Hyerdahl wrote:
> Ben wrote:
> > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > Ben wrote:> > > >
> > >
> > > > And yet we continue to see children from a particular set of
> > > > circumstances, i.e., homes without fathers, over-represented in
> > > > categories that indicate they're not doing well.
> > >
> > > Well, in the past few days we saw  religious fundies from two
> parent
> > > homes kill their church congregations and serial kill.  Hmmmm  I
> > don't know that your stats will hold up at all once we eliminate
the
> > poverty> issue.
> >
> > I think they hold up just fine.  They've already been controlled
for
> > income.
>
> No, in fact, they have not.

You must be reading the NOW study, then.  The ones I read were
controlled for poverty.

>
>
>  But I'd certainly agree that poverty exacerbates the problems.
>
> INdeed.  Jodie Foster's kids have few problems and no father.

Neither you nor I knows what goes on in the Foster household, and it's
an old, old Hollywood ploy to try and never present anything but a
smiling face to the public.

>
> >> > >
> > > > > but I don't have the NEED to blame only one social group.
You
> > do.
> > > >
> > > > You have a NEED to try and swing *any* responsibility away from
> > women > > or feminism at all, in this or any other area.
> > > >
> > > Feminism is only the idea that women should have equal rights,
> equal
> > > treatment and equal opportunity;  the only "evil"
inherent is
that
> is
> > > evil to bitter boys.
> >
> > Unfortunately, your version of feminism goes a little further than
> > "equal rights".  You've long been a proponent for preferential
> > treatment for women.
> >
> Howso?  Inclusion based on diversity is not preferential, but rather
> includes everyone who has not been included, eh?

When you advocate that laws be enforced preferentially in favor of
women, that amounts to preferential treatment.  I know you're smart
enough to see that.

>
>
> > No?  You appear to spend an awful lot of time here (using different
> > names, for what reason I don't know) for the sole purpose of
> > instigating trouble.
>
> I use the name Hyerdahl for reasons of my own.  It does not change
the
> content of my argument, nor does it cause trouble.  But you're
welcome
> to your own delusion.

lol  My "delusion"?  It's a matter of record that you've used several
different names over the years.  Personally, I don't care--you've asked
me to call you Hy, so I do.  And read the sentence a bit more closely;
I didn't say your use of different names caused trouble (though it
does, apparently, cause some flurries), but that you yourself seem to
revel in negative attention.

>
>  You consistently magnify issues concerning women while trivializing
> those of men.
>
> I answer debate points, point by point, as I am doing here, and you,
> apparently, don't like the results.

I remember one occasion when you and I were discussing children being
abducted.  You compared the problem of girls being abducted to the
Chicago fire while the problem of boys being abducted was a minor
campfire blaze (I forget the exact words you used).  I pointed out that
the rates were roughly equal, and you vanished.

Someone truly answering debates point by point would have acknowledged
they were mistaken.

>   Women in the west have equal
> rights by law, and I prefer to discuss rights.  So what's your beef?

I prefer to discuss equality of enforcement of rights.  With regards to
men and women having equal rights, I have no beef at all.  In fact, I
challenged you recently to prove I thought otherwise.  You vanished
again.  :)

>
> It's clear you believe women to be superior to men (the racist part
is
> because that then means you believe white women to be superior to men
> of color).
>
> I have already made clear statements about no sex or race being
> superior;

When your statements tend to conflict with what you advocate for
policies and practices, guess which one should get more weight.

> it is bitter boys who post here who claim superiority, and
> not me, on behalf of women.

You're absolutely right, some do.

>
>  And, I should have added> elitist to that list, because you've
> regularly denigrated anyone who doesn't have a college diploma.
> >
> I have also made clear statements that there's nothing at all wrong
> with working in a factory, and that I, myself, did so to get thru
> school.  So all you're doing is farting downwind of yourself.

Not really.  When we've talked about university indoctrination, you've
consistently maintained that people with an EDUCATION (emphasis yours)
swung to the left.  You also once connected a lack of a college degree
to people in red states.

>
> > I don't know how you can have the outside life you claim to have
when
> > you spend so much time either here or trolling the net looking for
> > things to post here--unless, of course, you're lying about that
> outside
> > life.
>
> There's so very much you don't know.

True enough.  There are also things I'm conflicted about.

>  Why should personal info about my
> life be any different?

Your personal life falls into the category of things I don't worry
about wanting to know.  :)

> >
> But now, you appear to be acknowledging that women choose how
> their kids are raised.
> > > > >
> > > > Western women certainly have an abundance of choices in how
their
> > > > children are born and raised.  If a man isn't worthy of being a
> > > > father,> no western woman is legally forced to bear the
unworthy
> > seed in order to give him a son.
> > > >
> > > > They don't have to be legally forced--they seem to be tripping
> over
> > > > each other to have sex with and bear the children of men who
are
> > > > *clearly* not good father potential.  Must be that
"bad boy"
> thing.
> > >
> > > Bearing children for themselves and having them raised by bitter
> boys
> > > are two different things, no?
> >
> > I'm not thinking they're looking at it that way when they're
chasing
> > the bad boys around.
>
> Well, who really cares why some women chase men who don't win your
> approval tho.

Part of the reason I care is because too many times, society is stuck
footing the consequences.

>  I mean, in the end if a woman raises a child her way,
> does her motive for fucking really matter?

Only when you try to claim one thing and it's likely to be another.

