Hyerdahl3 wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Why do men sink to the bottom?
> >From: USA no{at}thanks.com
> >Date: 2/3/2005 5:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: 
> >
> >On 3 Feb 2005 16:47:24 -0800, "Ben"
 wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Hyerdahl3 wrote:
> >>> >Subject: Re: Why do men sink to the bottom?
> >>> >From: "Ben" ArGee45{at}hotmail.com
> >>> >Date: 1/11/2005 1:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >>> >Message-id:

> >>> >
> >
> >>
> >>We didn't have that option--both of us had to work.  Fortunately,
we decided
> to work shifts opposite one another so that our son always had at
least one
> parent at home most of the time.  Which would have made for an
interesting time
> if a divorce occured--try distinguishing>primary parent between two
people
> sharing child care and breadwinning roles.
>
> Well, in such a case, the court will tend to look at who did most of
the >unpaid
> work in the home, as well as which parent did most of the
interactions with the
> child.  Frequently the courts ask questions like "what is your child
learning
> in math class at the moment?"

I did most of his homework with him, because my wife worked evenings.

> Or, what are the names of your child's two best
> friends.

Both of us would have known that.

>  Or, which of you are most active in Cub Scouts. etc.

Lemme see...I took him to soccer, to basketball camp, fishing, camping.
 I was the one who tossed baseballs and footballs with him.

>
>  But the easy answer is:  my wife would have gotten custody by
default, because
> she was the mother.
>
> Well, if your wife did more of the above things, she might well have
had
> custody;  otoh, if you could show the court more interaction with the
child,
> you could have, and courts LOVE finding fathers who do so.

As you can see, I clearly did my share of pimary parenting.  But my
wife would still have been awarded custody because...can you
guess?...she's the mother.

>
>  "Primary parenting" really means
> >>little.
>
> It means a heck of a lot...to the children.

Except we're talking about primary parenting as feminists want the
courts to see it.  With my neighbors, the father works second shift all
week and spends his weekends with his two children (during summer and
school vacations, he gets more time with them).  Been that way for
years.  If you tried to suggest that he wasn't as invaluable a parent
to those kids as their mother, I'm certain his wife would be the first
one to knock you on your ass.

"Primary parenting" is an artificial standard designed to favor women.


> >
> >In legalese "primary parent" means "mother"
and nothing else.  The
> >fancy phrasing is to give the illusion that there might be
some>fairness
> involv>ed, but there never is.
>
> Let's try again, I think it was Ben who  once told me that his wife
does more
> of the unpaid work inside the home, where the child resides.

Yep, that was me.  It was in the context of how my wife and I shared
ALL the household chores.  By the way, did I ever tell you that my son
played outside as well?

But regardless, you're actually demonstrating your own sexism here.
There's all kinds of unpaid work to be done around a home that benefits
everyone who lives there.  You only want to count one type.

But today, after I get done typing this, I'm going to take the garbage
and recyclables to the landfill.  In all the years we've been married,
my wife has *never* done this.  The garbage and recyclables are outside
the home.  What do you think would happen if no one took care of this?

>  Chances are, >had
> he divorced, she would have had custody since the child doesn't much
care if
> the primary parent increases the worth of the house by adding on, or
building
> furniture.

No, she'd get custody because she's the woman.  After all, we were both
primary parents, and there's no doubt that I can do housework.  So
what's left?  Gender.

> >>>
>  I think a real world definition of primary parenting
would>>acknowledge>the
>  efforts of the person bringing in the money that allows
the>household>>to
> >>> function, get health care, etc...
> >>> >
> >>> No.
> >>
> >>Of course you'd disagree--a real world definition
wouldn't>automatically give
> women a default advantage.
> >>
> A definition that doesn't take into account what the parties did
directly for
> the child is clearly not in the child's best interests.  Let's look
at it >this
> way.  If you were five years old, and your mom took you to school
every day,
> packed your lunch, walked you home, with a stop in the park and made
you a
> snack, helped you with your coloring, made kool aid for your friends
while you
> were playing, and read you bedtime stories before you went to night
night, how
> would YOU feel if Suze Striptease, daddy's new gf,  did those things
all of the
> sudden?

Even in your examples you can't help but be sexist (are you starting to
see what I mean, Heidi?).  I was the one who did most of those things
while he was in elementary school, including lifeguard duty while all
the neighborhood kids were splashing around in the pool...and yet, I
still would have lost custody.  Why?  Well, because I wouldn't have
been able to prove my wife was an unfit mother (and I wouldn't have
tried--she's a superior mother).

In real life, even if it was mom who suddenly wanted to stretch her
wings with
a new boyfriend, she'd still get custody.

 The courts want the parenting to continue on as it has,
> >>
> >>Then the courts would have to force the parents to live together if
that was
> really the goal.  hehe
>
> Well, you and I both know that the courts don't insist on dead or
maimed
> mothers just because dad wants control. hehe

I'd be more worried about dead or maimed kids in single mother
households, but whatever...

>
> That really may not be so humorous or even far off the mark.
There>has been
> some talk lately of getting rid of the liberal no-fault>divorce laws
and going
> back to the old days of having to prove fault.
>
> There's been sexist "talk" ever since grandpappy was a pup.  Every
single >state
> in the union has some version of no-fault.
> I think NY is closest state to having a need to show fault when one
party
> doesn't want the divorce.  And even at that, you can still claim
irreconcilable
> differences, which provides fault.  So, dream on.
>
> One reason behind this is that it would force parents who did not
have>serious
> marital problems (alcohol abuse, drug abuse, domestic>violence) to
stick it out
> together for the sake of their children.
>
> But there is no such remedy at hand; it's only in your mind.  If you
want to
> lock yourself into some archaic marriage trap look to those states
who have
> "covenant" marriage.  Then, you can play your games there, or move to
another
> state to file. :-)
>
> It can't get any clearer that children as a group are being
handicapped>by
> being raised by a single mother, especially boys.
>
> I think boys do fare worse, but mostly when they feel abandoned by
their
> fathers.

