens there are, on average, just as well off as the average white citizen, even now.)

>> I can recall and demonstrate

> Go.

Yo, Raddibles… Spark it up!… TickTickTock, Niblets. Commence. Begin.

> NicoleK, at least here in
> Houston I can say you are
> probably wrong.

It's weird. Trying to remember the last commenter who was enchanted by such a rote (and weird) pattern of interaction.

Props on the comma. Practice! Practice!

In the hierarchy of what is best for children, all thing being equal it seems to be

1, Mother and father
2, two fathers
3, single father
4, single mother
5, two mothers

what with lesbians having the highest rate of domestic abuse