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.  But I'd certainly agree that poverty exacerbates the problems.

> >
> > > 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.

>
> > > You're very needy when it comes to your need to expose your
bigotry
> > and> > sexism.
> >
> > I don't know, Hy--you're about as sexist and racist as they come
> here.
> > You're just in deeper denial about it.
> >
> So you say, and yet, it isn't true.  > >

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.  You consistently magnify issues concerning women
while trivializing those of men.  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).  And, I should have added
elitist to that list, because you've regularly denigrated anyone who
doesn't have a college diploma.

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.

>
> > > > 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.  What they *are* doing is creating another
fatherless household.

>
> > >  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.
>
> Collecting child support is really not the same as inclusion, tho.

Which has nothing to do with my statement.

>
> >
>  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.

>
> > > 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.  No, unworthy mothers
will get custody over worthy fathers far more often than the reverse.

> > >
> > >  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?

> >
> > > 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.

>
> > >  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.

>
>
> > >  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 what 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.   :)



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/14/05 8:56:54 AM ---