No, it's pretty much not having a male role model living in the house.


> Girls actually find a bit more confidence learning from a single
> mother, and, in doing so, may actually become sexually active sooner.

Girls, like boys, do *best* when there's a positive male role model in
the house.  Boys can learn much about how to deal with women through
their mothers; the same is true of girls and their fathers.  I've no
doubt girls can gain confidence from good mothers--they gain even more
with good mothers *and* fathers.

>
>   The "best>>interests" of the child apparently don't
include being
raised by a
> >>single mother.  Would single fathers do any better?
>
> No, the studies show they don't do better,

So all that stuff USA posted was no good, eh?

> and seem to indicate what anyone
> would imagine that children do better when there are more people in
their >lives
> who love them.

Except you count cousins as important as fathers.

>  In that regard, it's less important that the parents are
> married than it is that they can find ways to love their children.

Who said they needed to be married (though that's best).  My concern is
the father living in the home with his children.

>
> I don't>>know--maybe we should find out.
> >
> Again, the studies are in sampling the relatively few men who take on
single
> parenting, and the kids in those studies tend to fare worse with more
drug
> addiction, etc.

Hmmm...well, I've said right along that we don't have the same sample
size for single fathers that we do for single mothers, so it would be a
tough comparison.  But you seem to be saying that the same pathologies
show up in children of single father families as for single mother
families.  Could it be that I'm right with regards to children needing
both parents?

>
> >http://www.nccg.org/W-News-003.html
> >
> >Fathers are Better Single Parents
> >
> >Aftenposten, Oslo, Norway, Thursday 19 June 1997
> >
> >The following article is all the more remarkable because it appeared
> >in a main newspaper of one of the most liberal, feministic societies
> >in the world:
> >
> Ah, well you had to go all the way to Norway for that;

Come on--you've gone all the way to Austrailia.

 I'll provide some info >a
> tad closer to home:
> Teens who have problems with fathers use drugs more
>
>
> Teens prefer to talk to mothers--
>
> WASHINGTON -- Teen-agers who relate poorly with their fathers in
two-parent
> families are more likely to use cigarettes, alcohol and other drugs
than >those
> raised by single mothers, according to a report issued Monday.
>
> Children raised by only their mothers were 30 percent more likely to
use >drugs
> than those in homes with two supportive parents.
>
> Those living with two parents but who have bad relationships with
their >fathers
> have a 68 percent greater risk, according to the private National
Center on
> Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.

Anything about those having bad relationships with mothers?

>
> "The fact that so many dads are AWOL (absent) in their teens' lives
increases
> the teens' risk of substance abuse," CASA Chairman Joseph Califano
said.
>
> "Parent power is a potent force in getting kids to stay away from
drugs and
> alcohol and cigarettes, and it's greatly underutilized."

Not in my house it wasn't.   :)

>
> Teens prefer to talk to mothers
> In the survey of 2,000 youths ages 12 to 17, twice as many said they
could talk
> more easily to their mothers than to their fathers. Four times as
many said
> they discuss issues like substance abuse with their mothers.
>
> More than 70 percent said they had very good or excellent
relationships with
> their mothers, but only 58 percent said they related as well with
their
> fathers.

I can see this being true with teens.

>
> "Too often, people think of the parenting role as the mother's job;
and this
> reminds us that the family is the children, the mother and the
father, where
> possible," said Dr. H. Westley Clark, director of the Center for
Substance
> Abuse Treatment at the Department of Health and Human Services.

So he's suppoting what I've been saying.

>
>
> Drug survey: Teen use down; young adults upAugust 18, 1999
> Teen critics pan national anti-drug ads
> August 9, 1999
>
>
>
>
>http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?docid=1G1:83283975&refid=ink_pub
> allmags&skeyword=&teaser=
> >
> >Dad as nurturer; A psychologist says children do better with single
> >fathers than single mothers.(Brief Article)
> >
> >http://www.ancpr.org/lac/fatherandchild2.htm
> >
> >Dr. Farrell shows conclusively that children do better with
single>fathers
> than with single mothers. Both boys and girls are healthierand do
better
> psychologically and academically, as well as socially.
> >Even characteristics such as empathy are exhibited more by children
> >brought up by single fathers. Single fathers experience less stress
> >juggling children and work than do single mothers.
>
> Anything offered by Farrell must be tempered with his views on the
"positive
> effects of incest" tho. as recorded in an interview he once did.

Well, one could argue that The Vagina Monologues presents a positive
view of statutory rape.  With regards to Farrell, that's been
repudiated enough times.


  No one >takes
> anything he says seriously.  Do you have a study from a psycological
survey or
> a university?
> >>
>  AND, the courts recognize> the sacrifice of career of the SAH spouse
as well,
> >>
> >>Sorry, but it's not a sacrifice if it's something the *want* to do.
>
> Does that mean that if a patriot wants to serve his country, and he
dies doing
> so that it's NOT a sacrifice?  Shame on you.

Military service is not that same thing as housework.  And save your
silly shaming nonsense for someone who will be affected by it.  lol

>
> >>
> >>> and that continuing that
> >>> role is what should occur.
> >>
> >>No, this is really just feminism using children to shelter women.
>
> Well, I don't see it changing, do you?

No, I don't see feminists ceasing to hide behind children any time
soon.

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 100