USA wrote:
> 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.  But the easy answer is:  my wife would have gotten custody
by
> >default, because she was the mother.  "Primary parenting" really
means
> >little.
>
> In legalese "primary parent" means "mother" and
nothing else.  The
> fancy phrasing is to give the illusion that there might be some
> fairness involved, but there never is.

There can't be, given the definition criteria.

> >
> >
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> >>  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
>
> 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.
> 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.

Even with no-fault, allegations of abuse, neglect, etc., still get
bandied about in order to gain an advantage with regards to child
custody, support, and alimony.  So the whole concept of no-fault is
sort of worthless.  All it really does in many instances is allow the
person who wants out of the marriage for whatever reasons of their own
to be able to avoid the consequences; for example, wife decides she
actually loves the internet poodle she met on line more than her
husband and wants a divorce.  In a just world, she should have to leave
with only her personal belongings.  But in this world, she not only
gets to obtain a divorce, but she gets the kids, the house, and child
support and alimony for her "sacrifice".  And, if she wants to move the
kids across the continent to live with Internet Poodle, she can do
so...and still get child support and alimony.

> >
> >> to make fewer
> >> changes in the lives of the children as possible.
> >
> >It can't get any clearer that children as a group are being
handicapped
> >by being raised by a single mother, especially boys.  The "best
> >interests" of the child apparently don't include being raised by a
> >single mother.  Would single fathers do any better?  I don't
> >know--maybe we should find out.
>
> 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:
>
>
http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?docid=1G1:83283975&refid=ink_puballmags&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 healthier
> and 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.

I'm aware of most of these; my question would be if this would hold
true over the course of multiple generations and with as widespread a
population, as it has with single mothers.

> >
> >>  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.
> >
> >> and that continuing that
> >> role is what should occur.
> >
> >No, this is really just feminism using children to shelter women.
>
> Feminists have no other purpose for children.

I think feminists love their children, for the most part--I just think
that with the more virulent feminists, the interests of their children
take a dim and distant second place to their own.  I also think that
too many of them can't separate love and indoctrination.

> >
> >>
> >>   I think girls also suffer from the same
> >> >lack, but it manifests itself differently.
> >> >>
> >> >> Sure.  I'm reminded of that country-western song,
"looking for
> >love
> >> >in all >the>> wrong places...."
> >> >
> >> >That, and, more recently, social pathologies that are becoming
more
> >> >similar to boys (though I don't think they'll ever equal the
levels
> >the>boys
> >> reach).
> >> >
> >> Well, that's because you're a sexist.  :-)
> >
> >So it's sexist to think girls in general will never become as
violent
> >as boys?  Okay...
> >
> >> Girls are indeed doing things that were once only ascribed to
boys.
> >The more
> >> opportunity girls have the more you will likely see from girls on
> >both ends >of
> >> the spectrum.
> >
> >So now you're trying to insist that women are as capable as men of
the
> >same levels of violence?  Okay, but you realize this shoots down
your
> >arguments about how women don't rape and don't commit domestic
assault.
>
> Women do commit domestic violence.  Many times they are the one who
> initiates it.  Domestic violence is most rampant among lesbian
> "partners."

I've pointed this out to Hy several times.  I just wanted her to
realize that she was finally admitting it.

> >
> >
> >>   Plus, there was a study a few years back showing that girls
> >> from single female headed homes were more successful.
> >
> >I'm also aware of a study that the KKK released that showed blacks
> >didn't have the intellectual capacity of whites.  I didn't believe
that
> >one, either.
> >
> >If this was a study conducted by or for a feminist group, we already
> >know that it was designed to reach a predetermined conclusion.  But,
> >just out of curiousity, who were these girls supposed to be more
> >successfult than?  Boys from single mother families?  Girls or boys
> >from single father families?  Boys or girls from two-parent
families?
> >And how was success defined?  How big was the sample group, over how
> >long a period of time?
>
> I asked her these questions and got no answer and neither will you.

I know.  I just usually want it on record that I asked.  :)