>
>
>   What they *are* doing is creating another
> > fatherless household.
> >
> Again, it's not your business.

It is to the extent that it's a huge societal problem, and one that's
more pervasive than you care to admit.

>  Perhaps some women really enjoy raising
> their kids without a man in the home.  AND, if women want a man in
the
> home, they may choose some other man, who turns out to be an even
> better father than the bio father.

Hey, just so long as there's a good father IN the house...

> > >
> > > > >  AND, if the man is unworthy as a life partner, she
> > > > > need not include such a man in her family.
> > > >
> > > > Need not and won't are two different things.
> > >
> Sure.  Smart women DON'T no matter who fathered the child.

Of course, that's none of your business, right?

>
> > > Collecting child support is really not the same as inclusion,
tho.
> >
> > Which has nothing to do with my statement.
> >
> > >Sure it does.

How?

> > > >
> > >  Blaming women isn't at issue here,
> > > >
> > > > Holding women--or perhaps more accurately,
feminism--accountable
> > for> > > anything has never been an issue with you; you simply
don't
> do it.
> > > >
> > > Feminism is just about securing equal rights for women and all
> that's
> > > involved in that.
> >
> > Like everything else, feminism has a dark side and can be prone to
> > excess.  You simply avoid dealing with all that by petending that
> > nothing feminism supports is bad.
> >
> So provide an example of a LAW feminism has supported, that you think
> is bad for women's equality?  I mean that is what feminism is about,
> women's equality.  If feminists help create laws supporting such, how
> can that be counterproductive to the purpose of feminism?  How equal
is
> too equal?

You never answered my other question, either, about how many times you
need to have the difference between laws and enforcement of laws,
pointed out to you.  Perhaps I give you too much credit.

>
> > >
> > > > > as much as the acknowledgement that she need not remain
> > > > > with or have her children fathered by an unworthy man.
> > > >
> > > > Tons of unworthy mothers out there, too.  Unfortunately, a
higher
> > > > percentage of them get the kids than do unworthy fathers.
> > >
> > > If both are unworthy, what is better about an unworthy father?
Are
> > you> > just a sexist pig....yup.
> >
> > *yawn*  I was waiting for you to trot that out.
>
> Well you're the one here who said that "Unfortunately, a higher
> percentage of unworthy [women] get the kids than do unworty fathers."
> IF both are unworthy, why should fathers get kids more?  How can you
> stand there and pretend that is not a sexist statement?
>
>   No, unworthy mothers> will get custody over worthy fathers far more
> often than the reverse.
>
> But that isn't the same thing you said before.

You're right, it's not.  I used a poorly worded sentence.

> >
> > > > >
> > > > >  So kids that turn out bad turn out bad due to bad
> > > > > > mothering, right?
> > > > >
> > > > > See above.  Men who abandon their children still abandon
them,
> > > >
> > > > Unless they're forced away, or have their children moved away
> from
> > > > them, and some silly asshole who can't tell the difference
> between
> > > that> > > and abandonment decrees them to be
"deadbeat dads".
> > >
> > > Divorcing the spouse is not the same as divorcing the kids; some
> men
> > > don't understand that.
> >
> > See what I mean about silly assholes?
> >
> > > >Indeed.  Some abandoning men are indeed "silly
assholes" who
harm
> their children.  Blaming women for paternal abandonment is not going
to
> wash.

Blaming them for taking steps to make contact difficult or impossible
*will* wash, and apparently seems to be washing more and more.

>
> > > > > and there are all kinds of other social issues that effect
> children.
> > > >
> > > > And yet, being without a father seems to set a foundation for
> many
> > of> them.
> > > >
> > > Not when you account for poverty.  I don't see Jodie Foster's
kids
> > > having any problems.  Do you?
> >
> > I don't follow Jodie Foster's kids.  Do you?  I do, however, work
> with
> > real families in the real world.
> >
> Jodi Foster is real and so are her kids.  Lots of love and attention
> and enough money but no father.

And we don't know what goes on in her household.

>
> > >
> >So,> > no...we don't blame the mothers who stay for the actions
>  of> > the fathers who don't.
> > > >
> > > > We do if she deprived him of contact.
> > > >
> > > You mean visitation, no?  She can't do that absent abuse or
neglect
> > on his part.
> >
> > She can and often does.  And, if she moves 1,000 miles away to be
> with
> > the internet stud she met, she's effectively deprived him of
> > visitation.
> >
> Not really.  There are many venues for communication these days,
> including the net.  So basically, if he stops communicating with his
> kids because it's too uncomfortable, that is paternal abandonment.
He
> can provide cards, letters, gifts, phone calls, net, and vacations.
> Because of the net, he can speak to his kids every day.

None of this takes the place of regular, physical contact, and the
ability to go out and do things together.  I'm still amazed at the
hoops you'll jump through to try and assert otherwise.

> > >
> > > > >  And we don't blame women for being on the grassy knoll
> > > > > simply because we never solved the JFK assasignation.
> > > >
> > > > Lee Harvey Oswald did it--it was in the papers.
> > >
> > > Indeed.  Did he have a vagina or was he a NOW member?  :-)
> >
> > I wasn't at the autopsy and didn't get a look at his genitalia or
the
> > contents of his wallet, so I can't answer either question.   :)
>
> :-)  :-)

BTW, I know you usually spit at the mention of GA's name, but you might
want to take a look at the book he pointed out to me about the JFK
assassination.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/15/05 8:57:05 AM ---