> That is because there is no such study except in the back of her head
> where she made it up.  Here's some real stats on how well kids from
> single mother homes do:
>
> http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/facts_on_fatherless_kids.html
>
> Statistics of a Fatherless America
>
> Emotional distress. Children living with a never-married mother are
> more likely to have been treated for emotional problems.
> Source: L. Remez, "Children Who Don't Live with Both Parents Face
> Behavioral Problems," Family Planning Perspectives (January/February
> 1992).
>
> Uncooperative kids. Children reared by a divorced or never-married
> mother are less cooperative and score lower on tests of intelligence
> than children reared in intact families. Statistical analysis of the
> behavior and intelligence of these children revealed "significant
> detrimental effects" of living in a female-headed household. Growing
> up in a female-headed household remained a statistical predictor of
> behavior problems even after adjusting for differences in family
> income.
> Source: Greg L. Duncan, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Pamela Kato Klebanov,
> "Economic Deprivation and Early Childhood Development," Child
> Development 65 (1994).
>
> Troubled marriages, troubled kids. Daughters of divorced or separated
> mothers evidenced significantly higher rates of internalizing
> problems, such as anxiety or depression.
> Source: Denise B. Kandel, Emily Rosenbaum and Kevin Chen, "Impact of
> Maternal Drug Use and Life Experiences on Preadolescent Children Born
> to Teenage Mothers," Journal of Marriage and the Family56 (1994).
>
> Disturbing news: Children of never-married mothers are more than
twice
> as likely to have been treated for an emotional or behavioral
problem.
> Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center
> for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey, Hyattsille,
> MD, 1988
>
> Act now, pay later: "Children from mother-only families have less of
> an ability to delay gratification and poorer impulse control (that
is,
> control over anger and sexual gratification.) These children also
have
> a weaker sense of conscience or sense of right and wrong."
> Source: E.M. Hetherington and B. Martin, "Family Interaction" in H.C.
> Quay and J.S. Werry (eds.), Psychopathological Disorders of
Childhood.
> (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1979)
>
> Expelled: Nationally, 15.3 percent of children living with a
> never-married mother and 10.7 percent of children living with a
> divorced mother have been expelled or suspended from school, compared
> to only 4.4 percent of children living with both biological parents.
> Source: Debra Dawson, "Family Structure...", Journal of Marriage and
> Family, No. 53. 1991.
>
> Likeliest to succeed: Kids who live with both biological parents at
> age 14 are significantly more likely to graduate from high school
than
> those kids who live with a single parent, a parent and step-parent,
or
> neither parent.
> Source: G.D. Sandefur (et al.), "The Effects of Parental Marital
> Status...", Social Forces, September 1992.
>
> Worse to bad: Children in single-parent families tend to score lower
> on standardized tests and to receive lower grades in school. Children
> in single-parent families are nearly twice as likely to drop out of
> school as children from two-parent families.
> Source: J.B. Stedman (et al.), "Dropping Out," Congressional Research
> Service Report No 88-417. 1988.
>
> College odds: Children from disrupted families are 20 percent more
> unlikely to attend college than kids from intact, two-parent
families.
> Source: J. Wallerstein, Family Law Quarterly, 20. (Summer 1986)
>
> Repeat, repeat: Nationally, 29.7 percent of children living with a
> never-married mother and 21.5 percent of children living with a
> divorced mother have repeated at least one grade in school, compared
> to 11.6 percent of children living with both biological parents.
> Source: Debra Dawson, "Family Structure and Children's Well-Being,"
> Journals of Marriage and Family, No. 53. (1991).
>
> Marriage matters: Only 13 percent of juvenile delinquents come from
> families in which the biological mother and father are married to
each
> other. By contract, 33 percent have parents who are either divorced
or
> separated and 44 percent have parents who were never married.
> Source: Wisconsin Dept. of Health and Social Services, April 1994.
>
> 
>
> These are a handful of the dismal stats about single motherhood on
> this website.  With stats like these it is hard to imagine what
> "Hyerdahl's" imaginary study could show the daughters of single women
> to be successful at.

I don't doubt that a "study" exists somewhere.  I can't see feminists
just allowing accurate information to circulate without some sort of
rebuttal.  But given feminism's notorious record for falsifying
information, any "study" they conducted would be worthless.

> >>
> >>
> >> There are other reasons, but this one is a big one.  Now, as
> >to>*why*>the>
> >> children are lacking male role models--well, that one would
occupy>us
> >for a
> >> while.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Sure; you would tend to blame the parent who stays while I
would
> >tend
> >> >to >blame>> the parent who leaves.
> >> >
> >> >Sorry, but I don't generally think in such simplistic terms,
> >regardless>of how
> >> you'd like to see it.
> >>
> >> Well, I've seen a lot of women blaming on this NG.
> >
> >You've seen me hold men's feet to the fire plenty of times.  Most of
my
> >disagreements with you occur over your refusal to hold women
> >accountable for anything while doing the reverse for men.  That, and
> >some of the wild, women-aggrandizing statements you make.
>
> I wouldn't say that.  "Hyerdahl" has no problem holding my or Jayne's
> feet to the fire but she tries to hedge it by pretending she believes
> we are men.

You're right--I'd forgotten that.

>  She knows to admit we are women is to admit that Feminist
> does not equal Woman.

If she Googled Jayne at all--which she claims to have done--it would be
obvious to her that Jayne is who she says she is.

> >
> >>
> >>  The bottom line is that there is more
> >> >than one reason why fathers don't have regular contact with
> >> their>children--some are his fault, some are hers.
> >>
> >> The fact that divorced mothers tend to stay with their children
while
> >fathers
> >> tend to leave shows us clearly that the abandonment is mostly his
> >fault.
> >
> >See, here's another of those statements of yours.  You take a fairly
> >complex issue and boil it down to one statement that faults men and
> >aggrandizes women.  The reality is that most men won't fight for
> >custody because they believe--correctly--that the odds are stacked
> >badly against them.  And, most men who don't get physical custody
would
> >still like more contact with their children than they get.
> >
> >  >After
> >> all, regardless of mom's issues, he doesn't divorce the children
when
> >he
> >> divorces the wife.   However, some women do make things more
> >difficult than
> >> they need to be.
> >
> >Okay, we're making progress.   :)
> 
> Wanna bet on that?

Um...................



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/4/05 2:21:38 PM ---